The dispute centered on whether a later order merged an earlier...

The dispute centered on whether a later order merged an earlier interim order, the scope of trustee-like powers vested in a court-constituted committee, and the comparative applicability of regulatory provision versus the Companies (Court) Rules. The court found the 2013 order to be open-ended and contingent, so the doctrine of merger did not apply. It recognised that the three-member committee was vested with trustee-like authority and that termination of the asset management company did not extinguish prior liabilities, leaving statutory authorities free to proceed. The court held Rule 9 preserves inherent court powers distinct from the regulatory provision, and dismissed the appeals.