1MDB seeks Federal Court ruling, says Malaysia should hear fraud claims against UK law firm

1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) has filed an application to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision, which ruled that the Kuala Lumpur High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear its lawsuit against the UK law firm White & Case LLP.

The application, submitted on August 28, 2023, seeks the Federal Court's review of important jurisdictional principles involving multiple jurisdictions.

This follows the appellate court's earlier decision, led by Justice Muniandy, which concluded that 1MDB failed to establish Malaysia as the appropriate forum for the suit, given the international scope of the alleged conspiracy involving foreign defendants.

The Federal Court is set to hear the leave to appeal application on October 12.

PUTRAJAYA, Sept 21 — 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) has filed an application seeking leave to appeal the appellate court’s ruling that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear its lawsuit against a UK law firm.

Lawyer Lim Zhi Ying, one of the lawyers representing 1MDB, confirmed the notice of motion was filed on Aug 28, this year.

She also told Bernama that the Federal Court has fixed October 12 to hear the leave to appeal application.

In its application, 1MDB sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision, citing that there are important questions of general principles to be decided for the first time by the top court.

1MDB has put forward 24 questions of law concerning jurisdiction and consolidation of its suit in seeking leave to appeal from the Federal Court.

Among the questions include whether in determining the forum conveniens (an appropriate forum) for a claim in conspiracy involving alleged conspirators across multiple jurisdictions, the relevant connecting factors to be assessed by reference to the alleged conspiracy as a whole, including the places where the other alleged conspirators and material witnesses are located, and not by reference to the circumstances and location of the particular foreign defendant challenging jurisdiction.

On Aug 20, this year, a three-member bench comprising Justice Datuk Alwi Abdul Wahab, K. Muniandy and Datuk Aliza Sulaiman, allowed White and Case LLB’s appeal, ruling that the Kuala Lumpur High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear 1MDB’s suit against the firm.

Justice Muniandy, who delivered the unanimous decision, held that the requirements under the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and the Rules of Court 2012 for the service of proceedings outside Malaysia had not been satisfied.

He said 1MDB failed to prove that Malaysia is clearly the forum convenient to hear this suit, adding that Patrick Mahony, a director of PetroSaudi International Ltd, is a foreign national residing outside Malaysia and therefore could not serve as a proper “anchor defendant” to justify the service of proceedings out of jurisdiction.

The panel also set aside the High Court’s decision to consolidate 1MDB’s suit against White & Case with a separate suit filed by the sovereign wealth fund against several other defendants, including Deutsche Bank and PetroSaudi International.

1MDB filed the suit in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in 2024, seeking US$1.83 billion and US$33 million in losses from White & Case and Mahony. The fund alleged that White & Case assisted PetroSaudi in committing fraud and conspired to harm 1MDB while acting as its legal counsel.

The alleged misconduct relates to two corporate transactions: the 2009 joint venture with PetroSaudi International, known as the Good Star phase, and the 2010 restructuring of 1MDB’s stake in the joint venture, which 1MDB claims resulted in significant financial losses.

The writ of summons was served out of jurisdiction on White & Case at their UK offices, and the firm subsequently applied to set aside the service, seeking a declaration that the Malaysian court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit.

Last year, the High Court rejected White & Case’s challenge, ruling that it could hear the lawsuit because the trial witnesses are located in Malaysia. — Bernama

‘Possibly the most effective transport minister’: Guan Eng praises Loke’s RM21b infrastructure legacy in Penang

Malaysia’s air quality improves slightly, but Kapit and Serian remain shrouded in haze

Former deputy minister Datuk Yahya Lampong dies at 86

马来西亚一马发展有限公司（1MDB）已向上诉法院提出上诉申请，该法院裁定吉隆坡高等法院无权审理其针对英国律师事务所 White & Case LLP 的诉讼。

该申请于 2023 年 8 月 28 日提交，请求联邦法院审查涉及多个司法管辖区的重要管辖权原则。

此前，由穆尼亚迪法官领导的上诉法院已作出裁决，认为鉴于涉嫌阴谋涉及外国被告，且具有国际范围，1MDB未能证明马来西亚是该诉讼的适当管辖地。

联邦法院定于10月12日审理上诉许可申请。

布城，9月21日讯——一马发展有限公司（1MDB）已提交申请，请求准许其对上诉法院的裁决提出上诉。该裁决认定高等法院无权审理1MDB针对一家英国律师事务所提起的诉讼。

代表 1MDB 的律师之一林志英证实，动议通知书已于今年 8 月 28 日提交。

她还告诉马新社，联邦法院已定于10月12日审理上诉许可申请。

1MDB 在申请书中请求允许其对上诉法院的裁决提出上诉，理由是最高法院将首次裁决一些重要的普遍原则性问题。

1MDB 向联邦法院申请上诉许可时，提出了 24 个有关管辖权和合并诉讼的法律问题。

问题包括：在确定涉及多个司法管辖区的共谋者的合谋诉讼的便利法院（适当的法院）时，相关联系因素是否应参照整个共谋行为（包括其他被指控的共谋者和重要证人所在的地点）进行评估，而不是参照对管辖权提出质疑的特定外国被告的情况和地点进行评估。

今年 8 月 20 日，由 Datuk Alwi Abdul Wahab、K. Muniandy 和 Datuk Aliza Sulaiman 三位法官组成的合议庭批准了 White and Case LLB 的上诉，裁定吉隆坡高等法院无权审理 1MDB 对该律所提起的诉讼。

穆尼亚迪法官作出了一致裁决，认为1964年《法院法》和2012年《法院规则》中关于在马来西亚境外送达诉讼文书的要求没有得到满足。

他表示，1MDB未能证明马来西亚显然是审理此案的合适法院，并补充说，PetroSaudi International Ltd的董事Patrick Mahony是居住在马来西亚境外的外国公民，因此不能作为合适的“主要被告”来证明在境外进行诉讼的合理性。

该小组还推翻了高等法院将 1MDB 对 White & Case 的诉讼与该主权财富基金对包括德意志银行和沙特石油国际公司在内的其他几名被告提起的单独诉讼合并审理的决定。

1MDB于2024年在吉隆坡高等法院提起诉讼，向White & Case律师事务所和Mahony律师事务所索赔18.3亿美元和3300万美元的损失。该基金指控White & Case律师事务所在担任1MDB的法律顾问期间，协助PetroSaudi实施欺诈并串谋损害1MDB的利益。

据称，不当行为涉及两项公司交易：2009 年与 PetroSaudi International 成立的合资企业（被称为“好星阶段”），以及 2010 年 1MDB 对该合资企业股份的重组，1MDB 声称这导致了重大财务损失。

传票被送达至 White & Case 位于英国的办事处，超出了其管辖范围。随后，该律所申请撤销送达，并请求法院宣告马来西亚法院无权审理此案。

去年，高等法院驳回了伟凯律师事务所的上诉，裁定由于审判证人身处马来西亚，因此高等法院有权受理此案。——马新社

“可能是最有成效的交通部长”：林冠英赞扬陆兆福在槟城留下的210亿令吉基础设施建设遗产

马来西亚的空气质量略有改善，但加帛和西连仍然笼罩在雾霾之中。

前副部长拿督叶海亚南蓬去世，享年86岁