What section 85 says
Section 85(1) of the Companies Act 2016 provides that, where a company is about to issue shares of the same class as shares already issued, those shares must first be offered to the existing shareholders pro-rata to the shares they already hold, unless the constitution provides otherwise. Section 85(2) requires the offer to be on the same or no less favourable terms.
Why the right exists
Without statutory pre-emption, the majority could issue new shares to itself (or to a friendly party) and dilute the minority's percentage stake at will. Section 85 is the statutory shield: minority shareholders maintain their proportional ownership unless they decline the pro-rata offer.
How to disapply section 85
Two routes are available:
- Constitutional disapplication.The company's constitution can simply provide that section 85 does not apply. This is the cleanest route for companies that anticipate frequent fundraising rounds where pre-emption would be commercially inconvenient.
- Shareholder approval of the specific issuance.Malaysian appellate authority has indicated that where shareholders pass a resolution approving a specific issuance, that resolution can itself constitute a valid disapplication of section 85, because the dilutive effect is inherent in the proposal being approved. Express "waiver" language may not always be required, but the safer practice is to confirm the current case position with the Firm before relying on this route.
What this means in practice
- For private companies without venture investors: default section 85 protection is usually appropriate. Keep it in the constitution.
- For venture-backed companies:the constitution is usually amended to disapply section 85 at the founding round, since otherwise every new investor's shares would require a pro-rata offer to existing holders. Investor-side anti-dilution and contractual pre-emption rights replace the statutory baseline.
- For listed companies: Bursa Listing Requirements overlay section 85 with additional rules on placement size, pricing, and shareholder approval.
Common drafting and procedural pitfalls
- Inconsistent constitutional language. If the constitution says nothing about section 85, the statutory default applies. Boards sometimes assume otherwise.
- Resolutions that approve "an allotment" without naming the allottee or terms. The Federal Court's clarification helps boards, but the safest practice is still to set out the issuance terms in the resolution so the shareholders see what they are consenting to.
- Mixed-class issuances.Section 85 applies to "shares of the same class as shares already issued." Issuances of a new class trigger different procedural questions, often involving class consents under section 91.
- Section 223 overlap.Where the issuance is part of a substantial property transaction, section 223's separate shareholder-approval requirement may apply on top of section 85.
If you are issuing new shares, or you are an existing shareholder facing dilution, please contact us before the resolution is tabled. The disapplication route chosen now decides whether the dilution is enforceable later.
第 85 条规定了什么
《2016 年公司法令》第 85(1) 条规定：当公司拟发行与已发行股份同类别之新股时，该等股份须先按比例向现有股东发出要约，除非公司章程另有规定。第 85(2) 条要求要约条款不得劣于其他认购方所获条款。
为什么需要这项权利
若无法定优先认购权，大股东可向自身（或友好方）发行新股，随意稀释小股东之股权比例。第 85 条即是法定屏障：小股东在拒绝按比例要约之前，能维持其比例所有权。
如何豁免第 85 条之适用
有两种路径：
- 章程豁免。公司章程可径行规定第 85 条不适用。此为最干净之做法，适合预期会有频繁融资轮、不便每次执行优先认购之公司。
- 股东对具体发行作出批准。马来西亚上诉层级之判例显示：股东就具体发行通过之决议，在该决议本身已包含稀释效果之情形下，可构成对第 85 条之有效豁免，未必须另行明示「放弃」措辞。在依据决议路径行事前，建议与本所确认现行判例立场。
实务影响
- 对于未引入 VC 之私人公司：默认之第 85 条保护通常合宜，应保留在章程中。
- 对于 VC 支持之公司：章程通常在创办轮即修订以豁免第 85 条；否则每一笔新投资人之股份发行，都须先向现有股东作按比例要约。投资人侧之反稀释与合同优先认购权将取代法定基准。
- 对于上市公司：Bursa 上市规则将第 85 条叠加额外规定，涉及配售规模、定价与股东批准。
常见起草与程序陷阱
- 章程语言不一致。若章程对第 85 条只字未提，法定默认适用。董事会有时误以为不适用。
- 仅以「批准发行」为措辞、未列认购人或条款之决议。联邦法院的澄清虽对董事会有利，但最稳妥之做法仍是在决议中写明发行条款，使股东清楚其同意之内容。
- 跨类别发行。第 85 条仅适用于「与已发行股份同类别之股份」。发行新类别股份触发不同程序问题，通常涉及第 91 条之类别同意。
- 与第 223 条之交叉。若发行构成重大资产交易之一部分，则第 223 条之独立股东批准要求可能在第 85 条之上叠加适用。
若贵公司即将发行新股，或您作为现有股东正面对稀释问题，请在决议提呈之前与本所联系。今日所选定的豁免路径，将决定该稀释日后是否具有法律效力。