shook l bok kuala lumpur legal update issue no 1 2007 est 1918 shook lin bok kuala lumpur the...

1Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918

KUALA LUMPURSHOOK LIN � BOK

EST 1918KUALA LUMPUR

Issue No 1 2007Vol 3 No 1 PP13906/8/2007LEGAL UPDATE

AMENDMENTS TO LISTING REQUIREMENTS OFBURSA MALAYSIA ................................................. 6

REGISTRATION WITH THE SECURITIESCOMMISSION FOR TRUST COMPANIES TOACT AS BOND TRUSTEES ..................................... 7

SINGLE PRICING FOR UNIT TRUST FUNDS........... 8

AMENDMENTS TO SECURITIES COMMISSIONGUIDELINES FOR ISSUE OF STRUCTUREDWARRANTS .......................................................... 8

CASE UPDATESDEFAMATION....................................................... 9BANKING ........................................................... 11LABOUR ............................................................. 12INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY .................................. 13

IN THIS ISSUE

LOOKING FORWARD TO 2007

As we usher in 2007, the firm extends to its readers and clients, wishesfor a happy, fulfilling and productive new year. As the firm approachesthe 90th anniversary of its founding, we would like to take this opportunityto thank and express our gratitude and appreciation to all our clients,many of whom have supported the firm through the years and throughthick and thin. The firm’s Chief Executive Partner Too Hing Yeap shareswith us some brief thoughts on the development of the firm and itsfuture direction.

Q. How does the firm today compare with the time you joined it?

A. Well, when I joined the firm in the early 70’s, we had less than 20partners and lawyers altogether. Today we have 28 partners and 59lawyers. At that time, the firm had four or five main clients whoaccounted for more than 70% of the firm’s work. The Partners throughthe years consciously moved to expand and diversify the firm’s clientbase. We now have 12 departments, each specialising in differentaspects of commercial law practice (both litigation and non-litigation).Our clients are from all over the world.

Q. What has been the secret of the firm’s success and longevity?

A. The firm which was the first to be set up by a local lawyer during theBritish colonial rule, is one of the oldest and largest law firms inMalaysia today. The fact that it has not only endured but thrived, isa testament to the foresight of the founders in anchoring the practicein certain core principles and philosophies, namely professionalismand integrity (underpinned by a strong work ethic). The firm, overthe years has had the good fortune to attract and retain lawyers of avery high calibre. Some of our lawyers are amongst the best in thecountry in their fields of specialisation. We have been very fortunatein this respect.

Q. Please describe the biggest strengths of the firm.

A. We are very focused in what we do and what we would like to achieve.All lawyers are urged constantly to challenge themselves to be betterlawyers, to improve their skills and their craft, to be better problemsolvers and so forth. The best research facilities are wasted if lawyersdo not know how to use it to provide solutions for our clients - notjust any solution or occasional good solution, anybody can do that,we are talking about being able to consistently provide high qualitysolutions. Lastly, but not the least important, all our partners arefull-time practitioners. None of the partners are involved in anybusiness outside our practice. To us this is a full-time calling.

Q. What do you see as the challenges facing the firm?

A. To improve our skills and craft and adapt the practice to a fastchanging landscape in order to stay relevant to the needs of ourclients - the most important component to the firm’s survival andwell-being.

SHOOK Lin � BOK

2 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


The firm held its annual dinner for 2006 over the weekend of 16 September 2006 at the Avillion Hotel at Port Dickson, thepopular beach resort town. This revived the tradition of weekend getaways at various resort locations for the firm’s annualdinners, with the participation of all staff and lawyers and their spouses.

3Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


Highlights for the weekend included competitive beach games among teams, culminating in a gala dinner on the beachwith revue and dance performances by the lawyers and staff. The firm celebrated its 88th anniversary in 2006.

4 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


The Lawasia 40th Anniversary International Conference on International Trade, Technology, Communicationsand Energy was hosted by inter alia, the Bar Association of India, at the Hotel Intercontinental The GrandResort, Goa, India, from September 29 to October 2, 2006.

The Conference attracted the participation of delegates from the business community and legal fraternityin more than 20 countries. The conference programme presented papers covering two streams namelyTrade Law (papers included “Trade Law & WTO”, “Globalisation of Trade & Services” and “InternationalMoney Laundering”), and Technology and Communication (papers included “Outsourcing & Offshoring”,“Global e-Commerce” and “Computer Crimes”). The conference also included a special plenary panelsession on “Impact of Global Terrorism on Cross Border Trade”.

The firm’s Dato’ Dr Cyrus Das chaired the session on “Information Technology Contracts: UniversalStumbling Blocks” under the Technology and Communication stream. One of the papers was presentedby Amir Singh Pasrich, managing partner of International Law Affiliates New Delhi. The paper addressedthe novel issues and challenges posed by the new forms and methods of formation of contracts introducedby the information technology era and the internet, both at the conceptual level in the context of theirreconciliation with traditional contractual principles, and at the evidentiary level, in terms of new kinds ofevidence in the form of electronic records.

In summary, in the paper, he postulated as follows:

“ E-commerce is undeniably a revolution. Can we try and fit it within an existing legal framework? Ibelieve we can fit e-commerce contracts, sale contracts, software contracts and almost any agreementarrived at through an electronic interface or electronic exchange into the classical contractual componentsof offer, acceptance, consideration, legal intention etc ... the stumbling blocks are not the I.T. Contractsso much as proof, enforcement, dispute resolution, conflict of laws and applicable law, public policy ...not to mention unfair contract terms, mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, incorporation by reference,trade usage; and antitrust and consumer law, stock market, banking and other statutory regulations.”

“ The old kind of contract involved an offer (possibly an invitation to treat), acceptance, consideration,legal intention, certainty and performance. Under our legal system it would be difficult to reinvent thewheel and to start afresh with new concepts that change legal theory into what lawyers love most –component parts. The information technology era challenges the foundation of contract theory butperhaps this tremor will not call for re-building ... only minor modifications to accommodate whatmight have been seen as an unanticipated, certainly unplanned reconstruction of traditional contractualtheory.”

The Lawasia 40th Anniversary International Conference in Goa, India

5Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


The 7th Lawasia Business Law Conference in Mongolia:The Firm Presents Paper on Islamic Financing

The firm’s partner in its Islamic Financepractice, Jal Othman, was one of thespeakers at the recent 7th Lawasia BusinessLaw Conference held in Hohhot City, InnerMongolia Autonomous Region, China on10 to 15 July 2006.

The firm is honoured to be the onlyrepresentative from Malaysia to deliver apaper on Islamic Finance. The paper wasentitled “Islamic Finance As An EffectiveMeans of Financing – The MalaysianExperience”. The paper was intended tointroduce the people of Mongolia toIslamic Finance as a viable alternative toraising funds. Being an active practitionerin the field of Islamic Finance, the firmbelieved that this was an opportuneoccasion to introduce Islamic Finance tothe vast economic basin of China.

The Conference was very well receivedwith over 300 participants from thevarious countries in the Asia Pacific region.The Conference was organized under theauspices of Lawasia (The Law Associationfor Asia and the Pacific). Being an activemember of Lawasia over the years, theConference also provided the opportunityfor the firm to renew ties and relationshipwith the many other members from thevarious countries.

The paper was structured along thefollowing themes:

· the dual financial system in Malaysia· the facilitative legal framework· the growth and development of the

industry· the financial instruments employed in

practice· the projects· the challenges and rising to meet such

challenges· the future and the way forward

Some of the salient issues discussed wereas follows:

The dual financial system in Malaysia

· the establishment of the Islamicwindow during the pioneering days

· the progression to full fledged Islamicbanking institutions and Islamicbanking subsidiaries

· the introduction of foreign playersinto the domestic market

The facilitative legal framework

· the jurisdictions of the civil and syariahcourts

· the various legislation, enactmentsand guidelines

· the Syariah Advisory Council

The growth and development of theindustry

· the establishment of the first IslamicBank in 1983

· the introduction of interest freewindows in 1993

· the introduction of Islamic InterbankMoney Market in 1994

· the establishment of NationalAdvisory Council in 1997

· the establishment of the secondIslamic Bank in 1999

· the issuance of licenses to threeforeign banks in 2004

· the incorporation of Islamicsubsidiaries in 2005

The financial instruments employed inpractice

· early years focus on sale transactionse.g. BBA and Murabahah

· recent emphasis on equity-based andprofit-sharing schemes: Musyarakahand Mudharabah

· Malaysian Global Sukuk

The challenges

· divergence of Shariah interpretation· the absence of a common

international adjudicating body· product innovation: not easy to

replicate: may be rejected by theShariah committee

· islamisation of conventional products· operational complexity

6 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad (BursaSecurities) (the Malaysian securitiesexchange) has, by a letter dated 31October 2006 to listed companies andwhich is posted on its website, amendedits Listing Requirements as well as theListing Requirements for the MESDAQexchange in relation to announcementsand circulars. The amendments take effectfrom 15 November 2006.

The amendments include the following:-

(a) the requirement that an informationcircular must be issued by a listedcompany in relation to a non relatedparty transaction, where any one ofthe percentage ratios is equal to orexceeds 15%, has been removed.However, the company is required tosend a copy of the announcementmade by the company on BursaSecurities in respect of the transaction,to its shareholders not later than tenmarket days after the date of theannouncement. The minimumcontents of such announcement hasalso been generally increasedpursuant to these amendments (seeparagraph (d) below);

(b) in relation to the valuation of foreignproperty assets in connection with aforeign acquisition, a listed companyis now allowed to appoint a foreignvaluer provided it complies with theSecurities Commission’s Guidelines onAsset Valuation;

(c) there is currently a requirement in theListing Requirements for the disclosureof a statement (Best Interest Statement)to be contained in a circular toshareholders, by the board of directorsstating whether a proposal is in the bestinterests of the company and if votingis required, the recommendation(Voting Recommendation) by the boardof directors as to the voting action thatshareholders should take. Pursuant tothe amendments, directors who areinterested in the proposal are now notrequired to make the Best InterestStatement/Voting Recommendation.However, there is now a requirementthat where a director disagrees with theBest Interest Statement, the circularmust contain a statement by such

Amendments to ListingRequirements of BursaMalaysia: Announcementsand Circulars

· liquidity problem: lack of secondarymarket for fixed income instrument:issuance of Shariah compliantGovernment Bonds

Rising to the challenge

· harmonization preferred overacceptance

· standardization of standards AAOIFI· increased emphasis on research and

development· supportive case law· tax and fiscal breaks: exemption from

stamp duty and real property gains taxand income tax

The way forward

· compliance with Shariah must be given· emphasis is on comparable if not better

returns than conventional financing· Islamic financial activities moving away

from financial institutions to non-financial institutions

· to have off balance sheet financingfacility: to securitise the cash flow toallow immediate cash inflow

· branding: to push the “Islamic credibilityadvantage”

· effective communication with customers· product innovation: to continue the

push to innovate

7Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


Registration with theSecurities Commissionfor trust companies toact as bond trustees

Trust companies which intend to act astrustees for debentures (whetherconventional or Islamic) approved bythe Securities Commission (SC) will berequired to be registered with the SC.This new requirement applies todebentures or Islamic securitiesapproved by the SC on or after 2 January2007.

On 12 October 2006, the SC issued itsPractice Note on “Registration by theSecurities Commission for the Purposeof Acting as a Bond Trustee” which setsout the regulatory requirements andprocedures for the registration of a bondtrustee by the SC.

The Practice Note prescribes, inter alia,that an applicant seeking registrationmust:-

· have a prescribed minimumamount of shareholders’ funds

· have a prescribed minimumamount of professional indemnityinsurance coverage

· have a sufficient number ofqualified, experienced andcompetent trustee officers andensure that its trustee officersmaintain a sufficient level ofmonitoring rigour

· not have any material adverserecord with the SC of negligent orreckless acts or omissions nor anyincidence of conflict of interest, inbond trusteeship

· procure that each director, chiefexecutive and trustee officer of theapplicant is a fit and proper person

In addition, the trustee’s registration issubject to the SC’s review from time totime. The SC may suspend, withdrawor vary the terms of the registration ifthere are circumstances involving thetrustee that may jeopardise the interestsof bondholders or integrity of the bondmarket. For continued registration, thetrustee must diligently discharge itsduties and functions which includereporting material events and events ofdefault to the SC in a timely manner.

director setting out the reasons andthe factors taken into considerationin forming that opinion;

(d) additional disclosures are required inthe minimum contents ofannouncements and/or circulars,including:-

· the conditionality of the proposal onother corporate exercises of thecompany which have beenannounced but have yet to becompleted

·the effects of the proposal on thegearing of the company

·the estimated timeframe forcompletion of the proposal

· the existence of a conflict of intereston the part of an adviser or expert

·in relation to new issues of securities,provisions which may permit anunderwriter to withdraw from itsobligations under the underwritingagreement and/or terminate thesame

· in the case of a disposal, whether itwould result in the listed companybeing deemed to be a cash company(i.e. falling under PN16) or to haveinadequate financial condition and/or level of operations (i.e. fallingunder PN17)

· in relation to the acquisition ordisposal of estate or plantation land,the size, location, tenure, date ofexpiry of the lease (if applicable),present and future usage, productionfor the past five years andquantification of the market value ofthe plantation as appraised by anindependent registered valuer, ifapplicable;

(e) removal of certain disclosures fromthe minimum contents ofannouncements and/or circulars,including:-

· in relation to foreign acquisitions:

(i) the expected dividend income tobe received by the company;

(ii) the expected timeframe forrepatriation of profits toMalaysia; and

(iii) the estimated financialcommitment required of thecompany in undertaking thetransaction and putting theassets or businesses on-stream.

