The High Court in Safari Alliance Sdn Bhd v Tan Lee Chin and others (grounds of judgment dated 25 August 2021) dealt with how a shareholder cannot maintain an oppression action against rulings made by the Chairperson at a general meeting. Such rulings do not amount to “affairs of the company” for oppression.
Joyce Lim writes a case update on this High Court decision on the importance between a personal wrong and a corporate wrong in a shareholder oppression action.
The High Court in the recent case of Dato’ Shabaruddin Bin Ibrahim v Dato’ Ruslan Bin Ali Omar & Ors  MLJU 1744 (with grounds of judgment dated 26 October 2020) (Shabaruddin) dealt with the distinction between a personal wrong committed against shareholders of a company and a corporate wrong committed against the company. Continue reading
This article kickstarts the series of the Top 5 cases for the year 2020. This follows last year’s Top 5 Company Law Cases in Malaysia for 2019, restructuring and insolvency cases, and arbitration cases. This year’s series will cover five areas: company law, tax, construction, restructuring and insolvency, and arbitration cases in Malaysia.
We start with this year’s top company law cases in Malaysia. I will do things a bit differently as there were a number of interesting company law decisions. So I group the cases (which are more than five) into five areas of company law issues. Continue reading
Joyce Lim writes on a recent High Court decision on the oppression remedy in quasi-partnerships. Further, the decision confirms that oppression can arise from breaches of a shareholders’ agreement.
The High Court in the recent case of ISM Sendirian Berhad v Queensway Nominees (Asing) Sdn Bhd & Ors and other suits  MLJU 388 dealt with an oppression claim by a minority shareholder in quasi-partnerships (also known as Ebrahimi-type companies).
Lee Shih and Joyce Lim discuss the effect of the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in the Sakae Holdings case. This article was originally published in Skrine’s Legal Insights Issue 03/2018.
In the recent case of Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd  SGCA 33 (“Sakae Holdings”), the Singapore Court of Appeal had the opportunity to clarify the distinction between personal wrongs committed against shareholders of a company and corporate wrongs against the company. This distinction directly relates to the question of whether the appropriate relief in each respective scenario would be by way of an oppression action or a statutory derivative action.
The Singapore Court of Appeal set out a framework to determine whether an aggrieved shareholder could maintain an oppression action or ought to have pursued a statutory derivative action instead. Continue reading