High Court rejects Serba Dinamik's injunction application against Bursa Malaysia

KUALA LUMPUR - Serba Dinamik Holdings Bhd (SDHB) today failed to obtain a court order to prevent Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd from compelling the oil and gas services provider to release the Factual Findings Update (FFU) prepared by audit firm Ernst & Young Consulting Sdn Bhd (E&Y).

High Court judge Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin said SDHB’s application for an injunction against Bursa was not defensible and factually not supported, given the undertaking the company had with regards to contractual obligations with Bursa.

"The court should not second-guess the functions of a regulator in imposing such conditions. If so, there would be chaos if the court were to choose and accept to undertake SDHB’s own interpretation rather than that of Bursa, which is the regulator,” said the judge when dismissing the SDHB’s injunction application in the online proceeding.

He said Bursa was not acting in excess of its power when it suspended the shares of SDHB.

The judge further said Bursa was carrying out its duties under Section 11 of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 as a regulator due to unusual activity in its shares on that day.

"It would be a failure on the part of Bursa Malaysia if it did not go through with the suspension. Thus, the court also finds that Bursa acted within its powers in making the said directive to announce the FFU.

Hence, the court dismisses this application,” said the judge and ordered SDHB to pay RM30,000 in costs to Bursa.

SDHB, as the plaintiff, had filed the originating summons and injunction application in November 2021, naming Bursa Malaysia and E&Y as the defendants.

In its originating summons, SDHB, among others, was seeking a declaration that the instruction given by Bursa dated June 28, 2021 and July 2, 2021 to the plaintiff to appoint E&Y as a special auditor to conduct a ‘special independent review’ (SIR) made pursuant to paragraphs 2.23 and 2.24 of the Main Market Listing Requirements (MMLR) was in excess of power, null and void and of no effect.

The plaintiff was also seeking an order that the defendant, whether by itself or its servants, agents, representatives or third parties, be restrained from making any announcement or otherwise to publish, distribute or make available to anyone the "Factual Findings Update” prepared by E&Y, pending the final disposal of the originating summons.

SDHB also filed an originating summons against E&Y, seeking relief and a declaration that E&Y is not an ‘auditor’ within the definition of MMLR as well as a declaration that E&Y had misrepresented to SDHB that they could be appointed pursuant to paragraphs 2.23 and 2.24 of the MMLR. - BERNAMA