Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Trevor v Whitworth (1887) 12 App Cas 409 is a UK company law case concerning share buybacks. It held they were unlawful. The case is often used in support for the Capital Maintenance Rule. The rule coming from the case itself has since been reformed by statute in several commonwealth countries.
Share capital maintenance, issue at a discount Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper [1892] AC 125 is an old and controversial English company law case concerning shares . It concerns the rule that shares should not be issued "at a discount" on the price at which they were issued.
A number of its provisions have become increasingly controversial since its enactment in 1976, [1] as many rules for the maintenance and alteration of capital have been abandoned within EU member states, particularly regarding the use of minimum capital (currently set at €25,000), and the accounting concept of nominal share value ...
Second Company Law Directive 77/91/EEC, on formation of public companies and the maintenance and alteration of capital, updated by 2006/68/EC and 2009/109/EC, repealed by 2012/30/EU Mergers and acquisitions
Absence of capital maintenance rules in relation to dividends and distributions; Power to hold treasury shares; Absence of thin capitalisation rules; Shareholders in a British Virgin Islands company do not enjoy statutory pre-emption rights or rights of first refusal in relation to new issuances or sales of shares. Although companies may opt ...
The Isle of Man Companies Acts 1931 to 2004, also known as the 1931 Act, is the law under which most Isle of Man Companies are established. It replaced the existing 1865 Isle of Man Companies Act and closely follows a template based on the English Companies Act 1929 .
In re Exchange Banking Company or Flitcroft's case (1882) LR 21 Ch D 519 [1] is a UK company law case concerning the payment of dividends.It was decided when the law required that dividends should only be paid out of a company's profits, although the courts deferred to company directors to define their own rules for determining when that was so.
By contrast, it is an axiomatic principle of English company law that a company is an entity separate and distinct from its members, who are liable only to the extent that they have contributed to the company's capital: Salomon v Salomon [1897]. The effect of this rule is that the individual subsidiaries within a conglomerate will be treated as ...