8 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


Single Pricing for UnitTrust Funds

The Securities Commission (SC) has on 20October 2006 issued its Circular onGuidelines on Unit Trust Funds (theCircular) stating that with effect from 1April 2007, the quoted price for units in aMalaysian unit trust fund (UTF) will bebased on a single pricing regime.

The Circular states that the SC’s Guidelineson Unit Trust Funds (UTF Guidelines) willbe amended to reflect the above changesand that all parties concerned are expectedto take the necessary steps and actions toensure compliance with the new pricingregime by 1 April 2007.

Currently, the UTF Guidelines require allUTFs to adopt dual pricing for units in aUTF, where two prices are quoted by theunit trust management company, i.e. thebuying price and the selling price, andwhere the charges of the managementcompany are reflected in the spreadbetween the buying and selling price.

Under the new pricing regime, the buyingand selling price are the same, and chargesare separately disclosed and paid. TheCircular states that the adoption of a singlepricing regime, should make the pricingof UTFs easier to understand and fairer toinvestors as they can see what they arebeing charged; such transparency wouldalso facilitate a comparison by investorsof the different charges imposed by thevarious distribution channels.

Amendments to theSecurities Commission’sGuidelines for the Issue ofStructured Warrants

On 31 October 2006, the SecuritiesCommission (SC) amended its Guidelinesfor the Issue of Structured Warrants.Pursuant to the amendments, issuers arenow allowed to issue structured warrantsover shares of a corporation quoted on asecurities exchange outside Malaysia(Foreign Quoted Shares), and over indices.Previously, structured warrants could onlybe issued over shares quoted on a localstock exchange (Locally Quoted Shares).

Criteria for Foreign Quoted Shares andindices

Where the underlying financial instrument

for the structured warrant is a ForeignQuoted Share, the following criteria mustbe satisfied:-

(a) the Foreign Quoted Share must be listedor quoted on a securities exchangewhich is a member of the WorldFederation of Exchanges and isapproved by the SC (the factors whichthe SC will consider in determiningwhether such securities exchange isacceptable are stated in the amendedGuidelines);

(b) the corporation or issuer of the ForeignQuoted Shares must have a minimumaverage daily market capitalizationspecified in the amended Guidelines;

(c) the corporation must fully comply withthe listing rules and requirements of itshome exchange; and

(d) information on the price, volume,financial information and price-sensitiveinformation relating to the corporationmust be available to investors inMalaysia.

Where the underlying financial instrumentfor the structured warrant is an index, thefollowing criteria must be satisfied:-

(a) the index must be derived from a localstock exchange, or an index approvedby the SC. The factors which the SC willconsider in determining whether theindex is acceptable include whether theindex is broadly based, has transparentcomponents and is a recognizedbenchmark; and

(b) information on the composition andperformance of the index derived froma securities exchange outside Malaysiamust be available to investors inMalaysia.

Requirements for structured warrants overForeign Quoted Shares and indices thatare different from over Locally QuotedShares

Structured warrants where the underlyingfinancial instrument is a Foreign QuotedShare or an index:-

(a) are not subject to the size of issue limitset out in the Guidelines and applicableto structured warrants whose underlyingfinancial instrument is a Locally QuotedShare, i.e. that the aggregateoutstanding structured warrants at anyone time including those already issuedby third-party issuers on the same shares

9Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


that are still outstanding, shall notexceed 20% of the share capital of thecompany; and

(b) must be settled by way of cash. Incontrast, where the underlyingfinancial instrument is a LocallyQuoted Share, settlement may eitherbe by delivery of the underlying sharesor cash.

Other general amendments

Other amendments to the Guidelinesinclude the following:-

(a) the requirement that the settlementprice of a structured warrant (in thecase of cash settlement) must beverified by an independent third partyto be appointed by the issuer, hasbeen removed;

(b) pricing information on a particularstructured warrants issue is nowallowed to be furnished to the SC twoclear market days after each date ofissue. Previously, such pricinginformation was required to befurnished one clear market day priorto each date of issue; and

(c) all proposals for the issue of structuredwarrants submitted to the SC mustnow be accompanied by a plan forthe marketing and promotion of theissue. Previously, there was no suchrequirement.

Case Updates

DefamationReynolds privilege: a judicial landmark

The English House of Lords in Jameel andOthers v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl[2006] UKHL 44 has reaffirmed thedefence of publication in the publicinterest, to a defamation action in thecontext of media publications, or what hasbecome known as “Reynolds privilege”,named after the earlier House of Lordsdecision in Reynolds v. Times NewspapersLtd [2001] 2 AC 127.

In a nutshell, the defence is availablewhere the publication is on a matter ofpublic interest and is the product ofresponsible journalism. The creation ofthe defence is a judicial landmark whichpromotes free and courageous reporting.

An action for defamation serves tovindicate the reputation of a claimantwhich has been injured by false aspersionsmade against the claimant. The law ofdefamation attempts to strike a balancebetween the protection of reputation andfreedom of expression. Traditionally, inEnglish common law, the law has beenweighted in favour of the claimant indefamation suits. For instance the lawpresumes the statement complained of tobe false, and places the burden on thedefendant to prove that it is true.

In the past, the common law hasrecognized that in certain circumstances,the public interest in the protection of aperson’s reputation must yield to a greaterpublic interest in certain circumstanceswhere public interest demands thefreedom of expression or communicationof the statement. Thus an absoluteprivilege or unconditional defence appliesto statements made in parliamentary orjudicial proceedings. More usually theprivilege or defence is qualified in that itcan be defeated by proof that thedefendant was actuated by malice, i.e.acting with an ulterior motive, or knowingthe statement to be false, or with recklessindifference as to its truth.

1 0 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


The classic situations in which qualifiedprivilege arise are where the person whomakes the statement has a legal, social ormoral duty to make it, and the person whoreceives the statement has a correspondinginterest or duty to receive it. Reciprocityof duty and interest is required. Commoninstances of these are employmentreferences and information given to thepolice or authorities about suspectedcrimes. The requirement for reciprocity ofduty and interest confines the defence tosituations where the maker and recipientare in a special position in relation to eachother, and thereby extends it only topublication to a person or a limitedaudience.

Prior to the Reynolds case, there was somelimited recognition that publication to awider public audience or the world at largemay be privileged where the public interestrequires it. As an instance, fair and accuratereports of parliamentary and judicialproceedings have long been recognized asprotected by qualified privilege. Otherthan such reports of parliamentary andjudicial proceedings, the steps takentowards widening of qualified privilege tobroader publication have been cautiousand tentative.

However, in Reynolds, the House of Lordstook a more decisive step towards thebroadening of the privilege and itsapplication to publications to the world atlarge on a matter of public interest andimportance, provided the publication is theresult of responsible journalism, whichimports that reasonable steps have beentaken to verify the facts.

