Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mike O'Brien (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Companies Bill (HL).


Companies Bill [Lords]

What I am saying is that, under clause 117, the court can enable—order, in fact—a company not to provide information requested during a particular request. So the company will be in a position to make such order as it believes is appropriate when an application is made. The court would then be able to deal with concerns about shareholder democracy and other issues, which might properly be raised by shareholders. But there is nothing in new clauses 16 and 17 that would enable that to occur. New clause 16 would also have unwarranted side-effects. Entry in the register of members is evidence of a member’s entitlement. That would be lost for any company with a confidentiality order. The loss of the ability to check the register would create a risk that registers of private companies with confidentiality orders would not be properly maintained.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c945 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Disclosure of information Animal welfare Accountability Company law Community development Companies Directors Business Annual reports Liability Donors Expenditure Exemptions Harassment Ethics Journalism Personal records Membership Political parties Public companies Loans Staff Meetings Private companies Lobbying Registration Trade unions Voting rights Shareholders Huntingdon Life Sciences Business plans
Legislation
Companies Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk