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
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
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.
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