Credit Analysis and Lending Management

Running head: CREDIT ANALYSIS AND LENDING MANAGEMENT
Credit Analysis and Lending Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

1
CREDIT ANALYSIS AND LENDING MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Assignment Part A.....................................................................................................................2
Assignment part B......................................................................................................................5
Assignment Part C......................................................................................................................8
References................................................................................................................................10

2
CREDIT ANALYSIS AND LENDING MANAGEMENT
Assignment Part A
The study is an analysis of the Bank Pertanian Malaysia vs. Blue Valley Plantation
Bhd& ORS case. The study has shown that the charge has been made in respect to the
undivided portion of the land. The study undertakes the evaluation of the 6Cs. Depending on
the analysis of the 6 Cs which includes the analysis of borrower’s character, capacity of
repayment, capital, confidence of the borrower, collateral, conditions the financer has
financed the money to the 1st defended. This includes the form 16A (Firmansyah&Tisnanta,
2015). The study includes the explanation of the regulation of the order for sale, vacant
possession portion of land occupied by the bona fide purchaser. The study has recognised that
the first defendant is the registered proprietor of the piece of land which is measured around
508.875 acres situated at Cameron Highland (Abdullah et al., 2019). This has been
recognised that a portion of land measuring about 300 Acre has been sold by the first
defendant to the intervener during 1992 and 1993. Since then the intervener has occupied the
land only with their respective portion. During 1995 the jute industry Sdn BHD was
purchased the first defendant’s portion of land through obtaining RM15 million loan from the
Plaintiff which has been recognised as the secured upon 3rd party charges over the first
defendant’s portion of the land (Salleh et al., 2017). However the land was not registered by
the Plaintiff as the land was not subdivided. Latter on the charge has been filed through
obtaining consent. After obtaining the consent,plaintiff’s solicitors prepared the charge
document in Form 16A and had the same executed by the first defendant as charger. In the
form 16A this has been stated that only 300 acres land was to be charged but upon submitting
the Form for registration at the Land Office, the solicitors, without the consent or knowledge
of the chargor, or the interveners, deleted the figure “300/508.875” in the Schedule to the
Form, and substituted it with the word “semua”, indicating thereby that the charge was in
respect of the entire land. Due to this a third party charge over the entire land has been

3
CREDIT ANALYSIS AND LENDING MANAGEMENT
registered in favour of the plaintiff. After that due to the default by the borrower the plaintiff
initiated foreclosure proceeding against the land under s. 256 National Land Code (‘NLC’)
(Dahlan et al., 2018). This has been observed that the primary issue has been whether, on the
facts and in the circumstances, there existed ‘cause to the contrary’ as to prevent the court
from making the order for sale sought. Along with that the held has been made depending on
the different sections.Following the under section 256 (3) NLC, this has been recognised that
the onus is on the charger or the interveners to show the existence of “cause to the contrary”.
In doing this the intervener has a chance to prove that the chargee himself is not free from
fault and he was guilty of irrational conduct. Another held refers to the duty of the Solicitor
(Lowry& Edmunds, 2017). This has been recognised that the solicitor’s duty is to ensure the
charge documents. This refers to their duty of checking and identifying that whether all the
documents are being signed off properly by the chargor and charge. Along with that in this
matter this has been observed that the solicitor knew that the actual possession of that specific
potion of the land belongs to the interveners and the first defendant did not beneficially own
the entire land. Alongside, the Plaintiff’s interest is only associated with the 300acres of land.
Hence, the charges are only made on the undivided land which is prohibited under section
241 NLC (Mohd et al., 2016). However, on the next day when the charge document has been
presented an amendment has been made prior to knowledge of charger and interveners. This
has been observed that plaintiff as chargee has failed to disclose all the material facts in their
application during the presentation of the proof into the court. This has also been observed
that Indeed, the plaintiff has been guilty of not only concealing material facts but also of
fraudulently and dishonestly falsifying the facts to this court. Hence, Plaintiff must need to
comply with the O. 83 r. 3 Rules of the High Court 1980 (Cahn, 2017). Along with that
Plaintiff must need to give particular of each and every person who has been into the
possession of the land. Another held has been recognised into the creation of the charge.