Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Wedderburn of Charlton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 9 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill (HL).


Company Law Reform Bill

I would like to ask a question about the meaning of the amendment. Although it is very clear, as printed, it is not clear to me whether, when the words are added at the end of line 21, the provision would apply only to paragraph (b)—public companies—or whether it would be, as it were, printed on a new line and apply to paragraphs (a) and (b), so applying to both private and public companies. Does the amendment mean that, if a general notice is given, the authorisation can be given in an equally general manner? That of course relates to my concern about directors having specific details of a particular transaction which they authorise in order to put aside the duty about conflict of interest. Or can they just give a general authorisation in the same manner as a general notice is given, which would effectively be saying, ““On all these matters, do what you like””. If it is the second proposition, the classic principle of conflicts of interest will be set aside in an extremely wide manner. I have really put two questions, which perhaps my noble and learned friend could address in responding to the debate.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c327GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Disclosure of information Conditions of employment Contracts Data protection Company law Companies Directors Conduct Annual reports Conflict of interests Liability Exemptions Electronic commerce Payments Public companies Money lenders Meetings Shares Shareholders
Legislation
Company Law Reform Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk