Malaysia: Division Of Powers Between Shareholders And Directors

Last Updated: 7 June 2018
Article by Lee Shih and Joyce Lim Hwee Yin

Lee Shih and Joyce Lim discuss the effect of the Federal Court's decision in the Petra Perdana case.

On 14 December 2017, the Federal Court delivered its grounds of judgment in the case of Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra bin Tengku Indra Petra v Petra Perdana Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 177 ("Petra Perdana"). This case relates to two appeals which emanated from a High Court action relating to questions in company law on governance and management of a company as between its directors and shareholders in general meetings. In particular, it gives guidance on the division of powers between the shareholders and directors on managing the affairs of a company and sets out the test to be adopted in determining whether a director has acted in the best interest of the company.

BRIEF FACTS

The plaintiff, Petra Perdana Berhad ("PPB"), owned 126 million ordinary shares in Petra Energy Berhad ("PEB"), amounting to approximately 64.62% of the issued and paid up capital of PEB. At all material times, the three defendants were directors of PPB.

In April 2007, an ordinary resolution was passed and a general mandate was given to PPB to, among others, divest up to 19.5 million of its shares in PEB ("Shareholders' Divestment Mandate"). On or about 10 December 2007, PPB divested 9 million of its PEB shares (which represented approximately 4.62% equity stake in PEB), thereby reducing PPB's holding in PEB from 64.62% to 60%. The Shareholders' Divestment Mandate was renewed on an annual basis.

Subsequently, pursuant to payment demands by a ship builder in respect of the balance purchase price of a vessel, PPB's board of directors resolved in August 2009 to sell 10.5 million PEB shares (5.38% equity stake in PEB) ("August Board Mandate"). Pursuant to the August Board Mandate, PPB divested 10.5 million PEB shares on 10 September 2009, reducing its stake in PEB from 60% to 54.62% ("Second Divestment").

By November 2009, PPB was facing serious financial difficulties and cash flow problems. After considering various fundraising options, PPB's board of directors resolved to divest PPB's remaining 54.62% shareholding in PEB ("November Board Mandate"). Pursuant to the November Board Mandate, PPB sold 48.8 million PEB shares (25.03% equity stake in PEB) to Shorefield Resources Sdn Bhd ("Shorefield"), resulting in Shorefield becoming the controlling shareholder of PEB ("Third Divestment"). The proceeds of the disposal obtained from the Third Divestment were utilised to pare down bank borrowings and the gearing ratio of PPB's group of companies. The Third Divestment also resulted in a gain of approximately RM13.7 million for PPB's group of companies.

During the board of directors' meeting on 22 December 2009, the PPB board deliberated on the divestment of the remaining 29.59% shareholding in PEB pursuant to the November Board Mandate ("Intended Fourth Divestment"). The Intended Fourth Divestment did not take place as an injunction was obtained in the High Court by one of PPB's directors to restrain the sale of the shares.

This led to a corporate power struggle dispute within PPB and resulted in the defendants being removed as directors of PPB at an Extraordinary General Meeting on 4 February 2010.

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

With a new management in place, PPB commenced an action in the High Court against the defendants on the basis, among others, that, in causing PPB to undertake the Second Divestment and Third Divestment:

  1. the defendants had acted in breach of their statutory duties under Section 132(1) of the Companies Act 1965 ("CA 1965");
  2. the second and third defendants dishonestly assisted the first defendant in the various breaches of duty and were accessories thereto;
  3. the defendants and the fourth defendant (who was at the material time an executive director of PEB) conspired, whether by lawful or unlawful means, to injure PPB vide the Second Divestment and Third Divestment; and
  4. the defendants in breach of their fiduciary, statutory or common law duties, failed to act in the best interest of PPB.

The defendants argued that the Second Divestment and Third Divestment were undertaken due to urgent cash flow problems caused by a downturn in PPB's business. On the other hand, it was PPB's contention that the cash flow problems were not genuine and that the defendants' ulterior motive was to dispose of PEB to Shorefield under a conspiracy contrived by the defendants to enable Shorefield to become the controlling shareholder of PEB.

The High Court found in favour of the defendants, holding that, at all times, the decisions by the defendants to undertake the Second Divestment and Third Divestment were business judgments made in good faith after exercising due care and diligence. Further, the High Court found that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties to PPB.

DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

PPB's appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal focused on determining whether the defendants had acted in the best interest of PPB and found that the proposition "best interest of the company" was for the majority to decide. In particular, it found that the Shareholders' Divestment Mandate provided a barometer as to what the shareholders gauged as being the best interest of PPB. In this regard, it was held that in failing to comply with the restrictions of the Shareholders' Divestment Mandate, the defendants had failed to act in the best interest of PPB. Secondly, the Court of Appeal held that a shareholders' resolution carried at a general meeting of company amounted to "regulations" pursuant to the articles of association of a company by which the defendants were obligated to comply with. Further, it was held that shareholders by a majority could decide what was in the best interest of a company.

DECISION OF THE FEDERAL COURT

Eighteen questions of law were posed to the Federal Court, seven of which the apex court found unnecessary to answer. This article will focus on the main issues discussed in Petra Perdana.

Division of powers

One of the main issues here was the division of powers between the shareholders in a general meeting and the board of directors. The question posed to the Federal Court was whether the powers of management conferred on directors by CA 1965 and the articles of association could be overridden by an ordinary resolution passed by a simple majority of shareholders at a general meeting. In other words, whether the Shareholders' Divestment Mandate could override the powers of the directors to divest the PEB shares held by PPB.

