---

Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 301ZA:"Page 150, line 34, leave out from first ““of”” to end of line 35 and insert ““—" (i)   another UK company, or (ii)   a body corporate which was itself a subsidiary of a UK company.”” The noble Lord said: This is a minor tidying-up amendment. We accept that the definition of ““relevant holding company”” should be the same in Clause 339(4) and Clause 343(4). The definition of a relevant holding company in Clause 339(4) differs from the definition in Clause 343(4) in that it only excludes a company that is a subsidiary of a body corporate that is itself a subsidiary of a UK company. Clause 343(4) goes further in that it excludes any subsidiary of another UK company or any subsidiary of a body corporate which is itself a subsidiary of a UK company. If that is not clear, our intention is that a relevant holding company be the ultimate holding company or, where such a company is not a UK company, it should be the holding company highest up the chain that is a UK company. The definition in Clause 343 is therefore correct, and the amendment will align Clause 339 with it. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.