Open Fibre Sdn Bhd, the majority shareholder of Aries Telecoms (M) Berhad, has filed a civil lawsuit seeking up to RM2 billion in damages against Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad and six other defendants over the handling of a long-running debt recovery and receivership dispute involving the telecommunications company.
According to court documents filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court under Civil Suit No. WA-22NCC-486-06/2026, Open Fibre is seeking joint and several damages of approximately RM2 billion. Alternatively, the company is seeking a court order requiring the defendants to pay between RM1.8 billion and RM2.2 billion directly to Aries Telecoms.
The suit follows a High Court decision in February 2026 that struck out BPMB’s second litigation attempt against parties linked to Aries Telecoms.
Besides BPMB, the defendants named in the action include BPMB board member Tan Sri Rashpal Singh Randhay, senior BPMB officer Nik Nor Aini Nik Mohamed, lawyer Dato’ Lim Chee Wee, his law firm, appointed receiver and manager Lim Keng Peo, and Noorusa’adah Binti Othman.
Alleged Conspiracy and Abuse of Process
In its statement of claim, Open Fibre alleges an unlawful means conspiracy, abuse of court process and fraud on the court that it claims resulted in the systematic destruction of value within Aries Telecoms and the liquidation of its fibre-optic assets.
The plaintiff contends that BPMB altered its longstanding legal position in relation to the dispute after the appointment of Rashpal to the bank’s board in April 2022.
According to the claim, BPMB had for years maintained consistent positions across several court proceedings, including cases referred to as Suit 313, Suit 395 and Petition 966, rejecting allegations involving fund misuse or bribery.
However, Open Fibre alleges that within 55 days of Rashpal’s appointment, the bank initiated a separate legal action based on an alleged bribery admission by a defaulting debtor, a move it claims contradicted the bank’s earlier representations before the courts.
The allegations have not been tested in court and no findings have been made against any of the defendants.
Challenge to Consent Judgment
A key aspect of the lawsuit concerns a March 2024 consent judgment involving an individual described by the plaintiff as a defaulting debtor.
Open Fibre alleges that despite admissions relating to the diversion of more than RM75 million from Aries Telecoms, the individual was released from claims amounting to RM565 million after agreeing to pay RM500,000 under the settlement.
The company is seeking an order to set aside the consent judgment.
Claims Over Liquidation of Aries Telecoms
Open Fibre also alleges that the appointed receivers and managers failed to preserve the value of Aries Telecoms, which it says operated a licensed nationwide fibre-optic network and had repaid nearly RM100 million in loan instalments.
The plaintiff claims the company was allowed to enter liquidation despite having an outstanding tax liability of only about RM75,000, resulting in substantial losses to shareholders.
According to Open Fibre, the liquidation significantly impaired the value of its 90.87% shareholding in Aries Telecoms.
Governance and Regulatory Issues Raised
The lawsuit further raises questions regarding governance standards at BPMB, including whether sufficient due diligence was conducted before appointing directors who allegedly had longstanding personal and business ties to debtors of the bank.
Open Fibre also argues that BPMB’s handling of allegations involving bribery admissions raises potential issues under Section 17A of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009.
The plaintiff contends that if the bank accepted the allegations as genuine, it had a duty to report them promptly, while if it knew the allegations were false, it should not have relied on them in legal proceedings.
Open Fibre said it initiated the action as a derivative and reflective-loss shareholder claim because Aries Telecoms remains under liquidation.
At the time of filing, no defence had been filed and the allegations remain claims by the plaintiff pending judicial determination.
