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.
With the coronavirus outbreak, Malaysia is now under restricted movement to limit the gathering of people. The Prime Minister announced the movement control order and the associated regulations have been gazetted. This article aims to set out six key issues for companies as they navigate the holding of general meetings.
By way of background, on 16 March 2020, the Registrar of Societies announced that in light of the coronavirus pandemic, all annual general meetings for societies have been banned until 30 June 2020.
Seemingly, on 16 March 2020, the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) had issued a press release to ask all companies to consider all available options for meetings including electronic meetings at multiple venues. Companies would also apply for extension of time to hold its annual general meetings. The link on the SSM website has now gone down so I cannot locate a copy of that press release.
I set out the six possible issues that companies have to take note of in relation to their general meetings.
The High Court issued its grounds of judgment in Safari Alliance Sdn Bhd v Tiger Synergy Berhad (Grounds of Judgment dated 1 March 2020).
The case dealt with the statutory right of a shareholder under section 310(b) of the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016) to hold a general meeting of the company. This right is especially significant here since the general meeting was to replace the directors of the public-listed company, Tiger Synergy Berhad.
