KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 6): SIME DARBY BHD [] subsidiary Sime Darby Nominees Sendirian Bhd (SD Nominees) has filed an application to intervene in the judicial review sought by Michael Chow Keat Thye against the Securities Commission.
It said on Friday that it had filed the application on Jan 5 on the grounds that it would be a party whose legal and commercial interest will be directly affected by the judicial review proceedings and should therefore be afforded the opportunity to be heard in such proceedings.
It said a copy of SD Nominees' intervener application was served on the solicitors for Chow and the SC.
Sime Darby said SD Nominees had on last Dec 21 been given a copy of the cause papers by solicitors for Chow.
Chow, a minority shareholder of E&O Bhd is suing the SC for failing to compel Sime Darby to make a general offer for all the shares in the property developer after the conglomerate acquired a 30% stake in August for RM776 million.
Singapore’s The Straits Times had reported on Dec 23 that Chow was seeking to overturn the waiver granted to Sime Darby by the industry regulator, on the grounds that the waiver was “irrational and one which no reasonable body would have reached”.
It said on Friday that it had filed the application on Jan 5 on the grounds that it would be a party whose legal and commercial interest will be directly affected by the judicial review proceedings and should therefore be afforded the opportunity to be heard in such proceedings.
It said a copy of SD Nominees' intervener application was served on the solicitors for Chow and the SC.
Sime Darby said SD Nominees had on last Dec 21 been given a copy of the cause papers by solicitors for Chow.
Chow, a minority shareholder of E&O Bhd is suing the SC for failing to compel Sime Darby to make a general offer for all the shares in the property developer after the conglomerate acquired a 30% stake in August for RM776 million.
Singapore’s The Straits Times had reported on Dec 23 that Chow was seeking to overturn the waiver granted to Sime Darby by the industry regulator, on the grounds that the waiver was “irrational and one which no reasonable body would have reached”.
