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

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