Case Update: Federal Court Decides On Duty of Liquidator of a Wound-up Listed Company

Nathalie Ker writes an update on the Federal Court decision on the duties of a liquidator of a listed company.

The Federal Court has now issued its grounds of judgment (dated 31 March 2022) allowing the appeal of Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad (Bursa) in Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad v Mohd Afrizan bin Husain (Appeal No.: 02(f)-39-07/2021(W)). The grounds of judgment may be found here. The Federal Court reversed the earlier Court of Appeal decision.

The Court addressed two main issues. First, whether Bursa was obliged to immediately delist a listed company upon the company being served with a winding up order (pursuant to Rule 16.11(2) of the ACE Market Listing Requirements (AMLR)). Second, the duty of a liquidator as the person in control of the management of a listed corporation to ensure compliance with the Listing Requirements. Continue reading

Case Update: Further Decision That Listed Companies Cannot Apply for Judicial Management

This update is further to the earlier High Court decision in Re Scomi Group Bhd which held that public listed companies cannot apply for judicial management.

Another public listed company, Dolomite Corporation Berhad, has also failed in its judicial management application.

On 8 March 2022, Dolomite announced that the Shah Alam High Court had dismissed its judicial management application. Among others, the Court held that public listed companies are not allowed to apply for judicial management pursuant to section 403(b) of the Companies Act 2016 i.e. being a company subject to the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007. Continue reading

Case Update: Owner of US$4.5 Billion in Bitcoins Loses Suit against Bitcoin Developers

The English High Court in Tulip Trading Limited v Bitcoin Association for BSV and others [2022] EWHC 668 (Ch) dealt with interesting cryptocurrency legal issues. This was against a backdrop of a hack resulting in a loss of control of US$4.5 billion in bitcoins.

Continue reading

Case Update: Justifying a retrenchment and departure from LIFO

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

Malaysian courts recognise an employer’s right to organise his business in the way he thinks is best, provided that this right is exercised in good faith. The law gives an employer the right to decide on the number of employees his business employs based on business needs and efficiency. When it comes to retrenchments, the courts will be slow to intervene with an employer’s decision to retrench employees, unless there is evidence that the employer acted without proper reason, or otherwise acted in bad faith.

Employees who have been retrenched commonly challenge the legality of the termination on two points: (1) There was no genuine redundancy or other reason to carry out a retrenchment exercise. (2) Where there was a genuine need for a retrenchment, the selection criteria used by the employer in deciding which employees to dismiss was unfair.

Therefore, even though employers generally have the right to decide on their workforce numbers, any decision to retrench employees must be carefully considered and implemented. The recent Industrial Court award in Wong CP & 3 Others v. Taylor’s University Sdn Bhd (Award No. 342 of 2022) is worth considering as a reminder of the issues the Industrial Court will take into consideration where employees challenge the fairness of a retrenchment.

Continue reading

Case Update: Singapore Court Grants Persons Unknown Injunction to Freeze Cryptocurrency

The Singapore High Court case in CLM v CLN and others [2022] SGHC 46 is the first reported Singapore decision on the grant of an injunction against persons unknown to freeze cryptocurrency.

The court granted the injunction over the stolen cryptocurrency of approximately 109 bitcoins (BTC) (approximately more than RM17 million in value based on current price of 1 BTC to ~RM160,000) and 1,497 ether (ETH) tokens (approximately more than RM16 million in value based on current 1 ETH to ~RM11,000). Continue reading

Case Update: High Court Grants Anti-Arbitration Injunction After Finding No Arbitration Agreement Existed

June Ong writes this update on the Malaysian High Court decision applying the “full merits” test in determining the existence of an arbitration agreement.

 

The High Court in Lysaght Corrugated Pipe Sdn Bhd and Anor v Popeye Resources Sdn Bhd and Anor (Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No.: WA-22NCC-109-03/2021) (grounds of judgment dated 10 February 2022) set out the requirements for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005. This is in particular when evaluating the existence of an arbitration agreement. Further, in dismissing the stay, the Court granted an anti-arbitration injunction to restrain a Hong Kong arbitration.

Continue reading