1.

  To  understand  restructuring  principles  

2.  To  analyse  the  use  of  schemes  of  arrangement  

Photo by phsymyst - Creative Commons Attribution License https://www.flickr.com/photos/78624556@N08   Created with Haiku Deck  
Corporate Restructuring
Part  VII  of  CA,  ss  176-­‐181    

•  “Compromise”  or  “arrangement”  -­‐  par9es  of  conflic9ng  interests  
agree  to  accommodate  each  side  by  adjustment  or  modifica9on  of  
their  interests.    
   
•  “Reconstruc3on”  -­‐  rearranging  of  a  company’s  structure  -­‐  may  
involve  transfer  of  assets  of  one  company  to  a  new  company  or  an  
altera9on  to  the  capital  structure  of  the  company  -­‐  same  persons  
as  shareholders  or  membership  is  substan9ally  the  same.    
 

•  “Amalgama3on”  -­‐  2  or  more  companies  merge  together  or  one  

company  may  absorb  another  under  common  control.    
 
Company Rescue
•  Company  heavily  burdened  with  debt  but  business  
may  be  viable  -­‐  company  may  persuade  its  creditors  
that  it  is  in  their  interest  to  accept  a  compromise  of  
their  debts  through  a  scheme  of  arrangement  to  be  
proposed  and  agreed  to  in  the  manner  set  out  in  the  
Companies  Act  1965.    
 
Schemes of Arrangement
a structured proposal by the company to re-
negotiate or reschedule its debts and other
contractual agreements it has with its creditors.
 
scheme  +  arrangement  =  ?

•   scheme  literally  means  a  plan  or  a  system  for  doing  or  organizing  
something.    

•  arrangement  means  an  agreement.    

•  scheme  +  arrangement  =  is  essen9ally  a  court-­‐approved  agreement  

between  the  company  and  its  creditors  (e.g.  lenders  or  debenture  
holders),  or  its  securi9es  holders  (e.g.  shareholders)  which  may  be  
used  to  vary  exis9ng  rights  and  obliga9ons.  
M.  A.  Khan  (2011)  defines  a  scheme  of  arrangement  as  :  
 
• “a  statutory  procedure  which  requires  the  approval  of  the  
target  shareholders  at  a  mee9ng  and  the  sanc9on  of  the  
court,  whereby  a  compromise  or  arrangement  is  proposed  
between  a  company  and  its  creditors  or  between  the  
company  and  its  members  or  any  class  of  them”  
Types of scheme of compromise and arrangement with creditors:

 (a)  moratorium  scheme  of  arrangement  

 
 (b)  compromise  scheme    
 
What amounts to a scheme?
VC George J :

The company envisaged in s.176 is not necessarily a proposal from

the company to its members or to the creditors. The proposal could
emanate from any one - not only from the company and/or its board
or its members but even from the creditors or from some other
interested party, e.g. the auditors, a merchant bank looking at the
affairs of the company, solicitors of the company, solicitors for one
or more of the creditors, accountants and so on.”

Re Kuala Lumpur Industries Bhd [1990] 2 MLJ 180

 What amounts to a proposal?

According to Re GAE Ltd [1962] VR 252 :

- completeness  is  not  required.  It  is  to  be  expected  that  refinements  and  
modificaGons  will  be  needed  before  any  meeGng  is  sought.  
 
-­‐ It  is  only  necessary  that  the  proposal  is  detailed  enough  to  allow  the  
Court  to  consider  its  feasibility.  
 
-­‐ the  parGculars  of  the  scheme  gave  more  than  a  general  layout,  so  
that  the  court  would  be  able  to  determine  if  the  scheme  was  feasible,  
and  that  the  intenGon  to  invoke  the  secGon  was  bona  fide.
 Law & Procedure

Photo by peterned - Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License https://www.flickr.com/photos/76007934@N00   Created with Haiku Deck  
S. 176 CA :

• provides  a  statutory  form  by  which  creditors  vo9ng  

at  creditors'  mee9ngs  may  agree  to  a  scheme  of  
arrangement  which,  if  approved  by  the  court,  will  
bind  dissen9ng  creditors.    
• Note  that  s  293(3)  has  the  effect  of  prohibi9ng  
deeds  of  arrangement  for  companies.  
Sec. 176(1) calling creditors' & members' meetings  

