Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

COMPANY LAW – MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS – OPPRESSION – REMEDIES

Q: I am a minority shareholder in Company X. The majority have passed a resolution to increase the number of shares which effectively dilute my shareholdings. Thereafter, the majority passed resolutions to transfer substantial assets of the company in favour of the majority shareholders-controlled affiliated company. What can I do?
You may consider filing in an application for minority oppression.

What is Minority Shareholder?
Minority shareholders usually refer to those who hold less than 50% shares of the company or a party who does not have control over the fate and direction of the company.

Conduct that constitutes ‘Oppressive Conduct’

  • Majority shareholders engaged in conduct that is oppressive, prejudicial, or discriminatory against minority shareholders.
  • Oppression often occurs when majority shareholders make decisions that are in their own interest while suppressing the interest of minority shareholders.

What are the Legal Protections from Oppression of Minority Shareholders in Malaysia?

  • There is a wide range of relief under Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) for minority oppression.
  • Any member of the company who is oppressed may apply to the Court to:-
  1. direct, prohibit, cancel or vary any transaction or resolution;
  2. regulate the conduct of the company in the future;
  3. require other members to purchase shares and debentures of the company;
  4. in case of purchase of shares, provide for a reduction of capital of the company; or
  5. wind up the company.

What’s the test for minority oppression?
The court will consider whether reasonable directors possessing the skills, knowledge, acumen and experience of directors would have decided that a proposed course of action was unfair.

Note of Caution
If you intend to sign up as a minority shareholder of a company, you should bear in mind the “majority rule”. The general principle for governance of the companies is the majority rule. The majority shareholders have influence in the ordinary decision-making process. The will of the majority would prevail. Unless there exist circumstances where the powers of the company may be exercised in a manner that is commercially unfair to minority.

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