Cross-examined by S Rabindra, representing elder brother Shahril, Shahriman admitted not taking any steps despite a decision by the Sapura Resources Bhd (SRB) board to proceed with the exercise on Sept 29, 2022.
Shahriman was SRB’s managing director at the time.
Rabindra: Do you agree that the minutes of meetings (held between September 2022 and March 2023) do not reflect or capture any initiative or statement from you to ensure the rights issue was carried out?
Shahriman: I was against the rights issue.
Rabindra: So you were against the rights issue, therefore you didn’t say anything about getting it done?
Shahriman: Correct.
In his petition, Shahriman said that on March 16, 2023, Shahril, acting on behalf of Sapura Holdings, had informed SRB that the company’s RM100 million financial assistance offer, outlined in a term sheet dated Feb 28, 2023, had lapsed after it was not taken up.
As a result, SRB was required to immediately repay a previous advance of RM40 million, made on Sept 29, 2022, along with interest and associated costs.
In the petition, Shahriman accused Shahril of using the RM100 million loan to pressure SRB into carrying out the rights issue.
In court, Shahriman disagreed when Rabindra suggested that Shahril was acting on behalf of the Sapura Group, and not in a personal capacity.
Rabindra: Indera Permai Sdn Bhd (which advanced the funds) and the Sapura Group were entitled to protect themselves by insisting that SRB carry out what it had promised to do, or else repay their obligation in financial terms. Do you agree?
Shahriman: Disagree.
Rabindra: I put it to you that in the totality of the circumstances, Sapura Holdings, Indera Permai and the Sapura Group were purely, simply and plainly protecting their own position. Do you agree with this statement?
Shahriman: Disagree.
Shahriman is seeking to wind up Sapura Holdings, 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, who is also named as a respondent.
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 are opposing 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 continues.