You might also be interested in
Replies (16)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Check and Confirm statement
Will this statement be free of charge?or will £13 fee be payable?
Yes surprisingly
Surely not!
It's in my dictionary as "the act of doing away with something".
Abolishment....
...is hardly the word we normally use though, is it? Seems to me to be a smartarse alternative.
Good in parts
There are some sensible and useful changes here, but some seen to create more work not less. A huge number- maybe the majority - of small companies are one-person companies. Will all these sole shareholders have to also register as persons with significant control? Surely just looking at the list of shareholders will tell you that.
Easing director disqualification and accelerating striking off might weed out some of he worst cases of non-compliance. Only time will tell if these powers are actually used.
Why Terry?
I'd vote for the abolition of Ayesha's dictionary.
See Oxford English Dictionary "abolish" (verb) "ment" (suffix):
"To put an end to, do away with (an institution, custom or practice); to eradicate, destroy (something prevalent); to annul or make void".
More easier?
Never mind "abolishment", which apparently is a word (who knew?), let's pick the low-hanging fruit :-)
I'm not doubting the veracity of your dictionary, Ayesha. It's just that it seems somewhat perverse to select a word that nobody ever uses (OK - maybe somebody does) when there is a perfectly good word that everybody uses and which means exactly the same thing. I suspect, though, that you'd agree with that and, rather than advocating the use of admonishment, you were merely pointing out that its use was not, as many would have surmised, an error. So I'm sure we're on the same side.
Biased towards the dictionary :-)
I'm not doubting the veracity of your dictionary, Ayesha. It's just that it seems somewhat perverse to select a word that nobody ever uses (OK - maybe somebody does) when there is a perfectly good word that everybody uses and which means exactly the same thing. I suspect, though, that you'd agree with that and, rather than advocating the use of admonishment, you were merely pointing out that its use was not, as many would have surmised, an error. So I'm sure we're on the same side.
I think we do Terry. I spent the 1st 5 years of my career in the early 70s working as a trainee lexicographer at the OED before leaving to have my daughter and then changing careers much to my husbands disappointment I hasten to add. They were my best working years so I am quite "protective" of the dictionary.
Disqualification of directors...
It's all very well producing legislation aimed at improving Director behaviour within small companies, but how will creditors and shareholders who have been 'wronged' seek recourse?
CA 2006 is very clear, and armed with evidence and legal support, a case can be made. However, the cost to then take it to court (assuming a 'dodgy' director is unlikely to agree to ADR) is prohibitive for all except those with large amounts of cash, and of course, the 'dodgy' director(s) who have profited from their ill gotten gains.
I have now reached the stage where our solicitor has confirmed the merits of our case, with a strong likelihood of success:
"12. Mr H is in breach of s. 172(1)(a) and his duty to promote the success of the Company.
13. From the position of a director of the Company, he failed to renew the contract with XYZ Bank, the sole client and source of business for the Company. He then allowed XYZ Bank to enter into a new contract with ABL, a company which he was also a director and provides identical services to those of the Company. As a result of his actions, and in breach of this section, the Company was permanently deprived from the business and income provided by the contract with XYZ Bank in the immediate and long term future. 14. Mr H has therefore failed to promote the success of the Company by diverting the sole business of the Company to the newly formed ABL. 19. Mr H, apart from a shareholder and therefore a “principal”, was also a director of the Company, and therefore an “agent”. In his decision, as an agent, to allow the non-renewal of the XYZ Bank contract and, particularly, to allow the XYZ Bank contract to be transferred to ABL, he made a personal profit which, according to the “no profit” principle, should be repaid to the Company." That's the good news. The bad news is the cost just to get to the permission to proceed stage is prohibitive for a shareholder who has been deprived of her money by defendant. Our solicitor cannot take this on a contingency fee basis. Does anyone on this forum know of a solicitor who would be prepared to do this? Dishonest small business directors know there is little likelihood of being brought to book, either by the Police or through a civil action, regardless of what CA2006 and the new small business Act says. Without the courts facilitating cost-effective access by well advised claimants, this situation will only get worse.
Controlling Party
This is an excellent idea that will stop funding of small businesses by individuals who have accumulated their wealth by illegal means - I would suggest to add "initial statement of capital" and "source of the capital" statement in the annual confirmation statement too. Unfortunately, Companies House might start checking what banks are expected to do but bankers have failed again and again. When a company is opening a bank account, why cant a banker ascertain if the directors attending the branch to open a bank account know their business fully or are mostly accompanied by their "controlling party". HMRC has failed to question and go after "Phoenix" Companies. How on earth individuals are dissolving one company and opening the same business the next day with their nephew or wife as director of a new company? How? Someone who says that the bankers dealing with that specific company's bank account are not aware of whats going on "lives in a fools paradise. A banker knows the business, they know the family at times and then never questioned if a company has been liquidated, how and why the same ex-directors opening a new company with wife or newphew's name????? All this needed to be stopped a long time ago and its about time now such new acts and changes will "hopefully" bring a stop to malpractices.