Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

COMPANY LAW – DIRECTOR – TRANSFER OR DIVERSION OF FUNDS TO THIRD PARTY – WINDING UP

Q: Can a director of a company make payments to himself or divert funds to third party after a winding up petition is presented and served.

No, unless it is approved by the court.

Section 472(1) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) provides that “(a)ny disposition of the property of the company, other than an exempt disposition, including any transfer of shares or alteration in the status of the members of the company made after the presentation of the winding up petition shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be void.”

Q: What can creditors do if the director diverted funds in breach of Section 472 CA 2016.

The creditors can pursue an action against the delinquent director and recover those funds under Section 541 of the CA 2016. Section 541(2) CA 2016 allows recovery from delinquent director the receipt of any money or property by him within the period of 2 years before the commencement of winding up.

Q: Can the director claim that the transfer was an exercise of business judgment and therefore he is protected by Section 214 of the CA 2016?

No. Section 214 of the CA 2016 places emphasis on the words “proper purpose”, “in good faith” and “in the best interest of the company”. When a transfer and diversion of funds are carried out after a winding up petition is presented and served, it lacks the element of proper and good faith in the best interest of the company.

Q: Can the director pay himself and claim that as his remuneration?

A director is not an employee of the company. He is doing business for the company. There is no implied term from the mere fact that he is a director, he should be paid. Section 230 CA 2016 provides fee and benefits of directors of a public listed company must be approved in a general meeting. For private company, the payment may be approved by the Board of Directors subject to provision of the constitution.

If payments of remuneration are made in contravention with Section 230 CA 2016, the director will be deemed to be breaching Sections 213 and 218 CA 2016 for making such payments – i.e. failure to act in good faith in the best interest of the company and breach the rule on prohibition against improper use of property of the company.

It follows that the creditors can claim for those breaches under Section 541 CA 2016 as explained earlier.

Case in point: CIMB Bank Bhd v Jaring Communications Sdn Bhd [2017] 4 CLJ 465. High Court Malaya (KL) – Companies (Winding-up) no: 28NCC-843-11-2014

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »
12 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
1 Januari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami