Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

Summary and Facts
A (the plaintiff) was a profitable company positioned for growth following a significant acquisition by its parent company. B (the defendants), who were directors and shareholders of A, had the responsibility to manage the company in its best interest. However, B established C (a competing company), owned by B’s family, and executed a calculated plan to divert A’s assets, business opportunities, and employees to C

Despite their obligations, B orchestrated these actions while still serving as directors of A, ultimately resigning after dismantling A’s operations. Their actions left A unable to operate, resulting in severe financial harm and legal action against B.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the directors breached their fiduciary duties?
  • Whether there was a conspiracy to harm the plaintiff company?
  • Whether the defendants were unjustly enriched at the plaintiff’s expense?
  • Whether the assets of the competing company were held on constructive trust for the plaintiff?
  • Whether the defendants’ actions breached contractual obligations?

Court Findings

  • The court found that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by diverting assets, employees, and business opportunities to a competing company they controlled. This conduct clearly failed to serve the best interests of the original company.
  • The directors acted together in a deliberate and systematic plan to harm the company. Their actions were intended to dismantle the business and benefit their new company.
  • The court held that the defendants unjustly profited from the company’s assets and opportunities, wrongfully diverted for personal gain.
  • The assets transferred to the competing company were deemed to be constructively held on trust for the original company, ensuring that diverted resources were accounted for and not unjustly retained.
  • The directors breached terms of the shareholder and acquisition agreements by failing to support the company’s growth, instead diverting critical resources.
  • The court awarded exemplary damages, finding that the defendants’ actions were egregious enough to warrant punishment and deter future misconduct.
  • The court recognized that the plaintiff was left incapacitated by the defendants’ actions, limiting its ability to mitigate losses. Thus, the defendants were held fully accountable for the financial harm caused.

Reference Case

  • Taz Logistics Sdn Bhd v Taz Metals Sdn Bhd & Ors [2019] 3 MLJ 510
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们