•  The  first  stage  is  to  apply  to  the  court  for  mee9ngs  to  be  called.    
•  by  the  company  or  any  creditor  or  member  or  the  liquidator  (if  
the  company  is  being  wound  up)    
•  by  origina9ng  summons:  O  88  r  2  Rules  of  Court  2012  
Sec. 176(1) calling creditors' & members' meetings  

•  Generally  made  ex-­‐parte  BUT  

•  Per  Rekhraj  J  in  Re  Foursea  Construc9on  (M)  Sdn  Bhd  [1998]:  
Separate meetings of members & creditors
Court  may  order  the  scheme  mee3ngs  of  the  creditors/members/class  of  
members  to  be  summoned/convened:  s  176(1)  CA    

•  Separate  mee9ngs  of  members  and  creditors  have  to  be  called.    
•  Where  there  are  different  classes  of  members  or  creditors,  class  mee9ngs  
may  have  to  be  held.    
•  Classes  will  be  viewed  as  separate  if  their  interests  are  so  different  that  they  
will  not  be  able  to  consult  together  with  a  view  to  their  common.  
•  The  court  will  refuse  to  call  mee9ngs  if  it  considers  that  the  scheme  will  not  
be  approved.  
•  Since  arrangements  are  proposed  between  the  company  and  its  creditors  or  
members,  the  company  must  approve  the  arrangement  either  by  resolu9on  
of  the  board  or  in  general  mee9ng.  
Separate meetings of members & creditors
•  In  Sri  Hartamas  Development  Sdn  Bhd  v  MBf  Finance  Bhd  [1990]:  
 
 the  court  set  aside  the  ex  parte  order  calling  creditors'  and  
members'  mee9ngs  on  the  grounds  that  the  interests  of  the  
unsecured  creditors  were  not  adequately  safeguarded  and  that  it  
was  against  public  policy  to  sanc9on  a  scheme  of  arrangement  
where  the  company  was  hopelessly  insolvent.  
•  Explanatory  statement  to  be  sent  together  with  the  
no9ce  summoning  the  mee9ng:  s  177(1)(a)  CA  
 
•  Contents  of  explanatory  statement:  
 
•  Re  Rankin  and  Blackmore  1950  SC  218  
•  Re  Dorman  Long  &  Co  Ltd  [1934]  Ch  653  
Adjournment  :  s.  176(2)  CA

A meeting held pursuant to an order of the Court made under

subsection (1) may be adjourned from time to time if the resolution
for adjournment is approved by a majority in number representing
three-fourths in value of the creditors or class of creditors or members
or class of members present and voting either in person or by proxy at
the meeting.  
Section 176(3) : Voting on the scheme

•  The  required  majority  is  a  majority  in  number  

represen9ng  three-­‐quarters  in  value  who  would  actually  
vote.    

•  In  the  case  of  members,  the  reference  to  value  is  usually  
propor9onal  to  the  nominal  value  of  shares  held:  Re  NFU  
Development  Trust  Ltd  [1973]  1  All  ER  135  
APPLICATION TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL
Application to court for approval of the compromise / arrangement

•  The  court  may  grant  its  approval  to  the  compromise  or  arrangement  
subject  to  such  altera9ons  or  condi9ons  as  it  deems  just:  s  176(4)  CA.  

•  Once  approved,  the  creditors/class  of  creditors/members/class  of  

members  and  the  company  or  in  the  case  of  a  company  in  the  course  
of  being  wound  up,  the  liquidator  and  contributories  of  the  company  
are  bound  by  the  terms  of  the  compromise  or  arrangement:  s  176(3)  
CA.    
Section 176(3) : 'if approved by order of the Court' 

The  court  will  consider:  

1.  statute  has  been  complied  with,    
2.  the  majority  fairly  represented,  acted  bona  fide  &  not  promo9ng  
interests  adverse  to  the  class,    
3.  Reasonable  man  test.    
The  court  will  not  merely  act  as  an  overseer  of  bona  fides,  slow  to  differ,  
unless  the  class  has  not  been  properly  consulted  /  mee9ng  not  properly  
considered  the  interests  of  the  class.  
Section 176(3) : 'if approved by order of the
Court' 
•  Re  Halley's  Departmental  Store  Pte  Ltd  [1996]  2  SLR  70  at  73  per  GP  
Selvam  J.  :  

 Whether  the  proposed  arrangement  is  a  fair  one:  

