Exam (elaborations)
Company Law Revision Notes - Distinction
- Module
- Company Law
- Institution
- Queen Mary, University Of London (QMUL)
I achieved a distinction with these revision notes for Company Law at a Russell Group University.
[Show more]
Content preview
SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY (5) Group structure ***• - Limited liability intended for natural persons, not companies, otherwise double limited liability ∴ parents ≠
o INTERESTS OF JUSTICE *Restructuring
CREASEY +
likely to be liable for subsidiary’s debts - Restructuring transferred X’s assets to Y ∴ X couldn’t satisfy C’s unfair dismissal claim
TYPES OF COMPANIES
o - Subsidiary’s separateness disadvantages parents who suffered loss - Court: PTV in interests of justice
• Private limited company (Ltd): Ownership via shareholding Barings VS.
o S154: Requires 1 director - Parent suffered loss b/c subsidiary’s loss ≠ actionable by parent ORD -
• Public company (Plc) - Overruled Creasy: No PTV, legitimate restructuring b/c financial crisis > sham to avoid liability
o S154: Requires 2 directors o - Radically extended Salomon principle, b/c allows asset partitioning (parent puts assets in subsidiaries
o Issues shares to general public beyond creditors’ reach) ****
• MODERN VIEW: PTV for SHAM/AGENCY > single economic unit/interests of justice
• Company limited by shares: Shareholders only liable for amount unpaid on their shares ADAMS v Cape ****
(6) Phoenix companies
• Company limited by guarantee: Non-profit making entities, e.g. charities, clubs - Personal injury claims against US subsidiary, but no assets ∴ sought damages from UK parent
• - Creating phoenix companies abuses limited liability
o Constitution binds members to a guarantee to contribute £X to pay off debts in insolvency - Court: Salomon applies = subsidiary has separate rights + liabilities
o GRIFFITHS: Directors of failed company walk away from debt + start another company under similar
o No issue of shares, b/c ≠ distribute profits to members - Parent allowed to structure group to TAX AVOID (Google HQ in Ireland), but NOT TAX EVADE
name ≠ acceptable, b/c potential for fraud by incompetent/dishonest directors
o Raises funds via loans/subscription/levy fees for services - E.g. transfer major assets to 1 subsidiary + risky activity by another
• Unlimited company: Members ≠ protected by limited liability PIERCING THE VEIL - 3 circumstances of PTV:
• Lord SUMPTION: “Piercing the veil” = COMPANY + CONTROLLER ≠ TREATED AS SEPARATE PERSONS 1) Document states 2 companies operate as 1
SEPARATE LEGAL PERSONALITY *Salomon = accepted position in law, but do narrow exceptions apply?
• Narrow exception: Fraud, b/c intention to deceive Beckett
• Companies have separate legal personality ∴ S protected himself against liabilities of the business - Interpreted employment contract as group of companies forming a single entity
Brougham
o E.g. Owns property, party to contracts, commits crimes, sues etc. 2) Sham subsidiary, e.g. Lipman
- 2 undischarged bankrupts incorporated a company to defraud debenture holders
Salomon +
- Court: If company used to perpetrate fraud, may pierce the veil 3) Express/implied (conduct) agency of parent: Parent’s day-to-day control over subsidiary
- Boots + shoes sole trader, who incorporated a limited company
- Implied = high bar ∴ ↓ ability to PTV
- Sold sole trader business to company w/ £10k debenture to S (prioritized over unsecured creditors) EVASION
- S owned most shares + 6 family members held 1 share each • If company = ‘mere cloak/sham’ = PTV • Effective exception?