The Federal Court answered the question in the negative, holding that shareholders may only override the powers of the directors by altering the articles to take away the powers of the directors, or, by refusing to re-elect the directors of whose actions they disapprove.

Statutory force to this legal position can be found in Section 131B of CA 1965 which provides that "the business and affairs of a company must be managed by, or under the direction of, the board of directors", subject to "any modification, exception or limitation contained in the Act or in the memorandum or articles of association of the company."

Furthermore, the articles of association of PPB had set out that the business affairs of PPB shall be managed by the directors with the exception, inter alia, that the directors' exercise of powers were subject to "these regulations" and CA 1965. The Federal Court (in upholding the High Court's decision) held that the reference to "regulations" means regulations as envisaged under CA 1965, i.e. the articles of association, and not resolutions passed at a general meeting such as the Shareholders' Divestment Mandate, and as such, the directors were not bound to comply with the Shareholders' Divestment Mandate to divest only up to 19.5 million shares in PEB. In other words, the Divestment Mandate did not deprive the defendants of their power to deal with the PEB shares in accordance with CA 1965 and the articles of association.

On this point, while this case was decided in the context of CA 1965, it is interesting to note that the new Section 195 of the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016") provides that shareholders are entitled to pass a resolution in a general meeting to make non-binding recommendations to the directors on management matters, or, pass a special resolution to make a binding recommendation on the directors if the recommendation is in the best interest of the company.

Test for breach of duty to act in the best interest

Another main issue here was the test to be applied in determining whether a director had acted in the "best interest of the company". The Federal Court held that the test to be applied is a combination of both a subjective element and an objective element.

Subjective element

The breach of a director's duty is determined based on an assessment of the state of mind of the director, i.e. whether the director (and not the court) considers that the exercise of discretion is in the best interest of the company. The director is under a duty to act in what he believes to be the best interest of the company.

Objective test

However, the director's assessment of the company's best interest is subject also to an objective review or examination by the courts. The Federal Court adopted the test laid down by the Court of Appeal in Pioneer Haven Sdn Bhd v Ho Hup Construction Co Bhd & Anor [2012] 3 MLJ 616 which is whether "an intelligent and honest man in the position of the director of the company concerned, could in the whole of the existing circumstances have reasonably believed that the transactions were for the benefit of the company."

On the facts, the Federal Court decided that the Second Divestment was carried out in view of the urgency of the cash flow problems faced by PPB and as such, it was justifiable to sell the shares at a depressed price. In respect of the Third Divestment, similarly, the Federal Court found that the defendants had carried out the same as they were advised that the cash flow problem faced by PBB for the following 12 months would deteriorate and PPB would face serious liquidity problems.

Applying the tests above, the Federal Court concluded that an honest and intelligent man in the position of the defendants would reasonably have concluded that the Second Divestment and the Third Divestment were necessary in the best interest of PPB. As such, the defendants had acted in good faith and in the best interest of PPB.

Business judgment rule

Briefly, the business judgment rule anticipates that in the absence of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy, a court should not undertake the exercise of assessing the merits of a commercial or business judgment made by the directors of a company, especially with the benefit of hindsight. This is necessary to preserve the directors' discretion and to protect them from the court's interference.

This rule was encapsulated in Section 132(1B) of CA 1965 (now Section 214 of CA 2016), which states that a director who makes a business judgment is deemed to meet the requirements of his statutory duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence and the equivalent duties under the common law and in equity if he (i) makes the business judgment in good faith and for a proper purpose; (ii) has no material personal interest in the subject matter of the business judgment; (iii) is informed about the subject matter of the business judgment to the extent that he reasonably believes to be appropriate in the circumstances; and (iv) reasonably believes that the business judgment is in the best interest of the company.

This rule has been applied by the courts consistently (see: Howard Smith v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974] AC 821 (PC); Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd and others v Pang Seng Meng [2004] 4 SLR (R) 162 (HC); Intraco Ltd v Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd [1995] 1 SLR 313 (CA)).

The Federal Court held that the decisions to undertake the Second Divestment and the Third Divestment were business judgments made for a legitimate purpose by the defendants who had acted in good faith and in the best interest of PPB. As such, there was no basis for the court to substitute its own decision with that of the defendants. Having made the above findings, the Federal Court set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the orders of the High Court.

Distinction in duties owed by Non-Executive Directors and Executive Directors

One of the questions posed to the Federal Court was "whether a distinction should be drawn between executive directors and non-executive directors in circumstance where non-executive directors have limited management functions and played a limited role in executing the impugned decisions made collectively by the board of directors".

This question followed the High Court's decision that the two non-executive directors were entitled to rely on the operational forecasts, financial data and information provided to them by PPB's management as they had less direct knowledge of the day to day operations and finances of PPB than that of the executive director. The Federal Court declined to answer this question given that its answers to the other questions posed were sufficient to dispose of the matter. We will have to wait for another case on this.

CONCLUSION

The Federal Courts decision in Petra Perdana has provided much clarity to the law in respect of the governance and management of a company. In particular, it has affirmed the clear division between the powers of the directors and shareholders in managing the affairs of a company. The case further establishes the appropriate test to be applied in determining whether a director had acted in the best interest of the company, and the application of the business judgment rule in decisions made by directors.

Originally published by Legal Insights - A Skrine Newsletter, April 2018.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions