 House of Commons |
Session 2005-06 Publications on the internet Index of Amendments |
|
Notices of Amendments given on Thursday 6th July 2006 For other Amendment(s) see the following page(s) of Supplement
to Votes: Standing Committee D Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] Mr Jonathan Djanogly
485 Clause 243, page 110, line 22, leave out paragraph (b). Mr Jonathan Djanogly
486 Clause 246, page 112, line 14, at end insert ‘, or (d) that the directors have decided not to pursue the claim, unless the court considers that there is a substantial risk that in reaching their decision they acted in breach of their duties to the company, or (e) that the claim is one which the company in general meeting could validly decide not to pursue, unless the court considers that there is a substantial risk that a decision not to pursue the claim would only be taken as a result of votes cast by members with a personal interest, direct or indirect, in the decision, or (f) that pursuing the claim would not be in the interests of the company.’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
487 Clause 243, page 110, line 29, leave out ‘or another person (or both)’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
488 Clause 243, page 110, line 30, leave out subsection (4). Mr Jonathan Djanogly
489 Clause 244, page 111, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ‘(1) A member of a company who wishes to bring a derivative claim under this Chapter must receive permission (in Northern Ireland, leave) from the court before proceedings are issued.’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
490 Clause 246, page 112, line 13, after ‘company’, insert ‘in general meeting’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
491 Clause 246, page 112, line 14, after ‘company’, insert ‘in general meeting’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
492 Clause 246, page 112, line 13, after ‘occurred’, insert ‘, save in circumstances where it is clear that such decision was one that no reasonable board could have reached in which event such authority shall require to be approved in general meeting’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
493 Clause 246, page 112, line 14, after ‘occurred’, insert ‘, save in circumstances where it is clear that such decision was one that no reasonable board could have reached in which event such authority shall require to be approved in general meeting’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
494 Clause 243, page 110, line 26, leave out ‘or proposed’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
495 Clause 243, page 110, line 38, at end add— ‘(6) A derivative claim under this Chapter may only be brought if the directors have been requested by a member of the company to bring a claim in respect of an act or omission specified in subsection (3) and have not agreed to the request after the expiry of a reasonable period from service of the request.’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
496 Clause 447, page 212, line 22, at end insert ‘or ‘(c) in the case of statements regarding the past or present condition of the company, he was negligent in making an untrue or misleading statement.’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
497 Clause 485, page 234, line 4, leave out ‘;’ and insert ‘, and’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
498 Clause 375, page 169, line 43, at end add— ‘(3) If compliance with the regulations and any other provision made by or under this Act as to the matters to be included in a company’s individual accounts, or in notes to those accounts under subsection (1), would not be sufficient to give a true and fair view, the necessary additional information must be given in the accounts or in a note to them.’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
499 Clause 379, page 171, line 18, at end add— ‘(2) If compliance with the regulations and any other provision made by or under this Act as to the matters to be included in a company’s IAS individual accounts, or in notes to those accounts under subsection (1), would not be sufficient to give a true and fair view, the necessary additional information must be given in the accounts or in a note to them.’. Mr Jonathan Djanogly
500 Clause 246, page 112, line 14, at end insert ‘, or (d) that the directors have decided not to pursue the claim, unless the court considers that there is a substantial risk that that transaction constitutes a fraud on a minority of members of the company, or (e) that the claim is one which the company in general meeting could validly decide not to pursue, unless the court considers that there is a substantial risk that a decision not to pursue the claim would only be taken due to the majority of the shares being in control of those with a direct or indirect interest in the transaction.’. |
|
| © Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared: 7 July 2006 |