KUALA LUMPUR – The firm’s name belongs to the firm itself and not Datuk Zaid Ibrahim the individual, according to a statement of defence filed at the high court here today.
On November 18, Zaid had filed a writ against the firm asking them to stop using his name.
The statement read that Zaid had sold his remaining equities in the firm to Chew Seng Kok and Datuk Seri Nik Norzrul Thani for RM25.65 million in 2008 when Zaid was appointed to the cabinet.
Chew and Norzrul are partners in the firm.
In total, RM35.7 million was to be to Zaid in return for all his rights, interests, and assets attached to his equities.
The firm claimed that the moment Zaid was appointed as minister and sold off his interest in the firm, he ceased having any rights whatsoever to it.
A claim was also made stating that Zaid has no right to initiate a contractual lawsuit against the firm.
The firm asserts that based on Section of the Limitation Act 1953, six years have passed, prohibiting Zaid from initiating a contractual lawsuit, especially so given that he never asserted any claims or interest in the firm from 2008 to 2020.
Zaid was only rehired to the firm as a consultant in 2018, but he allegedly made no claims or interests to the name of the firm.
In fact, said the firm, he never wanted his name displayed in the firm’s letterhead, in order to keep a “low profile” as he harboured political ambitions when the Pakatan Harapan government was in power.
“As the plaintiff (Zaid) harboured political ambitions under the then Pakatan Harapan government, the plaintiff specifically requested that his name not appear in the letterhead of the firm,” the statement of defence read.
And while Zaid claimed he was later appointed chairman and equity partner in the firm, the firm said that he was offered the position last year but did not unconditionally accept it.
The firm stood by its argument that Zaid was only a partner without equity.
Regarding Zaid’s expenditures when he was rehired, it was alleged that Zaid approved renovations in his office worth RM75,000, and did not go through the firm’s procurement policies.
“For the said renovation, Limpid Tech Resources was hired by the plaintiff (Zaid) despite there being no tender and/or compliance with the firm’s procurement policy. None of us knew anything about Limpid Tech,” read Norzrul’s affidavit.
Other allegations were made in Norzrul's affidavit, including the claim that although Zaid was engaged as a consultant in 2018, he barely entered the office and provided legal services to clients.
It also claimed that Zaid instructed the financial controller of the firm to add himself as a cheque signatory for all the firm’s accounts without reference to the partnership council.
He also allegedly hired QuantePhi Sdn Bhd as an advisory firm to “conduct an exercise, which was meant to sow doubt about the character and integrity of some of the partners of the firm, particularly the managing partner, Gilbert Gan and Norzrul”.
The affidavit said that the firm’s use of Zaid’s name misrepresented the idea to the public that the firm’s services were actually related to him. – The Vibes, December 3, 2020
