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 [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
INSOL International is the International Association of Restructuring, Insolvency & Bankruptcy Professionals. It is a world-wide federation of national associations for accountants and lawyers who specialise in turnaround and insolvency.
INSOL International will be holding its first-ever event in Malaysia with its Kuala Lumpur One Day Seminar on 28 November 2017 at the KL Hilton.
Under the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016), there has now been a change in the law which may cause auditors to be conflicted or disqualified from a wider range of audit jobs. In particular, this may affect the larger audit firms.
Where an audit firm is appointed as the auditor of the company, every audit partner and now, with change in the law, every audit partner’s spouse cannot be an officer of the company. The CA 2016 defines an officer as including any director, secretary or employee of the company. Hence, an audit firm would appear to be conflicted from acting for a company where the spouse of an audit partner is merely an employee of the company. Continue reading
