Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CORPORATE LAW – PIERICING OF CORPORATE VEIL – SUING DIRECTORS – FRAUD and CONSPIRACY

Can directors be sued for breaches by the company?

  • Generally, a director who authorises a company’s breach of contract is not personally liable unless he conducts himself otherwise than as the company’s agent. For example, when there is fraud and conspiracy.

What is conspiracy?

  • Conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more person to advance the purpose to injure the plaintif. Action is then carried out in execution of the agreement. This would have resulted in loss and damage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can sue for conspiracy.

What is fraud?

  • Fraud entails representation. It is also known in law as fraudulent misrepresentation. When someone made representation knowing that is it not true, that’s fraudulent misrepresentation. In layman term, it is called cheating. You can claim against someone who had cheated you.

If a company refuses to pay me, can I sue the director for fraud and conspiracy

  • A company is a separate entity from its shareholders and directors. Generally, no liability can be imposed on directors for contractual breaches of the company.
  • However, there is a growing English and Singapore case laws that use the law of conspiracy and fraud to make shareholders and directors liable. Fraud and conspiracy can be used to “pierce the corporate veil” and make shareholders and directors responsible.

Under what circumstances can director and shareholders be made personally liable for fraud?

For example, A Sdn Bhd recently received a Notice for Winding Up from Z. However, the director of A Sdn Bhd cheated Z saying they will pay. But he had secretly transfer out assets of A Sdn Bhd to B Sdn Bhd. B Sdn Bhd is a related company of which they have the same directors and shareholders. This is to prevent Z from getting his payment under a lawful execution proceeding. Under this circumstance, the director of A Sdn Bhd can be made liable for fraud and conspiracy to defraud.

Can I claim the director is the controlling mind or alter ego of the company and therefore they can combine together with the company to defraud me when the company refuses to pay me a contractual payment?

General statement saying director is the alter ego, controlling mind of the company is not enough to establish fraud and conspiracy to defraud. This is insufficient to lift the corporate veil to hold directors personally liable. This is especially if the director of the company was merely acting bona fide in discharging its duty to the company as director.

What is tantamount to fraud and conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami