Shareholder meetings are an important platform to allow for members to debate and vote on matters affecting the affairs of a company. Case law has held that the holding of the general meeting, and the right to vote, are a fundamental right of the members.
Hence, it is particularly important to meet all legal requirements for such meetings. A technical non-compliance may result in the meeting being invalid and void.
I wanted to touch on three recent legal developments on shareholder meetings. The issues range from whether there is a need to second a proposed resolution, the powers of the corporate representative, and the ability to requisition a general meeting. Continue reading →
In a Media Release on 23 May 2018, Malaysia’s Ministry of Finance announced that it had met with 1MDB’s Board of Directors. The directors confirmed that 1MDB was insolvent and was unable to pay its debts. 1MDB’s debts may be in the region of RM42 billion. This figure is based on the declassified Auditor General Report issued in 2015.
With this tremendous amount of debt, I touch on one aspect of directors’ liabilities. The directors and other officers of 1MDB, when allowing 1MDB to take on so much debt, can be held personally liable for these debts. Continue reading →
The Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965) contained section 351 which allowed for an application for security for costs. The rationale for that section 351 was as follows.
When a company litigates against a party, and if that action were to fail, the defending party could find itself prejudiced if the company did not have enough money to pay the legal costs to that party. Hence, section 351 of the CA 1965 stated that if it appears by credible testimony that there is reason to believe that the company cannot pay the costs of the defendant, then the court can order that the company pay security for those costs.
Unfortunately, section 351 of the CA 1965 was not carried forward under the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). It was a useful provision to safeguard the interests of the defendant. Nonetheless, there are still other possible reliefs that a defendant can take to possibly apply for security for costs against a company. Continue reading →
The Federal Court issued its grounds of judgment in the Tengku Dato’ Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Berhad case. This is a significant decision explaining the scope of directors’ duties. It gives guidance on when a director acts in the best interest of the company and the discretion afforded to a director when the director makes a business judgment.
This case update will set out the brief background facts of the case and the legal principles that were decided by the Federal Court. I also set out the key takeaways and points that directors should take note of. Continue reading →
The Malaysian High Court in Tob Chee Hoong v Tob Chee Choong & Ors  MLJU 1303 has confirmed that the shareholders’ oppression remedy (section 181 of the Companies Act 1965, and section 346 of the Companies Act 2016) would extend to both the holding company and the subsidiary company.
An aggrieved shareholder may be a member of only the holding company but the oppressive conduct may only be at the subsidiary level. In line with other jurisdictions, this High Court decision confirms that the aggrieved shareholder can still seek relief. Continue reading →