PUTRAJAYA (Dec 10): The Court of Appeal (COA) was informed on Tuesday over possible settlement talks between 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), the 1MDB task force, and JPMorgan (Switzerland) Ltd over 1MDB’s US$800 million suit against the financial institution.
This comes after some development in the matter, as revealed by 1MDB counsel Datuk Lim Chee Wee to a three-member COA bench, led by judge Datuk Supang Lian.
Lim said that he had received a call early Thursday, Dec 5 morning, informing of possible settlement talks between 1MDB, the 1MDB task force, and JPMorgan representatives, happening on Tuesday (Dec 10).
“I have to apologise for informing this late to the court, as the calls were received early Thursday morning. Following this, 1MDB is seeking an adjournment of this (appeal over discontinuance) hearing,” Lim said.
JPMorgan’s counsel Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar concurred with what Lim said, but reiterated that there had been ongoing discussions of a settlement, and not just now.
Coutts & Co, another Swiss bank represented by senior counsel Robert Lazar and Raja Eileen Soraya Raja Azman, informed the bench that they were not objecting to an adjournment, as the bank did not want to hinder possible settlement talks.
Supang was on the bench with judges Datuk Wong Kian Kheong and Datuk Ismail Brahim.
Owing to this, Lim also sought an adjournment in 1MDB appeals over the High Court’s decision over the two financial institutions’ application to contest the jurisdiction of 1MDB in filing the suit here.
Lim said that 1MDB had filed an affidavit last week, and Malik and Lazar indicated that they may need to reply to the affidavit.
Jan 14 case management, court says final adjournment
Owing to this, Supang and the rest of the bench fixed Jan 14 next year for case management to possibly decide on a new hearing date, and reiterated that this would be the final adjournment.
On Aug 20, a similar bench led by Supang had allowed 1MDB’s application to adjourn to Dec 10, following its lead counsel in the matter, Elizabeth Lau, who appeared with Lim, being ill.
In May 2021, 1MDB had filed the suit for negligent breach of contract, conspiracy to defraud, and dishonest assistance, where it is seeking US$1.11 billion from Deutsche Bank, US$1.03 billion from Coutts & Co plus interests, US$800 million from JPMorgan plus interests on the sum, and US$1.83 billion from PetroSaudi International Ltd (PSI), PetroSaudi Holdings (Cayman) Ltd, and PSI chief executive officer Tarek Obaid plus interests, and US$153 million from former PSI director Patrick Mahony.
This resulted in the total quantum being sought to be US$4.923 billion. Tarek and PetroSaudi are alleged to be responsible for the 1MDB PetroSaudi venture, and transfers to Good Star Ltd, an entity owned by fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho (Jho Low), as testified in the 1MDB trial.
Prior to this, 1MDB alleged that JPMorgan had dishonestly received the transfer of funds from 1MDB into PetroSaudi, while the allegation against Coutts & Co was that it dishonestly received the funds from 1MDB to Good Star Ltd.
Good Star was a company controlled by Jho Low.
Both JPMorgan and Coutts & Co have denied the allegations by 1MDB.
It was previously reported early last year that the two Swiss financial institutions wanted to contest the jurisdiction in the filing of the suit in Malaysia, which was considered filed out of jurisdiction.
JPMorgan filed the contest of jurisdiction in 2022, while Coutts & Co filed theirs in January last year.
This resulted in 1MDB discontinuing its action against JPMorgan and Coutts & Co, with liberty to file afresh. However, 1MDB filed the discontinuance without leave (permission) from the High Court, only for the court to rule on Aug 21 last year, to strike out the notice of discontinuance of 1MDB’s action against the two financial institutions, resulting in this appeal.
This resulted in 1MDB refiling an amended writ, where the company sought an extension of time, and this was again struck out by High Court judge Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan, where the court allowed the defendants’ question of jurisdiction on March 26 this year, resulting in the scheduled appeal before this court.