 
•  of  some  real  benefit  to  the  creditors  and  not  result  in  the  creditors  gekng  
nothing  or  nearly  nothing  or  the  creditors  being  deprived  of  a  legi9mate  
advantage  they  would  get  by  winding  up  the  company.    
How the court exercises its discretion:
 
•  Sri  Hartamas  Development  Sdn  Bhd  v  MBf  Finance  Bhd  [1990]  :  

•  Nite  Beauty  Industries  Sdn  Bhd  v  Bayer  (M)  Sdn  Bhd  [2000]  :  

When does the order take effect :

S. 176(5) & (6)

Restraining Order under 176 (10)
 Sec9on  176(10)  enables  an  applica9on  to  
be  made  to  'restrain  further  proceedings'  
prior  to  winding  up  where  'a  compromise  
or  arrangement  has  been  proposed'.  
Section 176(10) : restraining order 
•  The  proposal  should  be  known  publicly,  or  at  least  to  one  or  
more  of  the  creditors  likely  to  be  affected.    

•  It  is  not  necessary  for  it  to  be  known  to  all  creditors  or  that  
the  scheme  be  in  completed  form  ready  for  considera9on;  
but  its  general  principles  at  least  must  have  been  defined  
and  it  must  be  at  a  stage  where  a  mee9ng  of  creditors  could  
be  ordered:    
 Re  GAE  Pty  Ltd  [1962]  VR  252  
When  must  the  applicaGon  be  made?  
The  court  will  only  grant  this  order  provided:    
 
a)  the  applicant  has  sa9sfied  the  condi9ons  set  
out  in  s  176(10A)  CA  
b)  only  if  the  court  thinks  that  it  is  fit  to  grant  
such  an  order.  
In  making  a  Restraining  Order:  
 
a)  There  must  be  a  proposal  of  the  scheme  of  
compromise  or  arrangement;  and  

b)  There  would  be  a  bona  fide  s  176(1)  CA  

applica9on  (for  a  court  convene  mee9ng).    
 
  
Before  a  restraining  order  can  be  granted,  
there  must  be  in  place  viable  proposal  for  
the  consideraGon  of  the  court.    
 

Re  Lityan  Holdings  Bhd  [2007]:
 
 
The  gran3ng  of  a  restraining  order  is  a  serious  maVer  that  
involves  the  interest  of  shareholders  and  creditors  of  the  
company.    
(1)  Before  a  restraining  order  can  be  granted:  there  must  be  a  
proposed    compromise  or  arrangement  
(2)   the  company  must  be  able  to  present  a  viable  proposal  for  
the  considera9on  of  the  court  supported  by  views  of  experts.  
 
Bina  Goodyear  Bhd  v  Ambank  (M)  Bhd  &  Anor  [2014]

•   this  court  is  of  the  considered  opinion  that  it  would  only  be  wise  and  
fair  to  all  par9es  concerned  including  the  creditors,  based  on  the  facts  
of  the  present  case  to  allow  the  applica9on  of  the  RO  at  least  for  one  
final  9me.  This  would  allow  an  opportunity  for  the  scheme  to  at  least  
be  rightly  considered  for  its  implementa9on.  An  RO  denied  now  
would  only  mean  the  applicant  would  be  further  put  in  a  posi9on  of  
difficulty  in  trying  to  address  the  interest  of  all  par9es  in  its  present  
challenging  financial  posi9on.  In  this  regard  it  would  not  benefit  
anyone  if  the  RO  is  not  granted...."  
  
The  scheme  of  arrangement  should  have  
sufficient  parGculars  to  enable  the  court  to  
assess  that  it  is  feasible  and  merits  due  
consideraGon  by  the  creditors  when  it  is  
eventually  placed  before  them  in  detailed  
form.  