The decision lays the rationale for thebroadening of the privilege squarely on thevalue to a democratic society of free andinformed discourse on matters of publicinterest and importance. What is of publicinterest is to be distinguished from whatis of interest to the public. There is noprotection for items that are merely ofgeneral interest or are sensational in nature.

The Reynolds decision is a significant stepin favour of freedom of expression on amatter of public interest, and is thus aseminal and ground breaking decision. Thecase itself concerned a newspaper report,but although what was at immediate stakewas freedom of investigative journalism andpublication by media, it appears that theprinciples enunciated are broader in nature.The intention in Reynolds was ofliberalization in favour of freedom of thepress, and the decision reflected similardevelopments in the United States and

some other common law jurisdictions. TheHouse of Lords did not find it necessaryto fit the decision within the strict confinesof the duty-interest reciprocity test oftraditional qualified privilege.

Qualified privilege is itself premised onbroader considerations of public interest,and it is that public interest on whichjustification is found for broadening theprivilege. Nevertheless, on a publicationof public interest, there may be found aduty on the newspaper to publish it andan interest on the part of the public toreceive it.

Which brings us to Jameel and Others v.Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl. The caseconcerned a report in the newspaper inthe wake of the September 11 2001destruction of the World Trade Centre inNew York. It was established that themajority of the hijackers came from SaudiArabia and strongly suspected that sourcesin the same country had financed them.The report centered on joint U.S. andSaudi efforts to stem the funding ofterrorists, and reported that the Saudigovernment at the request of the U.S. wasmonitoring the bank accounts of someprominent Saudi individuals andcompanies that wittingly or unwittinglyhave been used to finance terrorism, andnamed some of the parties, including theplaintiff who sued the newspaper.

The trial court and the Court of Appealfound against the newspaper, on theground that it had not acted reasonablyor responsibly in not delaying thepublication of the plaintiff’s name toenable him to make a comment. Thenewspaper had made attempts to contacthim the day before publication but he wasunavailable at the time, and proceededwith publication even though asked topostpone it.

On appeal, the House of Lords endorsedand reaffirmed the Reynolds privilege andheld that clearly the report was in thepublic interest. The defence had beenrejected on too narrow a ground in thecourts below and this subverted theliberalizing intention of Reynolds. The WallStreet Journal was a serious newspaperand the report was unsensational in tone,in other words it was a case of neutralinvestigative journalism. Baroness Halesummed up by saying “We need moresuch serious journalism in this country andour defamation law should encouragerather than discourage it”.

1 1Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


BankingWhether payments into overdraftfacility to be taken as reducing facilitylimit

In OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad v Au KeeSian & Anor [2006] 5 AMR 742, the issuethat arose for determination was whetherpayments made by the borrower towardshis overdraft facility should be consideredas having reduced the overdraft limit, ifthe payments were not specifically statedto be for the purpose of reducing theoverdraft limit.

The bank had granted the borrower loanfacilities, including an overdraft facility ofRM380,000, secured by a charge on athird party chargor’s land.

By a letter on April 18 1995, the borrowerinformed the bank that the company atits general meeting had resolved to reducethe facility by the following sums by therespective dates: RM50,000 by December31 1995; a further RM100,000 byDecember 31 1996; a further RM100,000by December 31 1997, and the facility tobe fully repaid by January 31 1998. Theborrower subsequently made twopayments of RM50,000 each,accompanied by letters stating that thepayments were to reduce the overdraftlimit from RM380,000 to RM330,000, andthen to RM280,000. Subsequently theborrower made further payments(subsequent further payments) but notaccompanied by a letter evincingintention to further reduce the overdraftlimit. The bank continued to allow theborrower to draw on the account, withthe overdraft balance standing atRM198,629.96 as at September 30 1998.

The borrower defaulted on the loanfacilities and the bank instituted action torealise the land. The chargor resisted therealisation contending in effect that thesubsequent further payments should alsohave been taken to have reduced theoverdraft limit further, and that the bankshould not have permitted furtherdrawings on the account. The High Courtdismissed the bank’s application, agreeingwith the chargor that there existed a causeto contrary against the grant of an orderfor sale.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, thebank argued that it could not use apayment to reduce the overdraft limitunless it was made specifically for thatpurpose, as was the situation with the first

two payments of RM50,000 each. Thesubsequent further payments were notmade specifically for the purpose ofreducing the overdraft limit. The borrowerhad reduced the overdraft l imit toRM280,000 only. Conversely, if the bankdid not permit the borrower to draw onthe account further, it would have beenin breach of contract. Agreeing with thebank, the Court allowed its appeal.

_____

Garnishee order: claim for dishonour ofcheques

If a bank is served with a “limited”garnishee order against its customer’saccount, i.e. where the amount stated tobe attached is only part of or less thanthe total credit balance in the account,the bank may freeze the account only upto the limit in the garnishee order, andno more. This is the effect of the decisionof the High Court in Top A Plastics Sdn.Bhd. & Ors v. Bumiputra Commerce BankBhd. [2006] 5 MLJ 620.

A garnishee order is where a judgmentcreditor attaches a debt owed by a thirdparty to the judgment debtor, in order tosatisfy the judgment debt obtained by thecreditor against the debtor. In this case, ajudgment creditor had attached by agarnishee order, the balance in thejudgment debtor’s current and fixeddeposit accounts kept at the bank. As aresult the bank froze the accounts totallingRM655,088.66. A further sum ofRM98,888.06 paid into the currentaccount after the garnishee order wasserved, was also frozen. Fourteen chequesamounting to RM24,074 drawn by thedebtor on the current account weredishonoured by the bank. The debtorsued the bank in contract and fordefamation, for wrongful dishonour of thecheques.

The garnishee order was not an“unlimited” garnishee order (i.e. one thatbinds the whole debt owed by the bankto the customer), but a “limited”garnishee order (i.e. one that binds thedebt up to a certain specified sum only).The garnishee was expressed to attachonly the judgment debt sum (RM8,800with further interest), and costs, whichcould be ascertained. However the bankfroze the entire accounts the total sum ofwhich far exceeded the judgment debtamount attached by the order.

1 2 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


The court held that as the garnishee orderwas only a limited one, the bank was inbreach of its duties as banker, in freezingthe whole accounts. The bank should havetransferred from the accounts to a suspenseaccount, a sum sufficient to satisfy thegarnishee order. The balance should havebeen left at the customer’s disposal. Thecustomer should be notified of this.Furthermore, the bank was wrongful infreezing the sum of RM98,888.06 paid inafter the garnishee order was served, as agarnishee order only binds debts inexistence at the date of service of the order.The court awarded the customer specialdamages of RM1,495,318.79, generaldamages of RM1 million and exemplarydamages of RM500,000.

LabourDoctrine of superior orders

An employee’s most fundamental duty isthat of obedience to the employer’s lawfuland reasonable orders. This is the doctrineof superior orders which was applied bythe Federal Court in Ngeow Voon Yean vSungei Wang Plaza Sdn Bhd/LandmarksHolding Bhd [2006] 5 MLJ 113.

