“More than 74% of votes were disqualified at South Malaysia Industries’ reconvened AGM, according to a filing with Bursa Malaysia.”
Kuala Lumpur, 10th December 2025, 01.19pm – More than 74% of votes cast at South Malaysia Industries Bhd’s (SMI) reconvened 53rd annual general meeting (AGM) were deemed disqualified, according to the company’s filing with Bursa Malaysia.
The adjourned AGM was held in Johor Bahru on Dec 8, during which 105.08 million shares, representing 74.3% of the total voting shares, were marked as disqualified across all five resolutions tabled. Only 25.67% of votes were in favour, while 0.03% voted against the resolutions.
SMI explained that the disqualified votes originated from shareholders who either declared abstentions in their proxy forms or did not vote due to conflicts of interest.
The resolutions presented at the meeting included the reappointment of UHY as external auditors, approval of non-executive directors’ fees and benefits, and the re-election of Latifah Abdul Latiff as a director. Shareholders also voted on the mandate to issue new shares under Sections 75 and 76 of the Companies Act 2016, as well as on maintaining the adjournment of the AGM pending the outcome of a related Court of Appeal case.
The legal proceedings involve shareholder Teh Chee Hoe, who is linked to Target 1 Sdn Bhd, the party that launched an unconditional mandatory takeover offer for SMI in August 2024. Target 1, controlled by Francis Leong Seng Wui, holds a 30.67% equity stake in SMI. Teh and Leong are also executive directors of Revenue Group Bhd, where each holds a 5.47% stake.
Previously, Teh had sought a court order compelling SMI to circulate his notice of intention and to table the nominations of himself and three other individuals for board election at the AGM. The Court of Appeal had earlier ordered that the AGM be adjourned pending the outcome of the case.
However, on Dec 4, the Court dismissed Teh’s application, allowing SMI to proceed with reconvening the AGM on Dec 8.
SMI has maintained that Teh did not fulfil the criteria under Section 323 of the Companies Act 2016, which governs shareholders’ rights to request the circulation of proposed resolutions at general meetings.