•  Re  Kuala  Lumpur  Industries  Berhad  [1990]  
•  Re  GAE  Ltd  [1962]  VR  252    
Sec.  176(1)  &  176  (10)
Re  Kuala  Lumpur  Industries  Bhd  [1990]:  

VC  George  J  considered  this  sec9on  and  said:  

•  In  my  view,  what  must  be  available  to  the  court  when  considering  
a  s  176(10)  applica3on  must  be  a  proposal  of  a  scheme  of  compromise  
or  arrangement  not  necessarily  ready  for  presen9ng  to  the  creditors  to  
be  voted  upon  but  with  sufficient  par9culars  to  enable  the  court  to  
assess  that  it  is  feasible  and  merits  due  considera9on  by  the  creditors  
when  it  is  eventually  placed  before  them  in  detailed  form.  Further,  the  
court  has  to  be  sa3sfied  that  there  is  or  that  there  would  be  a  bona  
fide  s  176(1)  applica3on.  
 DuraGon  for  the  restraining  order  under  s  176(10)  
Sec.  176  (10A)  :  
 
for  a  period  of  not  more  than  ninety  days  or  such  longer  period    
the  Court  may  for  good  reason  allow  if  and  only  if—  
 
(a)  it  is  sa9sfied  that  there  is  a  proposal  for  a  scheme  of  compromise  or  
 arrangement;  
(b)    the  restraining  order  is  necessary  to  enable  the  company  and  its  creditors  to  
 formalize  the  scheme  of  compromise  or  arrangement;  
(c)  a  statement  in  the  prescribed  form  as  to  the  affairs  of  the  company  made  up  
 to    a  date  not  more  than  three  days  before  the  applica9on  is  lodged    
(d)    it  approves  the  person  nominated  by  a  majority  of  the  creditors  in  the  
 applica9on  
Good  reason  for  extension  of  restraining  order  :
•  In  Metroplex  Bhd  &  Ors  v  Morgan  Stanley  Emerging  
Markets  Inc  &  Ors;  RHB  Sakura  Merchant  Bankers  Bhd  &  
Ors  (interveners)  [2005]  
•  there  was  no  good  reason  to  extend  the  same.    

•  'good  reason’  :  had  to  be  predicated  upon  the  applicants'  bona  
fide  conduct  towards  achieving  a  feasible  detailed  scheme  of  
arrangement  
Good  reason  for  extension  of  restraining  order  :

• A  restraining  order  could  only  be  extended  for  a  longer  

period  for  good  reason  and  if  and  only  if  the  condi9ons  
set  out  in  s176(10A)  (a)–(d)  had  been  sa9sfied,  and    
• there  was  reasonable  progress  towards  the  
achievement  of  a  viable  and  feasible  creditors'  scheme  
of  arrangement.    
Good  reason  for  extension  of  restraining  order  :

Re  Kai  Peng  Bhd  [2007]    

•  Extension  of  the  restraining  order  was  granted.    
•  The  court  held  that  the  applicant  company  in  its  applica9on  for  
an  extension  of  the  restraining  order  had  met  afresh  all  the  
requirements  found  in  s  176(10A),  and  the  court  was  sa9sfied  
that  there  were  'good  reasons'  to  allow  such  an  extension.  
Effect  of  the  Restraining  Order:

•  Re  Ar3s3c  Colour  Prin3ng  Co  (1880)    

•  The  court's  power  to  restrain  proceedings  gives  it  power  
to  restrain  'proceedings  in  any  ac9on  or  maser‘  

•  Re  Panglobal  Bhd  [1999]  

•  This  includes  restraining  the  appointment  of  a  receiver  
and  manager  under  a  debenture.  
Consequence  of  court  granGng  an  order  to  
restrain  further  proceeding:
 
•  Right  of  access  by  person  approved  or  appointed  by  the  court  to  act  as  a  director  of  
the  company  under  s  176(10A)(d)  CA:  s  176(10B)  CA.  
•  Prohibi9on  against  disposi9on  of  company’s  property  auer  the  grant  of  the  
restraining  order  other  than  those  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business:  s  
176(10C)  CA.  
•  Consequence  for  breaching  s  176(10C)  CA,  every  officer  of  the  company  who  is  in  
default  shall  be  guilty  of  an  offence  against  CA:  s  176(10D)  CA.  
•  Requirement  to  lodge  no9ce  with  CCM  and  publish  in  a  daily  newspaper  circula9ng  
generally  throughout  Malaysia.  Non-­‐compliance-­‐penalty  RM100,000:  s  176(10E)  CA.  
•  Effect  of  an  order  made  under  s  176(10)  CA  against  any  person  other  than  the  
company  that  had  applied  for  the  restraining  order:  s  176(10F),  s  176(10G)  CA.    
RECONSTRUCTION  &  AMALGAMATION
ReconstrucGon
•  A  reconstruc9on  occurs  where  a  company  is  dissolved  and  
its  business  assets  are  transferred  to  a  new  company  whose  
cons9tu9on  is  prac9cally  the  same  and  whose  membership  
is  substan9ally  the  same.  
•  Re  South  African  Supply  &  Cold  Storage  Co  [1904]  2  Ch  268,  286  

