Lee Shih

Top 5 Restructuring & Insolvency Cases in Malaysia for 2019

Lee Shih2 Comments

Earlier, I covered the top five Malaysian company law cases for 2019. To complete the series, I now feature the top five restructuring and insolvency cases in Malaysia for 2019.

In 2019, we saw further developments interpreting the insolvency-related provisions of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). I have selected these case due to the interesting and novel points of law.

The cases featured below range from judicial management, schemes of arrangement and the receiver’s ability to have continued supply of utilities. Continue reading →

Top 5 Company Law Cases in Malaysia for 2019

Lee Shih4 Comments

As 2019 draws to a close, I wanted to feature five interesting Malaysian company law cases during the year.

I have drawn from Malaysian decisions that advanced interesting points of law and has helped to develop company law and also the interpretation of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). These cases range from the CEO’s fiduciary duty, the doctrine of a universal successor entity, and the chairman’s adjournment of general meetings.

This post is part of a 2019 trilogy that also features restructuring & insolvency cases, and arbitration cases.

I set out the five cases below. Continue reading →

Spoke on BFM: Unmasking Corporate Anonymity – Beneficial Ownership

Lee ShihLeave a comment

On 16 December 2019, I spoke live on BFM’s Morning Run on the Companies Commission of Malaysia proposed guidelines on the beneficial ownership reporting framework. I had written earlier about beneficial ownership in Malaysia and also 8 observations I had on the proposed beneficial ownership guidelines.

You can access the podcast here (you may be required to do a free registration on the BFM website). Continue reading →

Case Update: Resignation of Directors Does Not Require Acceptance or Consent by the Company

Lee Shih4 Comments

I set out a case update on two recent High Court cases relating to the resignation of directors and on section 208 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) on giving the written notice of resignation as a director.

In the first case of Wong Kok Meng, the Court confirmed that a director’s resignation need not be accepted by the company and there need not be a resolution accepting such a resignation.

In the second case of Tan Kei Vin, it also dealt with the issuance of a director’s notice of resignation. That written notice took effect immediately when delivered to the company’s registered office.

I explain more on the two cases below. Continue reading →

8 Observations on the Proposed Guidelines on Beneficial Ownership of Companies

Lee Shih1 Comment

On 8 November 2019, the Companies Commission of Malaysia (or SSM, being its abbreviation in Malay) issued its Consultation Document for the Guidelines for the Reporting Framework for Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons. SSM has invited any comments by 4 December 2019.

Credit: corporatecomplianceinsights.com

I had written earlier about the global trends for the need for transparency in beneficial ownership details and also the existing Malaysian position in the Companies Act 2016.

Once these proposed guidelines on beneficial ownership are brought into force, they will bring much certainty in terms of the disclosure obligations on the part of companies, limited liability partnerships and businesses in general. This is a good step in strengthening the need for disclosure on beneficial ownership.

In the first part of this post, I highlight some of the salient changes being proposed for companies specifically. In the second part, I then set out 8 of my observations on the proposed guidelines in relation to companies. Continue reading →

Book Review: Principles of the Law of Restitution in Singapore by Tang Hang Wu

Lee ShihLeave a comment

I review Principles of the Law of Restitution in Singapore by Tang Hang Wu and published by Academy Publishing.

“It is clear that any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is to prevent a man from retaining the money of or some benefit derive from another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution.”

(The oft-cited passage of Lord Wright in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 and which was referred to approvingly by the Federal Court in Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 MLJ 441.)

 

Professor Tang’s textbook on the Principles of the Law of Restitution in Singapore is the first book dedicated to the law of restitution in Singapore. The book draws from leading decisions in Singapore and other Commonwealth jurisdictions to explain the fundamental concepts in the law of restitution. Due to the similarities in origin with the English law, this book is also highly relevant and useful for Malaysian practitioners. Continue reading →