Question 4 Piedmont Development Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "Piedmont"), a developer, obtained a Judicial Management Order for 6 months pursuant to the Companies Act 2016. Piedmont had obtained the Judicial Management Order on an ex parte basis. Segi Empat Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to "Segi Empat") had been Piedmont's main contractor on a stalled project known as the Puchong SkyMall Project) and was also a major creditor of Piedmont. The project was carried out on land owned by Piedmont's wholly owned subsidiary, Sierra Sun San Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "Sierra Sun"). Sierra Sun had also obtained a Judicial Management Order for 6 months in separate proceedings. Segi Empat is also a major creditor of Sierra Sun and had intervened to attempt to set aside that Judicial Management Order as well. Segi Empat sought to set aside both the Judicial Management Orders on two grounds; firstly, that there had been a material non-disclosure of facts by Piedmont, and secondly, that Piedmont had acted on a mala fide basis. On the other hand, Piedmont and its subsidiary seek to extend the Judicial Management Order for another 6 months once the current order ends. With reference to decided cases in Malaysia and the Companies Act 2016, explain whether as a creditor, Segi Empat can succeed to set aside the Judicial Management Orders. (25 marks)