154
GHL Systems Berhad
(293040-D)
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
31 December 2014 (continued)
36. FINANCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES (continued)
(d) Foreign currency risk (continued)
The following table demonstrates the sensitivity analysis of the Group and Company to a reasonably
possible change in the AUD, PHP and USD exchange rates against the respective functional currencies
of the Group entities, with all other variables held constant:
Group
Company
2014
2013
2014
2013
RM
RM
RM
RM
Profit after tax
AUD/RM - strengthen by 10% (2013: 10%)
72,911
8,539
46,884
8,539
AUD/RM - weaken by 10% (2013: 10%)
(72,911)
(8,539)
(46,884)
(8,539)
PHP/RM - strengthen by 10%
197,251
-
-
-
PHP/RM - weaken by 10%
(197,251)
-
-
-
USD/RM - strengthen by 10% (2013: 10%)
960,255
(42,712)
427,664
620,126
USD/RM - weaken by 10% (2013: 10%)
(960,255)
42,712
(427,664)
(620,126)
37. MATERIAL LITIGATION
Augustine Francis (trading as AF Innovations Consultants”) (“AF”) commenced a legal proceeding
against EPYM at the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur (“High Court”) on 27 February 2013, to claim
for unascertained damages for breach of service agreement against e-pay (M) Sdn. Bhd. (“EPYM”), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of e-pay Asia. Subsequently, EPYM filed a counterclaim against AF to claim for
loss of income and profits, amounting to RM2,164,060.57 for non-performance of obligations under the said
agreement. On 28 January 2014, the suit proceeded for trial and the High Court dismissed AF’s claim and
EPYM’s counterclaim. Following thereon, AF filed an appeal and EPYM filed a cross-appeal against the High
Court’s decision at the Court of Appeal. The appeal and cross-appeal have subsequently been fixed for
hearing at the Court of Appeal on 27 October 2014. The solicitors representing EPYM in this matter are of the
view that EPYM has a reasonable chance to succeed in defending the main suit commenced by AF and
in the counterclaim commenced against AF (“the Litigation”).
The Litigation was inherited from the previous management of EPYM, prior to the Acquisition.
The solicitors representing EPYM had attended the court hearing on 21 January 2015 and the Court of
Appeal found no appealable errors and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal with no order as to costs.
