Insolvency, bankruptcy petitions against Malaysia’s former finance minister Mary Chia stayed

SINGAPORE, 1 OCTOBER 2026 —

Mary Chia Holdings and its executives escaped immediate insolvency and bankruptcy orders on 30 September after the Singapore High Court accepted a security payment that stays Fullink Capital’s four suits.

The court’s order required Mary Chia Holdings to lodge $651,498.97 in court within 14 days as security for Fullink’s proceedings. The amount, which the company says is already with its solicitors, will remain locked in court until the final determination of Fullink’s remaining disputed claims. In addition, the judge ordered Mary Chia to pay Fullink $13,900 in legal costs, inclusive of disbursements.

The insolvency proceedings will be dismissed with no further orders once the security is received.

Mary Chia’s spokesperson told The Straits Times that the judge gave both parties’ lawyers time to consult their clients after a brief private discussion in chambers before the hearing began at 10 a.m. The spokesperson added that the security payment is “strictly as security” and does not constitute an admission of liability for Fullink’s disputed claims.

“The group and its related parties will continue to vigorously pursue their position through the ongoing legal process,” the statement read.

The litigation stems from Fullink’s statutory demand dated 17 March, which sought $902,640 from Mary Chia after a loan dispute with Organica. The demand included the principal, late‑payment interest, default interest and restructuring fees stipulated in the loan and settlement agreements. Mary Chia has contested the additional charges, arguing that the late‑payment fees, default interest and restructuring fees may be excessive and legally unenforceable.

In July, the High Court ordered Mary Chia to pay $343,829 in undisputed debts to Fullink, together with $14,000 in costs. The company complied with that order but continued to dispute the remaining $558,811 claimed by Fullink. The current security payment therefore covers the disputed portion while the parties await a final ruling on the validity of the extra charges.

The legal battle coincides with other challenges for the group. On 10 September, Mary Chia Beauty & Slimming Specialist, a subsidiary, appeared before the State Courts on ten charges of failing to pay Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions for ten employees for September 2025. The outstanding CPF amount was $50,208, although a partial payment of $11,291 was made on 9 September.

Financially, Mary Chia reported revenues of $11.86 million for the year ended 31 March, a 71 percent decline from $40.8 million the year before. The company posted a loss of $2.3 million, reversing a profit of $603,000 recorded in the prior financial year.

Despite the downturn, the controlling shareholder confirmed on 28 May that it would continue to provide financial support to the group for at least 12 months and would not demand repayment of amounts owed by the group.

Ho Yow Ping, who serves as both chief executive officer and executive chairman of the 38‑year‑old Mary Chia Holdings, remains a defendant in the bankruptcy application. Su Jun Ming, who relinquished his roles as executive director and group chief financial officer on 28 September, is the other individual subject to a bankruptcy petition. Both applications are stayed pending the court’s receipt of the security sum.

Fullink Capital, a corporate lender, filed four separate suits: two insolvency claims targeting Mary Chia Holdings and Organica International Holdings, and two bankruptcy applications against Ho and Su. The stays granted by the court mean that Fullink cannot proceed with winding‑up or bankruptcy actions until the security is lodged and the court reaches a final determination on the disputed loan charges.

The outcome has immediate implications for the Malaysian and regional retail and wellness sectors, where Mary Chia’s brands have a presence. By remaining operational, the group can continue to service its network of stores and fulfil existing contracts, averting a sudden disruption that could affect suppliers, franchisees and employees across the region. The security payment also signals to creditors that the company retains access to liquidity, albeit under court supervision.

Stakeholders have noted the procedural nature of the court’s order. The Mary Chia spokesperson emphasized that the security deposit does not equate to an admission of debt, while Fullink’s legal team has not publicly commented on the stay. The High Court’s handling of the case underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing creditor enforcement with the preservation of viable businesses during financial distress.

The next step is for Mary Chia to ensure the $651,498.97 is deposited within the 14‑day window. Once the court confirms receipt, Fullink’s insolvency claims will be dismissed, and the parties will move toward a final resolution of the loan dispute, including any determination on the enforceability of the contested fees.

The court’s final ruling will dictate whether Fullink can pursue further recovery or whether the dispute will be settled through negotiation or other legal avenues.