In this case, the company entered into twoagreements to sell three properties to apurchaser. The appellant, the generalmanager of the company, executed theagreements on its behalf. In both theagreements, a 10% deposit was intendedto be paid up front with the balance to bepaid subsequently. In the agreementssigned by the appellant, the deposits underboth agreement were acknowledged ashaving been received, even though theAppellant was aware that this was not true.

The evidence accepted by the IndustrialCourt was that before the appellant signedthe agreements, he enquired of theexecutive director of the company whetherthe deposits had been paid, and the latterassured him that he would collect all themoneys due. Six months later, vide twodeeds of assignments, the purchaserassigned its rights under the agreementsto two financial institutions by way ofsecurity for loans. The consent of thecompany to the assignment was obtainedthrough the appellant’s endorsements tothe assignments, in which he alsoconfirmed that the purchase price for thethree units had been paid in full, but thiswas untrue.

The evidence accepted by the IndustrialCourt was that the appellant was notaware at the time that he signed theendorsements of consent, that the balanceof the purchase price had not been paid.Prior to signing he had enquired whetherthe balance purchase price had been paidand was assured by the executive directorthat everything was in order and it wasproper for him to sign the endorsements.The endorsements were signed on theinstructions of the executive director.

The appellant was subsequently broughtby the company before a domestic inquiryon charges of gross negligence andmisconduct based on hismisrepresentation in the endorsementsthat the purchase price had been fullypaid, when in fact it had not. Theappellant admitted the acts butcontended that he was merely carryingout the lawful orders of his superior, theexecutive director. The appellant wasfound guilty and dismissed from thecompany’s employment.

In the Industrial Court, the court ruled inthe appellant’s favour and held hisdismissal to be without just cause andexcuse. The award was quashed by theHigh Court, the decision of which wasaffirmed by the Court of Appeal.

On further appeal to the Federal Court,the Federal Court noted that the chargesagainst the appellant related only to hisendorsements of consent to theassignments, and held that the High Courtand Court of Appeal erred in finding thatthe appellant knew that his representationin the endorsements of consent that thepurchase price had been fully paid wasfalse, and in disregarding the IndustrialCourt‘s finding that the appellant wasinnocent of wrong doing and had merelyacted on the representations of hissuperior.

The Federal Court also applied thedoctrine of superior orders. The generalrule governing the doctrine of superiororders is nothing more than the duty ofobedience that is expected of anemployee. The most fundamental impliedduty of an employee is to obey hisemployer’s orders. The duty is howeverconfined to all the lawful and reasonableorders. The concept of an order beingmanifestly wrong has no part in thedoctrine of superior orders. An employeeis not entitled to disobey the orders of hissuperior on the ground that the order ismanifestly wrong. This exception howeveris applicable in military or criminal law.

1 3Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


The duty of obedience is subject to twoexceptions, firstly that the employer maynot order his employee to do somethingillegal and secondly, an employer maynot order his employee to do somethingdangerous. In the case of doubt as tolegality of the order, the proper course isto obey the order first and to challengethe legality in separate proceedings.

Intellectual PropertyIndustrial designs

In CKE Marketing Sdn Bhd v VirtualCentury Sdn Bhd & Anor ([2006] 5 CLJ30), the applicant applied to revoke the1st respondent’s industrial designregistration in respect of glass door displaychiller/freezer on the basis that the designwas not novel at the date of application(i.e. August 12 1999) because suchproducts bearing a similar design hadbeen sold in Malaysia prior to August 121999.

The High Court dismissed the applicationon the ground that the 1st respondent’sregistered design was novel as at August12 1999 because its features werematerially and visually different from thepurported prior art of traditionalrefrigeration apparatus that existed priorto the said date.

In coming to its decision, the High Courtheld that in determining whether a designwas novel, regard should be had to thenature of the article, extent of the priorart and the number of previous designsin the field in question; and further, thetotality of the design features taken as awhole and the overall appearance of thecommon articles are a paramountconsideration.

Further, the High Court also held thatwhere a proprietor claimed that thenovelty of its design resided in the shapeand configuration of the design, thenovelty was being claimed for the designas a whole. Thus, in determining whetherthe design was novel, it was wrong todivide the design into various parts andto compare them individually with apurported prior art.

It is perhaps interesting to note that theHigh Court here proceeded to adjudicate

the revocation application under section24 of the Industrial Designs Act 1996,when in an earlier decision of the HighCourt (with a different presiding judge)in Arensi-Marley (M) Sdn Bhd v MiddyIndustries Sdn Bhd [2004] 4 MLJ 46 it washeld that such application should be madeunder section 27 of the Industrial DesignsAct 1996 because section 24 was limitedto making, expunging or varying an`entry’ in the Register as opposed tosection 27 which was concerned withrevocation of the registration of a designas a whole. It would appear that the issueof whether section 24 or section 27 shouldbe relied on was not raised in CKEMarketing Sdn Bhd and the case of Arensi-Marley was not brought to the Court’sattention.

_____

Patents

In Patrick MG Mirandah v Ketua PengarahPerbadanan Harta Intelek Malaysia ([2006]3 CLJ 79), the plaintiff, a registered patentagent, requested from the defendant, theMalaysian Intellectual Property Office(MyIPO), to examine the file of a grantedpatent and to obtain certified extractstherefrom to enable him to render anopinion to his client on the risks ofinfringing the said patent. The defendantrejected the request on the basis thatsome of the documents in the file (i.e. thespecification as originally fi led,correspondence between the defendantand the patent agent for the patentconcerned) were confidential documentswhich could not be given to 3rd partieswithout the permission of the patentowner. As a result, the plaintiff filed anapplication in the High Court seeking adeclaration that he be allowed to inspectthe file and obtain certified extractstherefrom.

The High Court allowed the applicationon the ground that under section 33 andsection 34(1) of the Patents Act 1983, itis clear that any person may inspect thefile relating to a patent, including the filerelating to any patent application, afterthe grant of a patent; and to obtaincertified extracts therefrom on paymentof the prescribed fee. Further, the HighCourt was also of the view that the OfficialSecrets Act 1972 was not applicable asthe documents concerned were notclassified as “official secrets” under the1972 Act.

1 4 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


Abridged version of paperpresented by Yoong SinMin at the Asia BusinessForum Conference on LandLaw, 10th and 11th July2006, Kuala Lumpur

Prima facie, a secured creditor should not have to give uphis security in the face of liquidation. However, he wouldusually have to consider these three matters:-

(a) is the security valid against the Liquidator?

(b) how is the security to be realised or redeemed?

(c) what if the security value is more than the debt itself?

