The High Court in the case of Mohamed Zain Yon Bin Mohamed Fuad v Jason Jonathan Lo & Ors issued its Grounds of Judgment dated 6 March 2019. The case clarifies the interpretation of the new members’ written resolution provision of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016). More than half the number of shareholding of the members is required to pass the members’ written resolution. It is not more than half the number of the shareholders. Further, the case also emphasised how the CA 2016 applies even to companies which still retain the Table A Articles of Association under the Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965).
Section 241 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) has come into force today on 15 March 2019 (see P.U.(B) 138/2019). This is the last provision of the CA 2016 to be brought into force. Under this section, all qualified persons who wish to act as a company secretary must register with the Registrar of Companies.
With the coming into force of section 241, the Companies (Practising Certificate for Secretaries) Regulations 2019 and Guidelines Relating to Practising Certificate for Secretaries Under Section 241 of the Companies Act 2016 have also come into force on 15 March 2019. There is also a FAQ section on the Companies Commission of Malaysia website. Continue reading
I read in the news about the proposed selective capital reduction exercise for the listed company Selangor Properties Berhad. The major 68.2% shareholder of Selangor Properties proposes to privatise the company and allow the remaining 31.8% shareholders to exit the company with a pay-out of RM5.70 per share.
I read the announcement dated 25 October 2018. I was interested to see that the proposed mechanism for the selective capital reduction will be by way of a court order under section 116 of the Companies Act 2016. This is instead of the alternative route of using the solvency statement. Continue reading
The High Court case of Re Leadmont Development Sdn Bhd  MLJU 1320;  1 LNS 1420 is the first decision on judicial management in Malaysia.
Judicial management orders were granted ex parte for two related companies, Leadmont Development Sdn Bhd (“Leadmont”) and its subsidiary Sierra Delima Sdn Bhd (“Sierra Delima”). The judicial management orders were to facilitate the rehabilitation of these two companies. The companies wanted to successfully complete their project, the Selayang StarCity Project. A secured creditor of the companies, Infra Segi Sdn Bhd (“Infra Segi”), intervened after the grant of the judicial management orders to set aside the orders.
The decision is important for setting out the background and statutory framework of the judicial management provisions in Malaysia. It spells out the test for the grant of a judicial management order. The Court ultimately exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the earlier judicial management orders. Continue reading
The High Court decision in Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) v Dato’ Abd Rahim Adb Halim & Ors  8 CLJ 738;  MLJU 1008 touched on some important points on the appointment of directors. It is also the first decision to briefly deal with the new right of management review under section 195 of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016).
This dispute arose from the boardroom and shareholder tussle where MARA had requisitioned for an EGM of the company, Med-Bumikar. Med-Bumikar held a substantial stake in the listed entity, MBM Resources Bhd (MBMR). UMW had tabled an offer to purchase Med-Bumikar’s stake in MBMR. The crown jewel at the heart of the dispute was essentially MBMR’s 20% stake in Perodua. UMW already had approximately 38% interest in Perodua and this would allow UMW to have control over Perodua. Continue reading