SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 5333

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ATAN MUSTAFA YUSSOF AHMAD, J
TOKIO MARINE LIFE INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
RHB BANK BHD – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-433-09/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:Robert Lazar,Tan Shang Neng ,Respondent Advocate: Sean Yeow,Andrea Mei Yng,Lim Qian Wen

A right of first refusal must be exercised in good faith and provide full disclosure of terms to allow the grantee a meaningful opportunity to match any third-party offers.

Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Right of First Refusal - Bancassurance Agreement - Clause 3.2(b) - The court examined the validity of the right of first refusal following RHB's bid process for bancassurance arrangements, determining that TMLM's right remains in force as RHB's prior offers did not fulfill the requirements for a valid offer under the right of first refusal. (Paras 1, 90)

(B) Offer Validity - The court ruled that RHB's April 2024 letter was not a valid offer as it was based on non-binding bids and lacked essential terms, failing to constitute a bona fide offer. (Paras 20, 21, 26)

(C) Good Faith Requirement - The court emphasized that a right of first refusal requires good faith in presenting the terms for the grantee to match, which RHB failed to provide in both its April and August communications. (Paras 37, 56, 86)

Facts of the case:
TMLM entered a Bancassurance Agreement with RHB, which included a right of first refusal to extend the term. Disputes arose when RHB sought bids from other insurers without properly discharging TMLM's rights.

Findings of Court:
TMLM's right of first refusal remains in full force; RHB must disclose the successful bid's full terms and provide TMLM an opportunity to match those terms.

Issues: Whether RHB's actions discharged TMLM's right of first refusal and if TMLM was given a proper opportunity to exercise this right.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that RHB's offers did not meet the legal requirements for a valid exercise of the right of first refusal, emphasizing the need for full disclosure and good faith in the offer process.

Result: TMLM's right of first refusal is upheld, and RHB is ordered to comply with specific procedural requirements.

Table of Content
1. interpretation of right of first refusal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background facts of the bancassurance agreement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. reliefs sought by tmlm. (Para 14 , 15)
4. arguments by tmlm and rhb. (Para 16 , 17)
5. court's analysis of the right of first refusal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. commercial choices and consequences. (Para 35 , 36)
7. additional opportunities to match. (Para 46 , 47)
8. takaful issue and contemporaneous conduct. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
9. multiple opportunities and choices. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)
10. legal interpretation of right of first refusal. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85)
11. application of astrazenica principles. (Para 86 , 87 , 88)
12. conclusion and orders. (Para 90 , 91)
Atan Mustafa Yussof Ahmad J:

[1] This Originating Summons concerns the proper interpretation and implementation of a right of first refusal in a bancassurance agreement between the Plaintiff, Tokio Marine Life Insurance Malaysia Bhd ("TMLM"), and the Defendant, RHB Bank Berhad ("RHB"). The central issue is whether this right remains in force following RHB's conduct of a bid process for its future bancassurance arrangements, or whether the right has been discharged through RHB's actions. This matter raises important questions about the scope of first refusal rights in commercial contracts and the adequacy of steps taken to discharge such rights.

Background Facts

[2] On 29 December 2014, TMLM and RHB entered into a Bancassurance Arrangement Agreement ("Bancassurance Agreement') which replaced and superseded their earlier agreement dated 1 July 2010. Under the Bancassurance Agreement, RHB would distribute TMLM's conventional life insurance products through RHB's banking channels. The Bancassurance Agreement is for a term of 10 years commencing 1 January 2015 and expiring on 31 December 2024.

[3] Clause 3.2(b) of the Bancassurance Agreement provides that RHB grants TMLM a first right of refusal to extend the term, six months before expiry, to provide both parties with sufficient time to negotiate on the renewal of the Bancassurance Agreement. It reads:

"(b) RHB shall grant TM the first right of refusal to extend the Term, six (6) months before expiry of the Term, to provide both Parties with sufficient time to negotiate on the renewal of this Agreement."

[4] On 16 January 2024, RHB wrote to TMLM indicating that it would be embarking on a bid process for its bancassurance arrangement for purposes of price discovery. RHB proposed bringing forward the timeline for exercising the first right of refusal to coincide with this bid process.

[5] Through correspondence between January and February 2024, the parties negotiated a framework for implementing the first right of refusal. TMLM initially proposed in its letter dated 29 January 2024 that RHB would notify TMLM of the best offer received at the conclusion of the bid process. RHB responded on 7 February 2024 with an alternative three-step framework: TMLM would have access to bid information, RHB would make an offer after considering bids received, and TMLM would have six weeks to decide. TMLM accepted this framework by letter dated 20 February 2024.

[6] The bid process was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 involved non-binding indicative proposals, while Phase 2 required final binding proposals from shortlisted bidders. RHB appointed Bank of America Securities as its independent external advisor for the process.

[7] On 25 April 2024, after receiving bids from 10 insurance companies in Phase 1, RHB made an offer to TMLM setting out terms for a 20-year renewal. The offer included both conventional life and family takaful products, with an upfront access fee of RM1,850 million and various other financial considerations.

[8] TMLM declined RHB's offer on 20 June 2024. On the same day, TMLM submitted a Phase 2 bid jointly wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top