Law, Company Law Uk

UK LAW COMPANY(A Case StudySituation male pargonnt , Dan , and David argon the sole theater directors of TOPCO Ltd , a community which has deuce subsidiaries : Quickshop Ltd , and Speedwell Ltd Quickshop Ltd . has troika local outlets . The triplet some(prenominal) contumacious to take a long-lease in dickens more than stores , expecting an change magnitude gain ground potential barely , the landlord of the two stores was non involuntary to let Quickshop Ltd . to lease in the two stores because of the circumscribed pecuniary indebtedness of the club . The troika thitherfore distinct to muniment a third subsidiary , Home waiveze Ltd . which offers a frosty feed delivery outline . Their sh bes in Quickshop and the lease of the two early(a) shops were sold at a pull ahead to lend the bills to Homefreeze Ltd . g round on a bam on the comp some(prenominal) s profit . Homefreeze Ltd . yet did not fare in descent , and was now in the commonwealth of failure . The current owners of Quickshop Ltd . were rivalry that every additional profit do by the source owners by a take away of an interest in basketball team shops should run impoverished to themAdviseAccording to the UK political party equity (recent re straining bill , the wampum get by the cause directors belonged solely to them . In the supplemental supply of the methodrnistic UK alliance f aimness , it is clearly give spittle to that those who are only members of a check obligation mass rear end participate in the division of rustle (based on the beau monde s article It reads (sec . 37 , In the learn of a smart set not having a plowshare capital any provision in the family s articles , purporting to give a soulfulness a right to participate in the dissociable salary of the troupe differentwise than as member is void If the articles of Q! uickshop Ltd go away that members of the family can participate in the division of scratching earned in a given finale , accordingly the former owners slang the right to song the profits do by the sales even offt , since they are ships union matters taking to the build upt that they were overly sole owners of the fraternity . If the club has an unlimited liability (big corporations , indeed the movement of sale whitethorn be deemed nonmeaningful or illegalNevertheless , because tire out , Dan , and David shiped into a legal take up with Homefreeze (which is a smart set matter , then it is assumed that the directors smashing motive to land in a get to a lower place ones skin is legally backbone . The aforementioned(prenominal) justice provides that the directors of a gild have enough rights to enter relationss with other parties , which is deemed as bon ton mattersIt reads (sec 40 , In favour of a person dealings with a caller-up in eff ective faith , the power of the directors to bind the friendship , or authorise others to do so , is deemed to be free of any limitation to a lower place the phoner s constitution The binding power of the directors includes the right to dispose the assets of the alliance under a legal performance . The new owners then should adhere to the mash made by the social club (since Don , Dan , and David represent the society wherefore , since the new owners of the participation were not the ones who entered to the contract , then their binding power as directors remains limited in this sequel . The contract entered by the former owners is legal if we are to base it from the rightfulness . Although the company is differentiated from its owners , the company remains a conquering of the owners , and hence has the full rights to dispose it under existing laws Since there was no indication in the company s constitution that the former owners can enter into a transaction that w ould tape drive the ownership of the company even w! hen it is not in the state of bankruptcy Don , Dan , and David , can right in full claim the earnings from the saleIt is also indicated in law (sec . 40 , b ) that a person dealing with the company is not bound to enquire as to any limitation on the powers of the directors to bind the company or authorise others to do so , is presumed to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is turn up , and is not to be regarded as acting in drear faith by fountain only of his knowing that an act is beyond the powers of the directors under the company s constitution whenceforth , if the three former owners are be to have acted in speculative faith in the transaction (like putting the company to a fiscal disability , then can be a chance for the new owners to claim the additional profits (interest ) from the sale . It is also stated in law (sec 40 , b-3 ) that the limitations on the directors power under the company s constitution include limitations deriving from (a ) from a resol ution or of any chassis of shareholders , or (b ) from any agreement amongst the members of the company or of any class of shareholders It is clear then the contract which specifies that the profits of the sale of Quickshop Ltd . should belong to the sole owners (Don , Dan , and David ) remains legal and binding even to the new directorsThe former owners of Quickshop Ltd . however can be apt(p) for debts owed to the suppliers of equipment for the Homefreeze venture . Since the specie bring was supercharged on the company s assets , the former owners of Quickshop Ltd . thereof whitethorn be amenable for the company s current of air up . They hold some shares in the company hence the so-called limited liability system provides the necessary implement for making the shareholders responsible for(p) for any fiscal problem of the companyThe UK Company Law of 1989 reads , The director /s have a employment of care to the shareholder (s ) of the company to act in the company s best interests even where doing so might come into ! combat with their own own(prenominal) interests . The concept of a company being a amply separate legal entity to the director /s is pass judgment in English Welsh law save where they have acted in a droolulent and /or reckless elan which could not be deemed reasonable by normal standards - In which chemise , the corporate veil can be get up fully exposing the individuals behind a company to the full rigors of twain cultivated and criminal law Hence since it was clear that Homefreeze Ltd . was on the door of a financial snap , Don , Dan , and David , even if they were not directors have an obligation to face criminal or civilian charges . They were the ones , who as former directors of Quickshop (a party , entered to a contract with Homefreeze that would charge the company based on their available assets . The three gets the profits from the sale but experiences less risk from the financial post of HomefreezeIt should be far-famed that the new UK Company law was cre ated by the British parliament to stimulate the growth of micro- affaires in the UK , oddly those concerned with companies having limited liabilities (Experts underwrite new company law , 2005 . The goal was to reduce red tape in the system and to small investors to engage in stinting activities with low risk . It also provides that company owners and directors can engage in contracts that allow for reduce the liability of the company , in crusades where the company s profit level is above is marginal costsSince the three were the promoters of Homefreeze , on this consideration they may be held liable , only to the finis that they were promoters and not as shareholders .
!
Under the new law , the shareholders of the company can only be responsible for their share of fraud or negligence . As shareholders , therefore they may not liable to damages in company failures . But as promoters or as charged creditors , they may face full obligation of any company failure as in the case of HomefreezeIn the winding up answer , they also do not have priority in the winding up help , even though they were secured creditors since the law provides that all shareholders shall be deemed responsible for their share of fraud or negligence in case of a company failure . Even if they charge the company based on its available asset , noneffervescent they are liable in their share of negligence . It is illustrious that in the new law , the shareholders may be enjoin by law to provide reimbursement in cases of a financial cotton on of a company to which they are in to doctor the financial status of the company . The three however cannot be charged for wrong ful trading since the UK Company Law of 1985 (unreformed feed ) provides that any person may engage in business contracts so long as it prescribes to the thanksgiving of the parties involved - the goodwill may be interpreted as the constitution of the company or existing laws on domestic trading of stocks . The three entered to a rightful contract as to mode of openment of HomefreezeIt is far-famed that , If required , an individual /company may partly fabricate for a share issue but this is done plain to allow for flexibility eventually the full amount moldiness be paid up within a plastered period of generally no more than 5 eld or as laid down in the company s Memorandum Articles of Association (UK Company Law Guide HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol / vane .scfgroup .com /business-services /cf-uk-law-guide .html hypertext transfer protocol / web .scfgroup .com /business-services /cf-uk-law-guide .html Hence , the payment to be made by the company to Don , Dan , a nd David was through a gradual transfer of share . Th! is mode of payment is seen as a just compensation for the creditors of the company to allow great flexibility and unlimited liability . Hence , it is not flush to say that Don , Dan , and David own some share of the company as part of the interest of the debt and the modify as shares in the company for a time period specified by law The parties may adhere or not to this form of agreement . The winding up process in Homefreeze is limited only to the shareholders and the directors , and , of course , to parties who had financial minutes related to the winding up process . In the case of Homefreeze , no other companies were seen as connected to the financial clangor of the company . If for drill the directors of Homefreeze entered into a contract with another company or mystic individual that eventually led to the collapse of the company , the directors are liable . The other party may also be held liable if proven that he has companionship of the relative economic injusti ce in the contractReferencesCompany Law elucidate Bill [HL] . Sessions 05-06 mesh Publications . URL HYPERLINK http / web .publications .parliament .uk /pa /ld200506 /ldbills /034 /06034 .15- 21 .html j36 http /www .publications .parliament .uk /pa /ld200506 /ldbills /034 /06034 .15-2 1 .html j36 . Retrieved August 25 , 2007Experts apprehend new company law .2005 . URL HYPERLINK http /www .contractoruk .com / countersign /002379 .html http /www .contractoruk .com /news /002379 .html . Retrieved August 25 2007UK Company Law Guide . 2007 . URL HYPERLINK http /www .scfgroup .com /business-services /cf-uk-law-guide .html Retrieved August 25 http /www .scfgroup .com /business-services /cf-uk-law-guide .html Retrieved August 25 , 2007UK Company Law of 1985 and 1989 . 2006 . Published from the parliament Journal one hundred sixty-five (18PAGEPAGE 1 ...If you motive to get a full essay, disposition it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page:! cheap essay