- Company went insolvent Gilford o + Courts willing to PTV to award compensation
- Liquidator argued incorporation = sham ∴ S personally liable - NON-COMPETE CLAUSE. When dismissed, incorporated a rival company o - Inconsistent approach
- CoA: Sham to operate as a single person company w/ “6 dummies” to satisfy formalities ∴ invalid - Court: Sham to use company to evade existing legal obligation ∴ issued INJUNCTION o - When claim is against corporate group, Adams lets parents hide behind separate legal personality
- Moralistic approach: Nominee members’ bad faith + overvalued sale
Lipman
- HoL: No, company = separate legal personality ∴ S not liable for its debts OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO SALOMON if PTV ≠ available
- L AGREED TO SELL LAND to X. To avoid sale, incorporated a company + transferred land to it
- Literal approach: Company validly created b/c Act required 7 shareholders TORT ACTIONS
- Claimed land belonged to company
∴ satisfied S’s debt before unsecured creditors Parent company liable in negligence
- Court: Sham to avoid honouring agreement ∴ ordered SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE against company
• Exception = parent’s assumption of responsibility
Gramophone - Trustor AB CHANDLER v Cape
- Wholly owned subsidiary retained profit > distributed via dividends - Director TRANSFERRED FUNDS from Trustor AB to another company (X) owned by him - Subsidiary employee = lung cancer b/c asbestos exposure from subsidiary’s negligent operations
- Court: Business of company > of shareholders ∴ focus on actions of directors > who has ultimate - Some ££ reached him personally - Court: Parent liable, b/c assumed DOC to advise subsidiary on H&S steps + ensure steps were taken
control of company - Court: X = sham company to misappropriate funds ∴ D personally liable to RETURN FUNDS - ARDEN LJ: Parent assumes responsibility to subsidiary employees for high-level advice/strategy
Macaura - LIMITED LIABILITY - 4 requirements to hold parent liable in negligence:
- M sold timber on his land to a company + insured timber in his name 1) Parent + subsidiary’s business = same
• PTV exceptions = rare, e.g. evasion cases
- Destroyed by fire, so M claimed insurance 2) Parent has/ought to have superior knowledge on H&S in that industry
Prest
3) Subsidiary’s system of work ≠ safe
- HoL: Property belongs to company, not shareholders ∴ only company could insure it - Husband controlled companies w/ LEGAL TITLE TO PROPERTIES
§ B/c separate legal personality = denied remedy to M who lost his personal fortune 4) Parent knew/ought to have foreseen subsidiary would rely on parent’s superior knowledge
- Wife wanted properties in DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
for employee’s protection
- UKSC: Separate legal personality = BELONGED TO THE COMPANY, not H ≠ PTV
Lee + - Lord SUMPTION: Old piercing cases split into concealment + evasion cases
- L took insurance policy entitling widow to damages upon death if he was a company ‘worker’ § Q) Bypassing > piercing veil to hold parents liable?
1) CONCEALMENT ≠ piercing the veil § Yes: Proves (4) if parent regularly intervenes in subsidiary’s trading operations, e.g. production
- Died, but insurers claimed L being sole director + owning all, but 1 share ≠ employee
- If company conceals real actor, looking behind a company to find real actor ≠ PTV § No: Limited to H&S claims
- Court: Entitled to damages
- TAN: E.g. undercapitalization/assets + controller intermixed = masks true actor (controller)
- Company = separate legal personality ∴ can validly enter contract to employ L 2) EVASION = true ground for piercing the veil • But rare: Thompson limits scope of Chandler
- Lord MORRIS: Company = perpetual existence, but members change over time THOMPSON
- Husband transferred companies whilst harmonious w/ wife ∴ no intention to evade ≠ PTV
- E.g. M may retire from directorship, but employment contract ≠ affected - Lord MANCE: Cautious to state evasion = only exception, b/c may be ↑ PTV categories - Despite parent appointing director to subsidiary board, owes fiduciary duty to subsidiary > parent
- Lord NEUBERGER: No real PTV cases - Court: Coordinated activity + shared resources = normal business conduct for group subsidiaries
LIMITED LIABILITY
• May establish separate legal personality w/ unlimited liability to incur debts CONTRACT Directors’ personal liability