•  Brooklands  Selangor  Holdings  Ltd  v  CIR  [1970]      

Amalgamation: Re  Hayes’  Will  Trusts  [1953]  2  All  ER  1242,  1247;    
Re  South  African  Supply  &  Cold  Storage  Co  [1904]  

•  2  companies  transfer  their  assets  to  a  3rd  en9ty  or  one  

company  is  aborted  into  another.  

•  Vaisey  J  in  Re  Hayes’  Will  Trusts:    

   
 Romer  LJ  in  Re  Walker’s  Seslement  quotes  the  defini9on  found  in  
Buckley  on  the  Companies  Acts,  11th  ed,  at  p  487:  'The  word  
“amalgama9on”  has  no  definite  legal  meaning.  It  contemplates  a  
state  of  things  under  which  2  companies  are  so  joined  as  to  form  
a  3rd  en3ty,  or  1  company  is  absorbed  into  and  blended  with  
another  company'.  
 
'reconstrucGon‘  -­‐vs-­‐  'amalgamaGon'  
•   A  reconstruc9on  occurs  where  a  company  is  dissolved  and  
its  business  assets  are  transferred  to  a  new  company  
whose  cons9tu9on  is  prac9cally  the  same  and  whose  
membership  is  substan9ally  the  same.    

•  An  amalgama9on  differs  from  a  reconstruc9on  in  that  

there  is  not  one  but  two  transferor  companies.  It  is  a  
commercial  term  having  no  definite  legal  meaning,  by  
which  two  companies  transfer  their  assets  to  a  third  en9ty  
or  one  company  is  absorbed  into  another.  
 Procedure  of  ApplicaGon
•  Sec.  178  CA  :  Court’s  power  to  make  orders  to  facilitate  the  scheme.    
•  Rule  12  Companies  Regula9on  1966  :  
1)  The  prescribed  manner  of  giving  no9ce  under  subsec9on  (1)  of  sec9on  180  of  the  Act  to  a  dissen9ng  
shareholder  is  by  delivering  to  the  shareholder  personally  or  by  sending  by  post  to  the  shareholder  at  
the  address  of  the  shareholder  shown  in  the  books  of  the  transferor  company  a  no9ce  in  accordance  
with  Form  57  the  Second  Schedule  to  these  Regula9ons.  
2)  The  prescribed  manner  of  giving  no9ce  under  subsec9on  (3)  of  sec9on  180  of  the  Act  to  a  
shareholder  who  has  not  assented  to  a  scheme  or  contract  is  by  delivering  to  the  shareholder  
personally  or  by  sending  by  post  to  the  shareholder  at  the  address  of  the  shareholder  shown  in  the  
books  of  the  transferor  company  a  no9ce  in  accordance  with  Form  58  in  the  Second  Schedule  to  
these  Regula9ons.    
3)  In  this  regula9on,  "transferor  company"  has  the  meaning  assigned  to  it  in  sec9on  180  of  the  Act.  

•  An  applica9on  under  this  sec9on  should  be  made  by  origina9ng  summons:  O  88  r  2  ;  Rules  of  Court  2012  
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF SHARES
2  ways  of  acquiring  shares  in  target  company  
compulsorily:  

a)  By  way  of  a  general  takeover  bid  –  s  222  CMSA.  

b)  By  way  of  contract  or  scheme  of  arrangement  –  s  180  CA    
Compulsory  AcquisiGon  of  Shares  :  s.  180  CA

•  The  very  similar  wording  of  the  Capital  Markets  and  

Services  Act  2007;  s.222  and  s.223  rela9ng  to  takeover  
offers  for  all  the  shares  or  all  the  shares  in  a  par9cular  
class  or  classes  in  a  target  company.    
Non-­‐applicability  to  take-­‐over  offers  

