Koray Global Malta Limited (KGML) has rejected claims that a court-issued garnishee order it obtained against Shoreline entities is the main reason behind Shoreline Mall plc's proposed bond restructuring, insisting the developer's financial difficulties long predated the legal dispute.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, KGML said it had so far refrained from commenting publicly because the matter is the subject of ongoing arbitration proceedings. However, it said it considered it necessary to respond after Shoreline told bondholders that its restructuring proposal was principally driven by the garnishee order.

The company said it has already submitted detailed information and supporting documentation to the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA), which it said is responsible for determining whether any regulatory action is required.

According to KGML, the arbitration proceedings arise from contractual disputes linked to the Shoreline project, which it said had been experiencing financial difficulties from an early stage.

The company maintained that it continued meeting its contractual obligations despite what it described as repeated breaches by Shoreline, in an effort to see the project through to completion. It said it only terminated the construction contract after Shoreline's financial position made further performance impossible.

KGML described the garnishee order, granted by the Maltese courts, as a lawful interim precautionary measure intended solely to safeguard its rights pending the outcome of the proceedings.

Rejecting Shoreline's assertion that the order was the principal cause of its financial difficulties, KGML noted that the garnishee order has been in force since mid-2024 and was extended to several Shoreline Mall tenants in June 2025.

Since then, around €524,002 in rental income has been collected and deposited in the court registry.

The company described the sum as "relatively modest" in commercial terms, arguing that it does not support claims that the garnishee order alone could account for Shoreline's financial position.

Instead, KGML said the figures suggest either that the project's commercial performance has been significantly weaker than previously represented, or that rental income has been channelled outside the Shoreline group entities covered by the court order.

If the latter were the case, the company said, it could raise legal questions about compliance with the garnishee order. It added that it is taking all necessary legal steps to ensure the order is fully enforced and its rights protected.

KGML reiterated that Shoreline's financial difficulties substantially predated both the legal dispute and the garnishee order, arguing that those financial problems ultimately led to the termination of the construction contract.

The company also said it had informed the MFSA, supported by documentation, that Shoreline group entities had represented the existence of alternative financing arrangements intended to meet bond repayment obligations. It added that the same information had been provided to the relevant regulatory authorities.

KGML said the dispute should therefore be viewed as a consequence of Shoreline's financial difficulties rather than their cause.

It concluded by saying it regretted being drawn into the public debate surrounding Shoreline's restructuring proposal, but considered it necessary to provide bondholders with what it described as the factual context following Shoreline's public statements. The company said it was confident the MFSA and other competent authorities would take any action they deemed appropriate.