Latest news with #Section51
New Straits Times
19-05-2025
- Business
- New Straits Times
Construction firm director charged with making false declarations to CCM
KUALA LUMPUR: A construction company director was charged at the Sessions Court here today with three counts of making false declarations to the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) involving appointments, resignations, and share transfers three years ago. Juliana Jamian, 38, however, pleaded not guilty after the charges were read to her. For the first and second charges, she was accused of making false declarations to the registrar of companies regarding her appointment as a director of UTS Maju Construction Sdn Bhd and the resignation of Wali Ullah Khan from the same company. The declarations were made via Section 58 forms dated Sept 30, 2022. She was also charged with making a false declaration to the registrar regarding the transfer of 299,998 shares from Wali Ullah Khan to herself, using a Section 51 form dated Oct 8, 2022. All the offences were allegedly committed at the CCM headquarters at Menara SSM@Sentral, KL Sentral, on Sept 30 and Oct 8, 2022. Juliana was charged under Section 593(b) of the Companies Act 2016 (Act 777), read together with Section 34 of the same Act. If convicted, she faces a jail term of up to 10 years, a fine of up to RM3 million, or both. Earlier, CCM prosecuting officer Farieza Hazreen Salehuddin proposed bail at RM10,000 for each charge, while Juliana's lawyer, Muhamad 'Aizat Adli Zalil, requested bail to be set at RM3,000 per charge. Judge Mohd Zaki Mohd Salleh granted Juliana bail of RM10,000 for all charges and ordered her to surrender her passport to the court. The case has been fixed for mention on June 4.
Los Angeles Times
18-03-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Adults-only hotels are all over California. Are they even legal?
Can hotels legally ban children? With spring breaks starting momentarily and summer vacations not far away, the question is puzzling a wide scope of California travelers — parents booking their next family vacation as well as adults looking for a child-free escape. And the answer is complicated. The issue flared in February when the Alila Marea Beach Resort in Encinitas, part of the Hyatt hotel empire, announced it would exclude children as overnight guests, thus becoming the self-described 'only adults-only oceanfront resort in Southern California.' This move at a high-profile beachfront property sparked a debate about state law and hotels' obligations and has turned eyes on other California hotels that exclude children. In the Palm Springs area, the Colony Palms, the Fleur Noire, the Ingleside Estate and La Maison Palm Springs are among the lodgings whose websites say they are adults-only. The Whisky Hotel, which opened March 12 in Hollywood, promotes itself similarly. 'We cater to adults only, because that's kind of our vision,' said Whisky Hotel general manager Alan Esparza, noting the grown-up atmosphere in the hotel's Hollywood neighborhood. Still, in a pinch, Esparza said, 'We make exceptions.' The focus of the conversation is Section 51 of the state's Civil Code, widely known as the Unruh Act, which is designed to prevent discrimination by race, religion, sexual orientation and 10 other 'protected characteristics.' Attorneys, industry veterans and consumer advocates have cited this act when asserting that banning children from hotels is illegal. However, Section 51 doesn't specify age as a protected attribute, and state officials do permit rental car companies to refuse rentals to drivers under 25. But California courts have decided that the Unruh Act prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to families with children. Asked if it's legal for a California hotel to ban children, a representative from the state Civil Rights Department said via email that 'the law's application with respect to age discrimination depends on the specific facts and circumstances.' The state Attorney General's press office was equally vague, saying, 'We are unable to provide legal advice or analysis.' Neither agency cited legal precedents or earlier cases. Until state officials provide more clarity, industry veterans and consumer advocates suggested, families should take care to make sure of a hotel's policy before booking. That might mean talking to a reservations agent before making a reservation online. 'I think it's really problematic legally' to ban children. 'I'm not sure why it hasn't been challenged before,' said Jamie Court, president of Los Angeles-based A hotel 'is a place of public accommodation and you're discriminating based on family status.' In Court's view, 'Someone can sue. But it should be the attorney general who is going to court if the hotels don't back down after a warning. And it should be the attorney general writing warning letters. ... I don't know why the A.G. and the state have become so timid.' In a 2023 handout to its members, the California Hotel & Lodging Assn. warned hoteliers that the Unruh Act 'prohibits hotels from discriminating against minors based on age,' adding, 'Some lodging operators assume that because some young children or other minors might engage in improper conduct, the hotel has a right to refuse accommodations. This is a dangerous misconception.' Even when minors are unaccompanied, the association wrote, 'It is unlawful to have a blanket policy' prohibiting them. However, the association said, a hotel 'can refuse to accommodate individual children and their parents' if there is 'just cause.' The association's spokesman declined to comment on any specific cases. Another industry veteran surprised by the situation is Laurie E. Sherwood, a partner at the Irvine-based law firm Walsworth, who has handled travel-related cases for close to 30 years. 'My initial, gut-level reaction is that hotels are places of public accommodation,' Sherwood said, and that 'it's a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act because you're excluding families with children.' Many California hotels have finessed the issue by restricting children's access without banning them. Some hotels, like the River Lodge Paso Robles, officially welcome children but ban anyone under 21 from the pool and hot tub. Other hotels, such as the elite Post Ranch Inn in Big Sur, limit occupancy to two people per room. At vacation rental properties too, families might find mixed messages. Airbnb's nondiscrimination policy forbids U.S. hosts from banning children or 'charging for fees for guests of a certain age.' But Airbnb hosts often describe their properties as 'unsuitable' for children under 12. At the Alila Marea Beach Resort in Encinitas, which recently banned children, general manager Richard Sorensen did not respond to a request for comment. The Alila chain, a high-end international sub-brand of Hyatt, also includes hotels in Big Sur ('an adult-only experience reserved for those 18 years of age and over') and Napa Valley (where a reservationist said families are theoretically allowed, but all rooms and suites are limited to two occupants). Meanwhile, some consumers have taken to social media to talk about how children can ruin a hotel experience. A Reddit user going by WowOwlO opined in a thread on the topic that 'children are just loud, messy, and simply don't belong at a five star hotel. We should be able to have establishments that separate them.' Beyond California, many destinations allow hotels to bar children. The Sandals resorts, all located in the Caribbean outside the U.S., have made the absence of children a key part of their identity. 'There's definitely a demand for child-free spaces, especially when we're talking about honeymoons and things like that,' said D.C. Vekic, president of Cosmopolitan Travels in Northridge.