Validity of Security

If the chargor is a company, there is a need to ensure thecharge is registered with the Companies Commission ofMalaysia (CCM) within 30 days of its creation. Failure todo so would render such charge void against the Liquidatorand any creditor of the company. The liquidator can thentake steps to have the charge declared invalid. Thus, thecreditor, upon discovery of the omission to register thecharge with the CCM, has to apply to Court for anextension of time to register the charge with CCM. SuchCourt application would usually fail if there is a windingup, and where the liquidator invokes section 108(1) of theCompanies Act (the Act) to oppose the same.

Realisation of Security

If the charge or lien-holder’s caveat is over Land Registrytitle, the creditor needs to apply to the High Court, byway of an originating summons, for an order for sale.However, if there is a winding up order already madeagainst the chargor, the creditor would require to first filean application to Court to obtain leave to:-

(a) allow the creditor to proceed with such originatingsummons; and

(b) to proceed with action against the borrower to obtainjudgment. This is particularly if there is a lien-holder’scaveat, as judgment is required before an order forsale is given.

This is due to the provisions of section 226(3) of the Actwhich states:-

“ When a winding up order has been made or aprovisional liquidator has been appointed no action orproceeding shall be proceeded with or commencedagainst the company except -

(a) by leave of the Court; and

(b) in accordance with such terms as the Courtimposes.”

This delays the process of realising the land security andwhilst usually the Court would grant leave, should theliquidator discover defects in the security, he may opposethe leave application strenuously and such leave may verywell not be granted by the Court. Usually, for Land Office

How Secure is Security over Land?

Effect of liquidation and bankruptcy on land security

A lender, when asked to give a loan, always asks himself:“Can I get my money back?” Next to cash, public quotedblue-chip shares or iron-clad financial guarantees, landis considered as one of the safest form of security to takefor a loan. Needless to say, for land to function as goodsecurity, it has to have some value. Thus when a borrowerdefaults on a loan, a creditor who obtained such landsecurity would immediately expect to be able to realisesuch security without hindrance.

In the context of land to which title has been issued, thecommonly held forms of land security are a charge anda lien-holder’s caveat. If a charge has been taken assecurity, the method of realising such security is toproceed to obtain an order for sale, from the Court (ifRegistry title), or the Land Office (if Land Office title).Thereafter, the Court or Land Office will conduct a publicauction to sell the land. For a lien-holder’s caveat, theprocedure is the same as for realisation of a charge exceptthat the creditor has to first obtain Judgment againstthe borrower before the creditor can apply for the orderfor sale.

Liquidation of the borrower

For a creditor, time is usually of the essence to try torealise land security, for obvious reasons. However, if aborrower company goes into liquidation, complicationsmay set in. Where a company has been ordered by theCourt to be wound up, the company effectively ceasesall business operations and the law provides that its affairswill have to be handled by the Official Receiver (OR) orby a liquidator appointed by the Court. The assets ofthe company are vested in the OR or the liquidator andthe company itself (through its board of directors) cannotdeal with such assets any more. The rationale is thatwhen a company is compulsorily wound up, the assetsof the company have to be preserved for the benefit ofthe company’s creditors and not be dissipated by thedirectors or the shareholders. The OR/liquidator(liquidator) can then look to see what of the company’sassets are capable of being distributed to the creditorsof the company and to what extent.

1 5Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


applications for an order for sale, prior leave of Court isnot required, as such application is usually not considered“an action or proceeding” within the context of section226(3) of the Act, as this phrase is associated with Courtactions or proceedings.

Realisation through Receiver & Manager

Sometimes, a creditor may have a debenture charge overthe assets of a borrower company, as well as a land charge.The courts have recognised that a debenture charge overassets of a company can create a charge over land ownedby the company, if it is so expressed. It follows that aReceiver and Manager (R&M), who is appointed and hasbeen given a Power of Attorney under the debenture toact for the company, does have the power to sell chargedland, as agent of the company. Such agency and powerto sell land by the R&M terminates if the borrower is woundup but not otherwise (Kimlin Housing Development SdnBhd v Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd [1997] 2 MLJ 805,Melantrans Sdn Bhd v Carah Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2003] 2MLJ 193).

Thus, if the chargor is wound up, the chargee cannot utilisethe services of the R&M to sell the land but would thenhave to realise his land charge either through the NationalLand Code (NLC) provisions or, if the liquidator isamenable, through the liquidator selling the land by privatetreaty and redeeming the charge from the chargee.

Redemption when winding up Petition has been filed

If the chargor company is selling the charged land after awinding up petition has been presented and the creditoris agreeable to allow redemption, a prior order should beobtained from the court (usually from the Court hearingthe winding up proceedings) to validate:-

(a) the proposed sale of the land;

(b) the payment of the redemption sum to the creditor;

(c) the delivery of the title deed to the purchaser or hisfinancier.

This is due to the provisions of section 223 which state:-

“ Any disposition of the property of the companyincluding things in action and any transfer of shares oralteration in the status of the members of the companyafter the commencement of the winding up by theCourt shall unless the Court otherwise orders be void.”

Security value exceeds debt

For a Liquidator to process the debts of the company, hewould require its creditors to file a Proof of Debt (POD).Such POD is required to state:-

(a) the amount due to the creditor as at the date of thewinding up order;

(b) whether security has been given to the creditor bythe company and its estimated market value; and

(c) whether the creditor is surrendering the security.

If the creditor states he does not intend to surrenderthe security, the liquidator may admit, as the debtprovable, only the balance amount, i.e. the debt lessthe estimated security value. The dilemma a creditorhas is if the debt as at the winding up date is less thanthe value of the security. In such instance, filing a PODmay lock the creditor into only being able to recoverthe sum as at the winding up date, from realisation ofthe security, with the liquidator demanding the surplusto be paid to him. In these instances, a creditor maywish to consider standing outside the liquidation processby not filing a POD and proceeding to realise the securityto recover his full debt. If a creditor chooses to standoutside of the liquidation process, he cannot vote atany creditors’ meeting nor is he entitled to any dividenddeclared by the liquidator as payable.

Bankruptcy

Many of the concerns caused by the liquidation of acompany in respect of land security do not apply tobankruptcies, as the bankruptcy laws are less stringent.The power of the secured creditor to realise or deal withhis security is in fact not affected by a receiving ordermade against an individual debtor (see section 8(2),Bankruptcy Act). There is therefore no need to make aprior application to Court for leave to institute any actionCourt for realisation of the charged land of a bankrupt,unlike where the chargor is an insolvent company.

Creditors need to consider, the relatively new section8(2A), Bankruptcy Act, which reads:-

” Notwithstanding subsection (2), no secured creditorshall be entitled to any interest in respect of his debtafter the making of a receiving order if he does notrealise his security within six months from the dateof the receiving order.”

This provision is especially important to a creditor if heis over-secured. He will thus stand to forego allsubsequent interest accrued if he does not realise thesecurity within 6 months of the receiving order. In suchinstance, a creditor may wish to seriously considerstanding aside from the bankruptcy proceedings, torecover the full value of his debt from realisation of thesecurity.

