Compendium of Companies Act 2016 Cases: Part 1

With the Companies Act 2016 in force for more than a year, I thought it is useful to set out a compendium of cases and transactions that have applied the Companies Act 2016 provisions.

As a summary, in terms of the reported cases, many of the cases relate to winding up based on the inability of the company to pay debts. This is under section 466 of the Companies Act 2016 (the old section 218 of the Companies Act 1965). Other cases also relate to other areas of winding up or shareholder disputes. I also highlight below examples of capital reduction and schemes of arrangement. Continue reading

Advertisements

TML and Legal Logic Asia Talk: Post Implementation Challenges of the Companies Act 2016

On 20 April 2018, I will be speaking at the Legal Logic Asia talk on The Companies Act 2016: Post Implementation Challenges, New Corporate Rescue Mechanism Rules 2018 & Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance.

My co-speaker, Kenneth Foo, and I designed the course contents and the programme should be very enriching for the audience. We will using practical examples and real-life case studies to flesh out the issues we have come across. You can access the registration form here and with an early bird rate of RM800 if you sign up by 13 April 2018.

Continue reading

Companies Act 2016: Corporate Rescue Mechanism is in force on 1 March 2018

By the gazetting of the notice P.U. (B) 106/2018 dated 27 February 2018, the corporate rescue mechanism under Division 8 Part III of the Companies Act 2016 has come into force on 1 March 2018. The corporate rescue mechanism allows for financially distressed companies to consider two options: (1) corporate voluntary arrangement and (2) judicial management.

I set out only some brief key features of these two mechanisms. Along with the coming into force of the corporate rescue mechanism provisions, the new Companies (Corporate Rescue Mechanism) Rules 2018 have also come into force on 1 March 2018. Continue reading

Companies Act 2016: Absence of the Security for Costs Provision

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

Changes in the Listing Requirements Post-Companies Act 2016

On Thursday 8 February 2018, I will be speaking at a one-day seminar organised by the Securities Industry Development Corporation (SIDC). The SIDC is the training and development arm of the Securities Commission Malaysia.

The seminar is titled ‘Changes in the Listing Requirements Post-Companies Act 2016: What to Look Out For’. You can find out more information and also register at the SIDC website.

Continue reading

Case Update: Federal Court Decides on Extent of Directors’ Duties – Key Lessons for Directors

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

Case Update: Shareholders’ Oppression Action Extends to Group of Companies

The Malaysian High Court in Tob Chee Hoong v Tob Chee Choong & Ors [2017] 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