Latest news with #SapuraResources
Free Malaysia Today
4 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
I was silent at Sapura board meetings, Shahriman tells court
Shahriman Shamsuddin (left) is petitioning to wind-up Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd, the parent of the Sapura group valued at RM832 million, on account of an alleged breakdown of mutual trust and confidence with elder brother Shahril. KUALA LUMPUR : Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd director Shahriman Shamsuddin told the High Court here that he did not oppose proposals made by elder brother Shahril to the Sapura Resources Bhd (SRB) board, citing a 'conflict' on account of them being siblings. In cross-examination, lawyer S Rabindra, representing Shahril, questioned Shahriman about complaints contained in his petition to wind-up Sapura Holdings due to an alleged breakdown of mutual trust between the brothers. In the petition, Shahriman had claimed that Shahril was 'effectively cornering' SRB into accepting either a RM100 million loan offered in September 2022, which involved a rights issue, or a RM40 million bridging loan offered by the Sapura group, failing which the company stood to lose its collateralised properties. 'The petitioner (Shahriman) was not consulted on this matter at Sapura Holdings level,' the document said further. Rabindra: Your point here is that Shahril is saying to SRB: 'You have to pay back the RM40 million that was previously advanced (by the Sapura group) unless you agree to carry out a rights issue based on the September 2022 terms and conditions.' Is that a fair summary of what you're saying? Shahriman: Pay immediately or do the rights issue. Another of Shahriman's complaints was that Shahril had written on behalf of Sapura Holdings to SRB, undertaking to provide financial assistance of up to RM152 million without consulting him. He also claimed Shahril had offered to personally underwrite any rights issue by SRB that was not taken up, to a value of RM113 million. Shahriman said this would dilute his position in both SHSB and SRB and break the 'equal joint holdings spirit' laid down by their parents. Rabindra: You mentioned earlier the distinction between Shahril's personal position and that of the company. As a director of Sapura Resources, during the time when letters were being exchanged, did you ever raise the question: 'Was this a private initiative (by Shahril), or an SRB initiative?' Shahriman: I did not raise it because I would have been conflicted. I am his brother and also a shareholder of the holdings. So I had to keep quiet. Rabindra: You sat on the Sapura Resources board with your brother, correct? Shahriman: Yes. Rabindra: You've disagreed with your brother during board meetings before, haven't you? Shahriman: Sometimes, yes, about this matter, too. Rabindra: So, in your capacity as a director of Sapura Resources, you could have raised the question: 'Why are we entertaining a personal proposal by Shahril?' Shahriman: Shahril is my brother. I'm not allowed to say anything at the board (meeting). Rabindra: I put it to you that that is far from the truth. You could have spoken up, you simply chose not to. Do you agree or disagree? Shahriman, however, chose not to respond. Sapura Holdings is the parent entity of over 40 subsidiaries valued at RM832 million, including the publicly-listed SRB. Both Shahril and Shahriman hold a 48% stake each in Sapura Holdings, with the remaining 4% owned by Rameli Musa. In the petition filed last September, Shahriman claims that an irreparable breakdown of mutual trust and confidence between him and Shahril necessitated the dissolution of Sapura Holdings. However, Sapura Holdings, Shahril and Rameli, all named as respondents, oppose the petition, contending that the company was never intended to be a family business and that dissolution would be neither just nor equitable. The hearing before Justice Leong Wai Hong will continue on June 13.
Free Malaysia Today
26-05-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Sapura Holdings agreed to loan Sapura Resources RM192mil, court hears
Shahriman Shamsuddin is seeking to wind up Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd, the parent entity of over 40 subsidiaries valued at RM832 million, including Sapura Resources Bhd. KUALA LUMPUR : Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd (SHSB) director Shahriman Shamsuddin today agreed that the company had approved RM192 million in financial assistance to Sapura Resources Berhad (SRB) six years ago. The assistance was to allow SRB to settle its liabilities in connection with Permata Square, the group's flagship 52-storey office tower at KL City Centre. Cross-examined by counsel S Rabindra, representing elder brother Shahril, Shahriman agreed that the decision was made at a board meeting held on July 23, 2019. Present at the meeting were SHSB's then chairman Shamsuddin Abdul Kadir, Shahril, Shahriman, Rameli Musa, and Sapura Group's chief operating officer, Zarif Hashim. However, Shahriman refused to concede the decision was never reversed. Rabindra: In the course of my cross-examination, I have taken you through the minutes of four subsequent board meetings – on May 21, 2022, Aug 30, 2022, Oct 4, 2023 and Nov 21, 2023. Shahriman: Yes. Rabindra: Could you please confirm that there was no attempt by you at any of these board meetings to reopen or revisit the board decision made on July 23, 2019 to provide the financial assistance to SRB. Shahriman: I disagree. Rabindra then asked Shahriman to pinpoint where the request to revisit the decision contained, but Shahriman's counsel, Gopal Sreeenivasan, interjected: 'My Lord, this is something which can be left to submissions. The position has been put to the witness.' Rabindra: Would you confirm that the decision at the July 23, 2019 meeting to provide financial assistance remained intact? Shahriman: No, the position has changed. Rabindra then told the court he will take the matter up in submissions. Shahriman is seeking to wind up SHSB, the parent entity of over 40 subsidiaries valued at RM832 million, including the publicly listed SRB. He has also named Shahril and Rameli as co-respondents. Both Shahril and Shahriman hold a 48% stake in SHSB, with the remaining 4% owned by Rameli. In the petition filed last September, Shahriman claims that an irreparable breakdown in mutual trust and confidence between him and Shahril necessitated SHSB's dissolution. However, SHSB, Shahril and Rameli oppose the petition, contending that SHSB was never intended as a family business and that dissolution would be neither just nor equitable. The hearing before Justice Leong Wai Hong continues.
Free Malaysia Today
22-05-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Sapura Resources assets at risk due to JV default, court told
Shahriman Shamsuddin is seeking to wind up Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd, the parent entity of over 40 subsidiaries valued at RM832 million, including Sapura Resources Bhd. KUALA LUMPUR : Public-listed entity Sapura Resources Berhad (SRB) defaulted on a joint venture agreement (JVA) in 2022, placing the company's assets at risk, Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd (SHSB) director Shahriman Shamsuddin told the High Court today. Testifying at the hearing of his petition to wind up SHSB, Shahriman acknowledged that SRB had breached the terms of the JVA by failing to meet a RM40 million cash call made by Impian Bebas Sdn Bhd. Impian Bebas is a joint venture vehicle set up by SRB and KLCC Holdings Sdn Bhd (KLCCH) to develop Permata Square, a 52-storey tower in the KL city centre – the Sapura group's flagship building. Cross-examined by S Rabindra, counsel for elder brother Shahril – a respondent in the petition – Shahriman conceded that a default would have carried 'onerous' consequences. Rabindra: If SRB defaults under the JVA, does KLCCH have the right to acquire SRB's properties at a 20% discount? Shahriman: Yes. Rabindra: And no one wanted that to happen, as indicated in your letter to KLCCH dated Aug 1, 2022? Shahriman: Yes. To avoid the consequences of a default, Shahriman said he issued the Aug 1 letter to KLCCH which contained a 'without prejudice' offer to resolve the matter, hoping for a positive response. Rabindra: Would you agree that KLCCH was uninterested in responding (to your letter)? Shahriman: Yes. Rabindra then pointed to a statement in Shahriman's petition which referenced a subsequent SRB board meeting, held on Sept 7, 2022, where several potential solutions were discussed. The lawyer also referred to the minutes of that meeting, said to contain a proposal made by Shahril – dubbed Option 4 – which involved selling SRB's stake in Permata Tower. Rabindra: (Was) Option 4 (discussed) within SRB's board? Shahriman: No. Shahriman is seeking to wind up SHSB, the parent entity of over 40 subsidiaries valued at RM832 million, including the publicly listed SRB. Both Shahril and Shahriman hold a 48% stake in SHSB, with the remaining 4% owned by Rameli Musa, also named as a respondent. In the petition filed last September, Shahriman claims that an irreparable breakdown in mutual trust and confidence between him and Shahril necessitated SHSB's dissolution. However, SHSB, Shahril and Rameli oppose the petition, contending that SHSB was never intended as a family business and that dissolution would be neither just nor equitable. The hearing continues before Justice Leong Wai Hong.
Free Malaysia Today
21-05-2025
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
No documents to prove Sapura a family business, founder tells court
Shahriman Shamsuddin wants the Kuala Lumpur High Court to wind up Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd, citing an irreparable breakdown of mutual trust and confidence between elder brother Shahril and himself. KUALA LUMPUR : The founder of the Sapura group admitted in the High Court today that there was no documentary evidence to prove Sapura Holdings Sdn Bhd (SHSB) was a family company. Shamsuddin Abdul Kadir, 90, was testifying in a petition brought by his son Shahriman, 56, seeking to wind up SHSB. SHSB is the parent company to more than 40 subsidiaries valued at RM832 million. The group includes listed entity Sapura Resources Bhd. Shahril, 63, and Shahriman each own a 48% stake in SHSB, with the remaining 4% held by Rameli Musa, 79. In an affidavit affirmed on Feb 3, Shamsuddin took issue with Shahril and Rameli's denial that SHSB was always intended to be a family company and that the relationship between shareholders was premised on mutual trust and confidence. 'I am quite taken aback by their denial as it was not a subtle understanding and it was repeated throughout the years and informed in many meetings and decisions,' the affidavit read. Cross-examined by counsel Ranjit Singh, representing Rameli, Shamsuddin conceded he had no documents to back up that claim. Ranjit: Although you said that you had repeated it throughout the years in many meetings and decisions, (do you agree) there's no document that you can produce to prove what you said? Shamsuddin: No document. It was an understanding. Ranjit: In various parts of your affidavit, you said SHSB remains a family company. I put it to you that originally, when you and your wife were the shareholders, it was a family company, but with Rameli's introduction (as a shareholder), that concept of family company ceased. Shamsuddin: I disagree. Asked by Ranjit about Rameli's role if a dispute arose between the brothers, Shamsuddin said it was not his intention that Rameli would align himself with either one of them to form a decision-making majority. Ranjit: Your sons may have differing views on different issues. So assuming one of your sons said 'yes', and the other said 'no', would you accept that Rameli could use his judgement and break the deadlock? Shamsuddin: Correct. Ranjit: I put it to you that when you said it was not your intention that Rameli would align himself to any of the brothers to form a majority, that is a false statement because he has to make his own judgement. Shamsuddin: My intention was for them to work together. The cross-examination of Shamsuddin will continue before Justice Leong Wai Hong on May 15. The hearing was scheduled to begin yesterday, but was postponed to today to facilitate settlement negotiations. FMT understands that those talks are ongoing. In the petition filed in September last year, Shahriman said the winding-up was necessary due to an irreparable breakdown of mutual trust and confidence between Shahril and himself. SHSB, Shahril, and Rameli, all named as respondents, oppose the petition. They claim SHSB was never intended to be a family company and that it would not be just and equitable for the company to be wound up. Lawyers Rabindra S Nathan appeared for Shahril, while Idza Hajar Ahmad Idzam represented SHSB.