1 6 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


Schemes of Arrangements

The infamous section 176 was a boon and a bane toborrowers and creditors at the height of the Asianfinancial crisis. Due to constant misinterpretation (somewould say misuse) of the provisions, it was amendedon 1.11.1998 to ensure its provisions operated in amanner which would assist both debtor and creditor,instead of merely the debtor, as had been the pastexperience.

Section 176 deals with any compromise or arrangementproposed between a company and its creditors and/ormembers or any class of them. In the context of adistressed company, section 176 is usually resorted toby the company to compromise its debts with itsmultiple creditors. This would usually entail thefollowing:-

(a) the company would prepare a proposed scheme ofarrangement (“Scheme”) which the company wouldpropose to its creditors;

(b) the creditors and members of the company wouldconsider the Scheme and a creditors’ meeting aswell as members’ meeting would be convened forthe relevant parties to vote on the Scheme;

(c) if the requisite statutory majority of votes for theScheme is obtained, the company applies to Courtfor court sanction of the Scheme;

(d) once the court sanctions the Scheme, it has to belodged with the CCM;

(e) upon such lodgment, the Scheme is binding on allcreditors and members. The original debts of thecreditors shall be replaced by the repayment methodas stated in the Scheme;

(f) Sometimes, to restrain its creditors from suing thecompany or realising its security, pending obtainingthe creditors’ approvals for the Scheme, thecompany may apply for and obtain a RestrainingOrder (RO) from the court.

A creditor holding land security of the company maybe affected if the company proceeds to rely on section176, as:-

(a) if a RO is obtained, it usually restrains all creditorsfrom taking any action against the company for theduration of RO or any extension thereof. This wouldusually include any realisation of the company’scharged lands;

(b) the Scheme may affect how much a creditor receivesdespite the creditor being a fully secured creditor.

No full recovery?

A Scheme needs to be passed by a majority in numberof creditors holding at least three quarters of the debts.A secured creditor has to be vigilant as its security maybe watered down in the following manner:-

(a) categorisation or class of creditors

· The creditor must ensure he is in the correct class ofcreditors.

· The debtor company may be one of a group of relatedcompanies applying for section 176 protection. Theymay group the secured creditors of all the applicantcompanies in one class of creditors.

· Such group may comprise fully and partially securedcreditors.

· If the Scheme is attractive to the partially securedcreditors but not to the fully secured creditors, e.g.on the basis that all the security be sold and thecreditors in this group share the proceeds of salerateably, the fully secured creditors would usually beout-voted.

· It is therefore important for a fully secured creditor ofa company to be classified together with other fullysecured creditors of that company only. The Courtcan set aside a Scheme if found to involve wrongclassification of creditors.

(b) no full recovery of security value

· The Scheme may not give full returns to the fullysecured creditor by under-valuing the land value.

· The Scheme may propose the return of only apercentage of the value of the security land.

(c) long repayment period

· The period for repayment may be stretched for sucha long period that will prejudice a fully securedcreditor whose security can be realised easily.

(d) exchange land security for IOUs

· A secured creditor’s rights under the approvedScheme may involve the secured creditors giving uphis security in exchange for bonds or loan stocksissued by a third party.

A creditor can oppose the Scheme in the following manner:-

(a) by applying to set aside the RO;

(b) by voting against the Scheme at the creditors’ meeting;

(c) by opposing the application to Court for final Courtapproval for the Scheme.

The Court will set aside the RO or not approve the Schemeif it is of the view it is not bona fide and is defective, it isdoomed to fail or does not safeguard the interests of thecreditors. With potential pitfalls in a Scheme which moreoften than not would dilute a secured creditor’s right, asecured creditor must scrutinise the Scheme and ensurehis right to the security and that the full value of the securityis preserved. Once a Scheme has the requisite statutorymajority for the Scheme and is approved by the Court,and once it is lodged with the CCM, it will bind all creditors,including the dissenting, minority creditors.

1 7Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


For the past few years, the firm has participated in the Students’ Union’s annual law conventions held in Malaysia. TheUnion’s membership is drawn from Malaysian students at law faculties in the United Kingdom. The convention is intendedto provide a bridge between the student of law and the legal profession, and provides opportunity for law firms toshowcase career opportunities, and present seminars on legal practice. The convention for 2006 was held on 26 August2006 at the University of Malaya. Several partners of the firm spoke on various topics of interest.

United Kingdom and Eire Malaysian Law Students’ Union Law Convention

The firm’s partner in its Taxation Law department, Sudharsanan Thillainathan, hasreturned after a study sabbatical to undertake an LL.M (Corporate and CommercialLaw) degree at the London School of Economics, specialising in tax law and aspectsof finance law. His dissertation for the degree was entitled “Tax Avoidance afterBarclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson: The Quest for Purpose!”

The dissertation analysed the decision of the House of Lords in Barclays MercantileBusiness Finance Ltd v Mawson [2005] 1 A.C.684, currently the leading case in theUnited Kingdom on tax avoidance and sought to address the following issues:

(a) the implications of Barclays for tax avoidance jurisprudence;(b) how the approach to tax avoidance in Barclays compares with prior judicial

approaches to tax avoidance; and(c) how Parliament can best give effect to and not subvert the decision in Barclays.

It is a hugely important decision and it is likely that it will have a bearing on taxavoidance jurisprudence throughout the Commonwealth.

Partner in Tax Department Returns withPostgraduate Degree with Tax Specialisation

1 8 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


The Firm Admits New Partners

The firm is pleased to announce the elevation of four new partners for 2007. Of the four, two are home grown,having undergone their pupillage with the firm and served as legal assistants (lawyers) prior to admission to partnership,and the other two joined the firm as legal assistants and have practised in the firm for a few years.

Ong Boo Seng was born in Batu Gajah, Perak and is a graduate in Bachelorof Commerce with Bachelor of Laws from the University of New South WalesAustralia. He was called to the Bar in 1998. His specialisation is IntellectualProperty. He is a committee member of the Malaysian Intellectual PropertyAssociation, and a registered trade mark and registered industrial designsagent.

Kevin Prakash hails from Kuala Lumpur, and obtained a Bachelor’sdegree in law from the University of London and Master’s degreein law from the University of Malaya. He was admitted to practicein 1998. His areas of practice are general civil litigation, buildingand construction, and shipping. He is an associate member ofthe Malaysian Institute of Arbitration.

Alvin Tang is from Kuala Lumpur, and was called to the English bar at Lincoln’sInn in 1998, and the Malaysian bar in 1999, after having obtained his LL.Bfrom University of Leicester United Kingdom. His main practice areas arecorporate disputes and general civil litigation. He is an associate memberof the Malaysian Institute of Arbitration.

Tan Gian Chung originates from Kuantan Pahang, and holds abachelor’s degree in law from the University of London. He wascalled to the Bar in 1999, and specialises in banking and financelitigation. Previously he was one of the Pahang Bar representativesto the National Young Lawyers Committee.

