Credit Analysis And Lending Management

1
Running Head: CREDIT ANALYSIS AND LENDING MANAGEMENT
Credit Analysis And Lending Management
Students Name
Affiliate Institution
Date

2
CREDIT ANALYSIS AND LENDING MANAGEMENT
Bank PERTAMINA Malaysia v. Blue Valley Plantation Bhd & ORS
The case of Bank PERTAMINA Malaysia v. Blue Valley Plantation Bhd & ORS entails a
disagreement that arouse after a sale of 300 acres plantation farm. The first sale was made by
Sdn BHD who is the first respondent in this case, this sale was made to the second defendant of
this case (jate industrie). For that purchase, the borrower was able to obtain rm15 million worth
loan from the plaintiff of this case, the case of Bank PERTAMINA Malaysia. The acquired load
by the second defendant secured the mortgage on a third party charge over the owners' piece of
land. The bank did not validly register the charge as the land was yet to be sub-divided. The bank
proceeded to seek interveners consent and presented a proceeding. After the plaintiff had
acquired the interveners consent, the solicitor was tasked to prepare a charge document 16A, and
the document was executed by the owner of the land or the first defendant of the case as the
charger.
Form 16A stated that 300 acres out of the 508.875 acres were to be subjected to charges.
But upon the submission of the form to the respective land officers, the solicitor without the
consent of the chargor deleted the 300 figure from the form and replaced it with "semua" which
meant that the whole land was to be subjected to charges. Through this, the third-party charges to
be imposed on the entire land were in favor of the bank who is the plaintiff in this case. The
second respondent failed in repaying the loan provided to by the plaintiff, and as a result, the
plaintiff initiated for the whole land foreclosure proceeding under national land code number
s256. Due to this, the interveners and the second respondent regarded to the proceedings as
unstable as the plaintiff and her solicitor had already committed fraud, misinterpretation as well
as dishonesty.

3
CREDIT ANALYSIS AND LENDING MANAGEMENT
This argument was based on the plaintiff effort to get the third party charges creation by
the charger. The solicitor had created a third party charge through making amend meant on form
16A. This was done in favor of the plaintiff interest on the loan amount RM 15,000,000 that was
offered to the defendant for the purchase of 300 acres. The third party charge was only to be of
interest of the plaintiff to the portion 0of land purchased by the second defendant, while the
remaining 2008 acres were to be sold to other intervener s who was not supposed to be charged
for the loan amount given to the second defendant. Having disbursed the full loan the plaintiff on
1999 claimed the defaulting action of the second defendant (jute industries) and indicated that
the loan had arrears of RM22, 266,361.68, this included the accumulated interests on the loan.
By this time all interveners had already taken possession of their 208 acres.
The plaintiff had applied for the sale of the common land to cover the loan defaulted
hence leading to the interveners filling of avadavat. The interveners provided their proof of the
purchase of various portions of land and therefore claimed the current proceedings was unstable
as according to the first form 16A the plaintiff interest was to be on the 300 acres which were
bought by the second defendant. On the other hand, the interveners had been proved to be the
bona fide of the remaining 208 acres even before the plaintiff made his third-party charges. The
stakeholders claimed that the bank agent had all this information even before the loan
disbursement. B the time the third party was established the interveners had already acquired the
ownership of the 208 acres, and hence the first defendant had no direct possession if the land.
The plaintiff disclaimed and unequivocally disclaimed to exclude the interveners portion from
the current foreclosure proceeding.

4
CREDIT ANALYSIS AND LENDING MANAGEMENT
The six C's analysis on the case of Bank PERTAMINA Malaysia v. Blue Valley Plantation
Bhd & ORS
Collateral
Accounts receivables, inventories, machinery and more of business assets can be sold in
cases where the borrower has defaulted to pay for their outstanding loan balances. The
borrowers' assets, in this case, are recognized as collateral. In the case of a small business loan
default, small assets such as computers and office furniture's cannot be recognized as collateral.
Hence, the borrowers' personal assets are recognized as collateral and can be sold to recover the
remaining debt. An example of personal assets which can be used as collateral includes;
automobiles and personal house, Moreover before small business loan is approved, personal
assets are required to be stated as the security (Demma, 2017). In cases where the owner of the
small business allows his asset to be listed as the loan security if he fails to pay the loan the asset
can be sold to cater for his loan balances. Collateral is considered as a secondary means of
repaying a loan. Collateral generally does not mean the sale of a business asset, but it is an act of
the bank or the loan officer selling the collaterals to collect money to pay back t6he loan
defaulted.
In the case of Bank PERTAMINA Malaysia v. Blue Valley Plantation Bhd & ORS, the
plaintiff did not follow the correct procedure and also souk to get more interest upon
disbursement of loan to jute industries. The loan was secured on a piece of land which was 300
acres out of the first defendants' piece of land of 508 acres. On loan agreement, the second
defendant and the bank had mutually agreed for the piece of land covering 300 acres to be used
as collateral. But the bank through the solicitor manipulated document 16A which had all the