Someone Is Treatening to Sue Me?
Posted on 28th April, 2007
This afternoon I checked my stats and found someone was spending more than an hour on the Malaysia Securities Commission Investor Alert List post.
Then later today I received an email from a lawyer who claimed to represent one of the companies in Malaysia Securities Commission (SC) Alert List.
The lawyer demanded that I remove certain companies from the list immediately or certain action will be taken ‘to compel this to take place’.
You know how legal sentences are worded – I had to read between the lines several times to really understand what it meant.
My first thought was this must be like one of those ‘harassment’ emails sent by some ‘big companies’ that use scare tactics against small-time bloggers. Since the list came from the Securities Commission themselves – not me – they are basically trying to undermine the integrity of the SC – so I thought.
The lawyer also includes a discussion with a colleague at the bottom of the email which I find a little unprofessional but amusing. No they were not suing me; it’s just a ‘warning’ email obviously.
Of course I re-checked the original alert list and called SC for clarification but the person in charged was not available.
Anyway, the companies mentioned by the lawyer are indeed no longer in the alert list. Obviously, I don’t have problem removing them. To make life easier for everyone, I am now using IFRAME in the post to grab the alert page in real time from SC website.
From SC website:
Pursuant to Section 15(g) of Securities Commission Act 1993 it is the responsibility of the Securities Commission (SC) to take reasonable measures to maintain the confidence of investors in the capital market by ensuring adequate protection for investors.
the SC alerts and warns the public on parties carrying out capital market activities without a licence as well as possible scams.
While there’s no question whether SC should maintain the alert list or not (they should of course), it makes one wonders why these particular companies were included in the alert list in the first place.
Shouldn’t SC ascertain the status of such companies before putting them on the list?
Here’s the problem, there are other websites, blogs and forums which may have reproduced the list and I am sure some of them have recreated the list using static HTML which needs to be updated manually. Some of these sites will continue to carry the outdated list if the owner forgets to update them.
Is the lawyer going to contact each of these sites and send similar emails to them? What if the site is hosted on blogger.com which has no valid contact information except an anonymous free email? I guess there’s nothing the lawyer can do there.
Another thing that came across my mind was if a company is not registered in Malaysia , can they actually sue someone in Malaysia ? I am not a lawyer but I don’t think so.
As you may know, some of the companies claimed that they do not need a license to operate in Malaysia . A foreign company cannot carry on business in Malaysia unless it incorporates a local company or registers the company in Malaysia . Unfortunately for them, I think this very reason stripped down their right to use the Malaysian judicial system to defense themselves or sue people in Malaysia .
I checked around but I couldn’t find the Malaysian address for one of the companies mentioned by the lawyer. However a search using the company name at Companies Commission of Malaysia did return a result. As for the other one, the website is no longer accessible (perhaps temporarily?). But The Wayback Machine revealed that they have or at least used to have an office in Malaysia.
Anyway, good for them to be dropped from the list.