1 9Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


The following are extracts from the 2006 and 2007 editions of The Asia Pacific Legal500, published by Legalease, regarding some of the legal practice teams of the firm.Legalease is a leading publisher of information on international legal developments,and reference resources on law firms in over 80 countries, including the Legal 500series. Its website is the largest legal website outside of North America.

Dispute Resolution

” For many, Cyrus Das at Shook Lin & Bok is the leading litigator and counsel in Malaysia.He is a fine figurehead for the firm and subsequently an army of younger partners aremaking names for themselves in their own right. Porres Royan is another finecontentious practitioner. Mohanadass Kanagasabai is noted for his internationalarbitration expertise, particularly in relation to construction and engineering, includingLCIA cases.”

Banking and Finance

” Shook Lin & Bok has increased its presence in Islamic finance with Islamic bondissuances of up to RM1bn in value. The firm has advised the Central Bank of MalaysiaLaw Review Committee on Islamic law. The firm works with all the major banks. Itworked on an Islamic bond transaction that involved a three-party debt structure, thefirst of its kind in Malaysia. The team also derives considerable acumen from thelitigation group which has dealt with numerous banking disputes and gives additionalinsight into transaction documentation and potential problematic issues. The teamhas also experienced a surge in structured finance and works alongside Slaughter andMay, Linklaters, Clifford Chance and several Australian firms on banking and financematters. Jal Othman and Lai Wing Yong are the most prominent members of theteam.”

Corporate / M&A

” Shook Lin & Bok has long serviced a prestigious client base of private and public listedcompanies. In partners such as Patricia David and Wing Yong Lai it retains a stellarreputation and is frequently to be seen in high-value M&A and corporate financetransactions. International investment banks are regular clients of the firm.”

Intellectual Property

” Michael Soo heads Shook Lin & Bok’s highly esteemed intellectual property practice.The firm is regularly advising high-profile domestic and international clients, spanningsoftware infringement, movie piracy and counterfeit goods.”

Shipping

” Shook Lin & Bok boasts leading dispute resolution teams, which have been involvedin a number of shipping related issues.”

Real Estate and Construction

” Shook Lin & Bok has in Mohanadass Kanagasabai one of its most admired partners,boasting solid experience in construction disputes. He has also been involved inseveral construction arbitrations throughout Malaysia.”

Extracts from the 2006 and 2007 Editions of theAsia Pacific Legal 500

2 0 Issue No 1 2007

EST 1918


Too Hing Yeap Ext [email protected]

Dato’ Dr Cyrus V Das Ext [email protected]

Porres P Royan Ext [email protected]

Lai Wing Yong Ext [email protected]

Patricia David Saini Ext [email protected]

Nagarajah Muttiah Ext [email protected]

Michael CM Soo Ext [email protected]

Romesh Abraham Ext [email protected]

Jalalullail Othman Ext [email protected]

Yoong Sin Min Ext [email protected]

Yuen Kit Lee Ext [email protected]

Ivan Ho Yue Chan Ext [email protected]

Khong Mei Lin Ext [email protected]

Lee Wooi Mien Dahlia Ext [email protected]

Mohanadass Kanagasabai Ext [email protected]

Steven Thiruneelakandan Ext [email protected]

Adrian Hii Muo Teck Ext [email protected]

Goh Siu Lin Ext [email protected]

Hoh Kiat Ching Ext [email protected]

Lam Ko Luen Ext [email protected]

Chay Ai Lin Ext [email protected]

Sudharsanan Thillainathan Ext [email protected]

Chan Kok Keong Ext [email protected]

Tharmy Ramalingam Ext [email protected]

Ong Boo Seng Ext [email protected]

Kevin Prakash Ext [email protected]

Alvin Tang Wye Keet Ext [email protected]

Tan Gian Chung Ext [email protected]

CONSULTANT

Michael KL Wong Ext 215

PRACTICE AREAS & PARTNERS

CORPORATELai Wing YongPatricia David SainiJalalullail OthmanYuen Kit LeeIvan Ho Yue ChanKhong Mei LinHoh Kiat ChingChay Ai Lin

BANKING & FINANCELai Wing YongPatricia David SainiJalalullail OthmanYuen Kit LeeKhong Mei LinHoh Kiat ChingChay Ai Lin

PROPERTY & CONVEYANCINGLai Wing YongPatricia David SainiJalalullail OthmanYuen Kit LeeKhong Mei LinHoh Kiat ChingChay Ai Lin

INSURANCE, SHIPPING &AVIATIONPorres P RoyanNagarajah MuttiahRomesh AbrahamSteven ThiruneelakandanSudharsanan ThillainathanAlvin Tang Wye Keet

BANKING & FINANCE LITIGATIONToo Hing YeapPorres P RoyanYoong Sin MinLee Wooi Mien DahliaAdrian Hii Muo TeckGoh Siu LinChan Kok KeongTharmy RamalingamTan Gian Chung

CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING &ARBITRATIONDato’ Dr Cyrus V DasNagarajah MuttiahMohanadass KanagasabaiLam Ko LuenKevin Prakash

GENERAL & CIVIL LITIGATIONDato’ Dr Cyrus V DasPorres P RoyanNagarajah Muttiah

Romesh AbrahamMohanadass KanagasabaiSteven ThiruneelakandanAdrian Hii Muo TeckGoh Siu LinLam Ko LuenSudharsanan ThillainathanTharmy RamalingamKevin PrakashAlvin Tang Wye Keet

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY &LICENSINGMichael CM SooPorres P RoyanIvan Ho Yue ChanOng Boo Seng

PROBATE & ADMINISTRATIONDato’ Dr Cyrus V DasGoh Siu Lin

EMPLOYMENT & LABOURDato’ Dr Cyrus V DasRomesh AbrahamSteven Thiruneelakandan

TAX ADVISORY & COMPLIANCEDato’ Dr Cyrus V DasSudharsanan Thillainathan

COMPANY SECRETARIALSERVICESToo Hing YeapChay Ai Lin

The contents of this publication are ofa general nature and not intended aslegal advice. For any specific legaladvice, please contact the partners.

© Shook Lin & BokAll rights reserved

Shook Lin & Bok20th Floor, AmBank Group Building55, Jalan Raja Chulan50200 Kuala LumpurMalaysia

Tel: (603) 20311788Fax: (603) 20311775/8/9

website: www.shooklin.com.myemail: [email protected]

EST 1918KUALA LUMPURSHOOK Lin � BOK

PARTNERS

Advocates & Solicitors Registered Patent Agents Registered Trade Marks Agents Registered Industrial Design Agents Notary Public

EDITORIAL BOARDAdrian Hii Muo Teck

Steven ThiruneelakandanGoh Siu Lin

shook l bok kuala lumpur legal update issue no 1 2007 est 1918 shook lin bok kuala lumpur the...

Documents