Home > Company Law
Company Law
- Sort by
- Mark
- Question
- Year
- Words
- Date submitted
Question: Company Law Reform Act
‘It is the case that the UK still has not had a thorough review of the relationship between limited liability and unlimited liability legal forms for small firms and that the LLP’s role for small firms has not been properly addressed. Nevertheless, the need for a special limited liability company regime for owner-managed firms has been reviewed and rejected for clear and convincing reasons. The temptation to create a new legal form because other jurisdictions have something of this type has been resisted, rightly.’
In the light of this statement, evaluate the comparative treatment of the small firm and the reasons why the UK Company Law Review (CLR) rejected the creation of specialist legal forms for closely held companies.
Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3372 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2007 | Date submitted: March 30, 2011 | Coursework ID: 659
Question: To what extent do you share the late Professor Kahn-Freund’s view of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL) as a “calamitous decision”?
Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2998 | References: Yes | Date written: May, 2007 | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 666
Question: ‘Incorporation is the bedrock upon which Company law is built.’
Critically examine this statement.
Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1885 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2007 | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 667
Question: 'In practice, in no circumstances is it possible to pierce the corporate veil between a parent and a subsidiary company.'
Critically assess this claim.
Mark: 65% | 2nd Year LLB | Business Association Company Law
Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1485 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: May 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 686
Question: In what circumstances may the veil of incorporation be lifted at common law?
Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 565 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 668
Question: Company law assignment
‘The general idea behind the Community Interest Companies (CIC) is to have available a custom made legal vehicle for community and social enterprises where the profits are to be made available for public work.
However, a more focused Community Interest test is in place which has been said to make the implementation of such Companies impossible. Further, it has been said that the Regulator of CIC does not seem to have proper guidance as what constitutes a Community Interest Company.’
Do you agree with the above statement?
Discuss.
Substantiate your paper by making reference to the relevant provisions in the Companies Act 2006 and/or case law.
Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 3095 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: March 14, 2011 | Coursework ID: 651
Question: Section A (carries 50% of the marks)– Pre-seen Question
Please note: Students will not be allowed to enter the examination room with any additional notes.
1. Joe, Mike and Tony are the directors of Singing Stars Ltd, a company formed and incorporated in 2010 to carry on a music recording business. Joe, Mike and Tony each own 15% of the company’s shares with the nominal value of £1.00 a share.
The remaining shares are owned by 5 other shareholders who each have an 11% holding. The company has only one class of shares and there is a provision in the company’s articles dis-applying the statutory pre-emption rights contained in section 561 of the Companies Act 2006.
In recent months the other shareholders have grown increasingly dissatisfied with Joe and Mike and their apparent lack of interest in the company. Tony has also become increasingly frustrated with the situation and so is very interested when he is approached by 4 of the other shareholders to ask his opinion about voting Joe and Mike from the board. However Joe and Mike are told of the plot by Luke, the other fifth shareholder, who offers to support them with his 11% of the vote and later to help them secure a number of lucrative contracts, providing there is "something in it for me."
Joe and Mike suggest the following:
(a) That they issue sufficient £1 shares to Luke to raise his stake to 40% to allow them to defeat the resolution for the removal of Joe and Mike from the board.
(b) After this they will pass resolutions to remove Tony from the board and to replace him with Luke.
(c) As an added incentive the shares will be issued to Luke for 60p each to allow for a tidy profit.
(d) Luke has suggested that the company might accept some land which he owns as payment for the shares.
ADVISE Tony on the legality of each of the proposed actions.
Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1979 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: January 21, 2012 | Coursework ID: 717
