Suami normal a shamsuddin & co
Home / Related Biographies / Suami normal a shamsuddin & co
The court was not informed of the reasons behind the breakdown of the settlement talks.
Shamsuddin told the court before High Court judge Leong Wai Hong on Wednesday that the company should still be regarded as a family company, despite the introduction of Datuk Rameli Musa as a shareholder and director.
Under cross-examination by Rameli’s lawyer Ranjit Singh, Shamsuddin maintained that there was a relationship of mutual trust and confidence, not just within the family but also with Rameli, whom he considered "like family".
The court was not informed of the reasons behind the breakdown of the settlement talks between Shahril (pictured) and Shahriman.
Back in 2012, the builder of Sapura, Tan Sri Shamsuddin Kadir sued his two sons over asset redistribution before it was finally settled out of court.
This time, the dispute being battled out in court arise following the younger Dato Shahriman Shamsuddin's application to wind-up the family company, Sapura Holdings which in turn has interest in public listed Sapura Resources Berhad [ticker SAPRES and stock code 4596].
Tan Sri Shahril Shamsuddin, the elder of the two siblings disagree and their legal argument in court is based on the premise it is not a family company and it is normal commercial dispute.
But with the introduction of Datuk Rameli, that concept of a family company had ceased to exist. Is this typical of Shahril compulsive risk taking in Sapura Energy that backfired big time and costing billions for PNB and government to bailout?
Despite the glory of the few or perhaps the only one in the world of a fully integrated oil and gas service provider company, Sapura Energy was in no capacity to face downswing in the international oil and gas industry.
Sapura is not the only Malaysian dreamer to aspire to be a fully integrated outfit that failed.
And, there is a glut in property for the next five years with new similar status property rising and economy not chugging along well. (Photo by Shahrill Basri/The Edge)
Rabindra, who suggested that Shamsuddin had disregarded “family values” when he initiated the suit, referred him to a letter he had written to his sons on July 30, 2024, in which Shamsuddin stated that he had hoped the brothers would pass on the company's shares and “values” of the family down to their children.
Rabindra: I put it to you that even if one assumes that when you ran Sapura Holdings, family interest was fundamental.
Ranjit: In various parts in the affidavit, you say that the company is a family company and remains a family company. It was an understanding,” Shamsuddin replied, adding that Rameli had initially refused to accept the shares offered to him on the grounds that Sapura Holdings was a family company, but later accepted after consulting his wife.
In his affidavit, Shamsuddin said he was shocked that both Shahril and Rameli denied Sapura Holdings was meant to be a family company built on mutual trust. But at what cost with Sapura Energy not moving into the Permata Sapura building and shifted from The Mines to PNB building? This is why this denial is so shocking and disappointing,” he said in the affidavit.
The case will resume on May 15, with Shamsuddin being cross-examined by Shahril's lawyer, Rabindra S Nathan of Shearn Delamore.
Shahriman filed a petition on Sept 23, 2024, to wind up Sapura Holdings believing it is needed for a fair asset distribution.
Director Datuk Rameli Musa owns a 4% interest in the company.
The trial continues on Thursday.
Read also:
Sapura Holdings' founder says he didn't receive any benefit after transferring his 15% stake to private vehicle
More bizarre is the claim that the 2012 lawsuit by the father that arised out of his marriage to an Iranian was a manouvre by Savak, the Iranian secret service to control a strategic government strategic asset.
He said this understanding was repeated in many meetings and decisions over the years.
Shahriman (front right) on Wednesday. He filed a petition on Sept 23, 2024, to wind up Sapura Holdings believing it is needed for a fair asset distribution. Rameli owns a 4% interest in the company.
Rameli owns a 4% interest in the company.
Ranjit argued that bringing Rameli into the company in 1980 weakens the claim that it is strictly a family business, especially since there is no formal proof of any agreement to keep it within the family.
“There is no document. We’re seeking cooperation from Brazil, Singapore, the Netherlands and others,” Buletin TV3 quoted him as saying.
Azam said MACC had opened two investigation papers to track the transactions from here to the countries of origin.
“One of them is under the MACC Act 2009 for corruption, and the other is under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 for money laundering,” he said.
-------------
This report points to Sapura Energy and sources confirmed it.
Will the investigation uncover what was widely talked about in the local oil and gas industry of procurement fraud termed as collusive tendering happening at Sapura Energy?
Shamsuddin added that whenever he transferred shares, he clearly stated this intention, which was always acknowledged.
"I had intended Sapura Holdings to be a family company, and this was made known and clearly understood and accepted by the entire family, including Shahril and Shahriman, who came back to work for the company, and also by Datuk Rameli who was entrusted to guide them.
(Photo by Shahrill Basri/The Edge)
Rabindra, who suggested that Shamsuddin had disregarded “family values” when he initiated the suit, referred him to a letter he had written to his sons on July 30, 2024, in which Shamsuddin stated that he had hoped the brothers would pass on the company's shares and “values” of the family down to their children.
Rabindra: I put it to you that even if one assumes that when you ran Sapura Holdings, family interest was fundamental.
Shamsuddin denied claims that he never told Rameli the company was meant to stay family-controlled. I sued them because they didn’t keep their promise.”
Shamsuddin was testifying as a witness for Shahriman at the hearing of a petition to wind up Sapura Holdings.
Shahril's lawyer, Rabindra S Nathan, had earlier raised the subject of "family values” while referring to Shamsuddin's decision to sue his sons and the company in 2012, to demand the return of his shares and properties valued in excess of RM450 million.
Datuk Shahriman Shamsuddin filed the petition in September last year to wind up Sapura Holdings, believing it is needed for a fair asset distribution.