•  Sec.  225  of  the  CMSA  specifically  provides  that  Sec.  180  
CA  shall  not  apply  in  respect  of  takeover  offers  to  which  
s  222(1)  of  CMSA  applies.  
Purpose  and  policy    
•  The  sec9on  is  essen9ally  concerned  with  the  amalgama9on  or  merger  
of  companies.    
•  Complementary  to  provisions  on  reconstruc9ons  
•  This  sec9on  cannot  be  invoked  by  a  natural  person.  
CalculaGon  of  required  majority
•  Sec.  180(1)  is  ouen  thought  to  give  the  right  to  an  acquiror  who  has  
obtained  90%  of  the  issued  share  capital  to  compulsorily  acquire  the  
remaining  10%.  
•  s  180(1):  the  required  approval  is  that  of  'the  holders  of  nine-­‐tenths  in  
nominal  value  of  those  shares  or  of  the  shares  of  that  class  
•  any  shares  held  by  the  transferee  company  or  its  nominee  are  to  be  
excluded    
•  the  requirement  is  for  the  approval  of  offeree  shareholders  
cons9tu9ng  nine-­‐tenths  in  value  of  the  shares  sought  to  be  acquired,  
not  nine-­‐tenths  of  the  en9re  issued  share  capital.    
 s  180(1)  contrasted  with  s  180(3)
•  S.  180(1)  :  covers  the  situa9on  where  nine-­‐tenths  of  the  shareholders  of  the  
transferor  company  have  approved  and  accepted  the  offer  by  the  transferee  
company.  Subsequent  thereto,  the  transferee  company  may,  at  any  9me  
within  two  months  auer  the  offer  has  been  so  approved,  give  no9ce  to  the  
dissen9ng  shareholders  of  their  desire  to  acquire  his  share.  And  within  one  
month  of  such  no9ce  the  dissen9ng  shareholder  may  apply  to  court  to  resist  
such  acquisi9on.  

•  S.  180(3)  covers  the  situa9on  where  the  shares  of  the  consen9ng  majority,  
equivalent  to  nine-­‐tenths  in  total  value,  had  already  been  transferred  to  the  
transferee  company.  In  that  event  it  becomes  incumbent  upon  the  transferee  
company  to  give  no9ce  of  that  fact  to  the  dissen9ng  shareholder  within  1  
month  from  the  date  of  the  said  transfer.  
Shanta  Holdings  Sdn  Bhd  v  Golden  Uni-­‐ConsorGum  [2008]

The  Federal  Court  held  that  :  

•  s  180(3)  could  only  be  invoked  in  a  situa9on  where  the  shares  of  the  consen9ng  
majority,  equivalent  to  nine-­‐tenths  in  total  value,  had  already  been  transferred  to  the  
transferee  company.    
•  In  such  an  event,  it  became  incumbent  upon  the  transferee  company  to  give  no9ce  of  
that  fact  to  the  dissen9ng  shareholder  within  1  month  from  the  date  of  the  transfer.    
•  The  transferee  company  had  no  right  to  acquire  the  shares  of  the  dissen9ng  shareholder  
unless  and  un9l  no9ce  had  been  given  by  the  dissen9ng  shareholder  under  s  180(3)(b).  
•  An  applica9on  to  the  court  was  only  possible  if  the  par9es  were  unable  to  reach  
agreement  on  the  terms  of  the  acquisi9on  of  the  shares  by  the  transferee  company.  
Such  disagreement,  could  only  arise  following  the  giving  of  a  no9ce  under  s  180(3)(b).    
•  Without  such  a  no9ce  having  been  given,  no  dispute  could  have  arisen  upon  which  an  
applica9on  to  court  for  determina9on  of  the  price  could  have  been  founded.  It  followed  
that  whatever  order  made  by  the  court  of  first  instance  pursuant  to  such  applica9on  was  
null  and  of  no  effect  and  could  be  set  aside  ex  debito  jusiZae  (as  a  maser  of  right).  
 Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co  &  Anor  v  Silverstone  Tire  &  Rubber  Co  S/B  
[1993]

Essen3al  Readings  
     
Shan9  Rachagan  et  al,  Concise  Principles  of  Company  Law  in  Malaysia  (2nd  edn  Lexis  Nexis,  Petaling  Jaya  2010),  Chap  21  
Companies  Act  1965    
Capital  Market  &  Services  Act  
  •  The  court  held  that  the  func9on  of  copyright  is  to  preserve  
rights   over   the   ar9s9c   expression   of   the   drawings   and   not  
as   a   measure   to   protect   the   func9onality   of   the   ar9cles  
drawn.