Bar Council finds BurgieLaw and Dragon Law in breach of Legal Profession Act; yet to decide on CanLaw

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment
  • Legal innovation in Malaysia image

[edit: Burgielaw has responded to this article to clarify matters: “Burgielaw.com wishes to clarify that, as of today, Bar Council has neither disapproved nor disallowed the application of Burgielaw.com.”]

In June 2016, TheMalaysianLawyer.com published an article titled “Malaysian Bar Council’s scrutiny of Dragon Law continues legal innovation debate”, written by Marcus van Geyzel.

The article was prompted by a report that the then Malaysian Bar President, Steven Thiru, had confirmed that Dragon Law‘s entry into the Malaysian market was being scrutinised. Do re-read that article for an analysis of the state of legal innovation in Malaysia at the time.

This article seeks to provide an update on the Bar Council’s stance on services in the innovative legaltech sphere—BurgieLaw, CanLaw (which was launched after the earlier article), and Dragon Law—based on the report by the Legal Profession Committee (“LPC”) dated 1 December 2016 contained in the 2016/17 Annual Report of the Malaysian Bar.

Continue reading →

Bursa Malaysia Seeks Feedback on Review of Listing Requirements: Companies Act 2016

Lee Shih2 Comments

In light of the Companies Act 2016 coming into force on 31 January 2017, Bursa Malaysia has announced on 20 March 2017 that it has issued a consultation paper to seek public feedback on the proposed review of the Listing Requirements. You can access the consultation paper here and feedback is to be given by 14 April 2017.

Reading the consultation paper, I set out below on an interesting proposed move towards greater transparency in the remuneration of directors. It is proposed that new requirements be put in place for tighter shareholder approval and for disclosure of remuneration on a named basis.

This consultation paper is to be read together with the earlier two directives / clarifications from Bursa Malaysia dated 2 February 2017 and 10 March 2017.

Continue reading →

7 Changes to Shareholders’ Rights and Remedies under the Companies Act 2016

Lee ShihLeave a comment

One of the aims of the Companies Act 2016 is to strengthen shareholders’ rights. I anticipate further avenues for shareholders, in particular minority shareholders, to ensure that their rights are protected.

Shareholders

I set out below 7 changes to shareholders’ rights and remedies. In particular, some of these changes will likely lead to more shareholder litigation. This will test the exact limits of the new laws. For consistent reference, I will be referring to the term ‘shareholder’ and not to the term member of the company. Continue reading →

Changes to property-related legal fees from 15 March 2017

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

The Solicitors’ Remuneration (Amendment) Order 2017 (“SRAO”) has been gazetted and will be in force from 15 March 2017.

The SRAO makes several important changes to the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005 (“SRO”), which sets out the fees payable to lawyers in property transactions, including —

  • sale and purchase transactions (subsale and developer transactions);
  • leases and tenancies; and
  • charges, debentures, and other security or financing documents.

Continue reading →

Uncertainty in Signing Documents under the Companies Act 2016?

Lee Shih13 Comments

There were some new provisions under the Companies Act 2016 that caused a great deal of uncertainty on the signing of documents and contracts.  One frequently asked question was whether all documents executed on behalf of the company now required at least one director to sign that document. Such a requirement would create tremendous logistical problems.

contract

I explain this issue below and how there is now some clarification from the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM). Continue reading →

A Bird’s-eye View of Drone Regulation in Malaysia

The Malaysian Lawyer3 Comments

Our guest writer, Jillian Chia, shares her insight on the laws regulating the use of drones in Malaysia. Be aware of these laws.

You place an order for pizza on your smartphone. Minutes later you hear a ‘plop’ on your front lawn. Your pizza arrives! No ring of the doorbell, no pizza delivery man. Your late-night snack has arrived, delivered by an unidentified flying object. No, we are not talking about pizza delivery of an extra-terrestrial kind, but what could become a real possibility in the near future- food delivery by way of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or more commonly known as drones.

drone1

The scenario described above is no fiction and has in fact taken place in November 2016 where a couple in Auckland received a Dominos’ peri-peri chicken pizza and a chicken and cranberry pizza by way of drone. Other contemplated uses of drones include package and postal deliveries (such as Amazon Prime Air), provision of internet connection to remote areas and for security purposes (such as a police patrol). Most recently in 2017, Google has also announced its ‘telepresence’ project involving use of drones in office buildings, to conduct virtual meetings.

Continue reading →