Proceeding contribution from Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Company Law Reform Bill [HL].
Company Law Reform Bill [HL]
Or you could cite another party should you wish to do so. But it would be very unfair. In this case, there would be no desire to let the directors of the holding company know of the resolution that has just been passed by the subsidiary company. Surely, the simple answer is to make the directors of the subsidiary company responsible, as we have been saying all the way through our discussions, and avoid all the hassle of either having to have ratification, which would not happen in this case, or to have some other method of relieving the directors of the holding company. I hope that the Government will think again before the next stage of the Bill.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 679 c155GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Audit Accountancy Company law Companies Directors Absent voting Liability Donors Expenditure Members Political parties Public companies Public records Meetings Voting methods Shareholders Rules of procedure
- Legislation
- Company Law Reform Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:56:51 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304162
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304162
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304162