• But hard for limited liability w/o separate legal personality, b/c laws on limiting liability in clauses/notices • If PTV brings non-party into contractual relationships on un-agreed terms ≠ PTV • Courts ↑ willing to find directors personally liable for torts, esp. intentional torts (e.g. deceit) > negligence
precludes it VTB MCA RECORDS
- VTB bank gave loan to company X to buy dairy companies - Depends whether directors’ involvement goes beyond mere voting for/against action = vague test
(1) Risk
- But transaction arranged by M who owned both companies § Artificial for small companies w/ small meetings
• + ↓ Risk = ↑ investment
- Defaulted ∴ VTB argued PTV, so M = personally liable
o + HANSMANN: Personal assets safe from creditors’ reach Deceit
- Court: No PTV, otherwise turns non-party (M) into a liable co-contracting party
o - FREEMAN disagrees: Bank loans require shareholders to provide guarantees ∴ any debts owed to - Instead, use fraudulent misrepresentation, b/c PTV = last resort if no other action available PAKISTAN SHIPPING
banks = reclaimed from personal assets - Missed shipping date, but M gave documents for payment ∴ company X’s bank paid what was owed
• + Management takes ↑ risk knowing members won’t lose personally CORPORATE GROUPS *Despite subsidiary’s separate legal personality, insolvent ∴ PTV makes parent liable - Company X refused to pay bank
o - Irresponsible risk-taking • + Parent’s control over group ≠ same as passive shareholders *** - Court: If makes fraudulent misstatement = personally liable, b/c intention to deceive
o DUNN: Parents aware/control risks undertaken by subsidiary ∴ in a position to avoid unnecessary risks
(2) Transferring shares Negligence
• Inconsistent approach
• + Facilitates transfer of shares o Restrictive: WILLIAMS
o Unlike unlimited liability = ↑ likely to sue wealthy shareholders, personal liability ≠ vary by wealth ALIBAZERO - - Despite negligent misstatements on company letter-headed paper, director ≠ personally liable, b/c no
of other shareholders ∴ homogenous shares easily transferred - After transferred ownership of oil between 2 subsidiaries, ship sank ∴ 1 st company claimed loss personal dealings w/ plaintiff ∴ no reasonable reliance to establish AoR
(3) Creditors - Court: Each company = separate legal personality ∴ 2 nd company = true owner
- But limitation period ended ∴ neither could claim STATUTORY CREDITOR PROTECTION = statute creates exception to Salomon
• - Shifts monitoring to creditors ∴ shareholders become passive owners • S213 IA 1986: Fraudulent trading
VS.
o + HANSMANN: ↑ Suitable, b/c widely dispersed shareholder ownership o Knowing party carries on business w/ intent to defraud
o ↑ Liberal to PTV. But unique facts = statutory compulsory purchase orders ∴ PTV b/c parents benefitted
• + Certainty as to assets available to creditors § KEAY: “Intent to defraud” ≠ clear
as the real controllers
• + ↑Risk to creditors = can adjust terms to ↑ interest § E.g. One-off fraud = hard to prove business carried on for fraudulent purposes ≠ liable
o AGENCY
• - Small creditors lack bargaining power o Hard to prove “actual dishonesty”
Smith, Stone & Knight +
• Reform: Minimum capital requirement Patrick
- Subsidiary owned land = subject to CPO
o But ≠ comfort creditors, b/c company may have £50k now, but not next week - Director delayed liquidation for 6 months to issue debentures to himself∴ prioritised over
- Agency relationship, b/c parent fully controlled subsidiary ∴ parent entitled to compensation
unsecured creditors
(4) Tort victims o SINGLE ECONOMIC ENTITY: Degree of control over subsidiary, e.g. same board; parent owns all shares - Court: Actual dishonesty requires “real moral blame”
• - “Involuntary creditors”, b/c injured by companies they didn’t choose to do business w/ DHN +
o Unlike creditors, can’t research company to assess creditworthiness/take security over company - Parent owned 2 subsidiaries (subject to CPO)
property/ negotiate terms of skill + care - Court: PTV, b/c single economic entity
VS.
• Reform: Compulsorily ↑ liability, esp. tort victims
WOOLFSON -
o But unfair, creditors had opportunity to research company + negotiate terms
- Court: Parent had no control over landowners ≠ single economic entity ∴ not entitled to
compensation for CPO
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawnotesxo2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now