Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Company Law Bill [HL].
Company Law Bill [HL]
We understand that, and our responses are considered. On the two debates we have had in this area, I cannot believe that the 15-day period makes much difference to procedures as a practical matter. The issue of whether 15 days, three months or 12 months should be the period for the condition to be satisfied is dealt with by the need just to refresh the resolution. I do not see how that would create a difficulty. We have not ignored the points being made. We accept the practical matters, but we suggest that there is another way of dealing with them which is more consistent with some of the other objectives in these clauses.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 680 c43-4GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Company law Company accounts Companies Business interests Finance Investment income Membership Meetings Private companies Registration Shares Shareholders
- Legislation
- Company Law Reform Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 01:42:06 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310055
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310055
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_310055