Section 35A and quorum requirements: confusion reigns

Article English OPEN
Walters, A (2002)
  • Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuters

Engaged as it is in the Herculean task of drafting the Companies Bill, the DTI would be well advised to consider the implications of Smith v. Henniker-Major & Co. This case has spawned four judgments in the higher courts, each giving a different reading to section 35A of the Companies Act 1985, leaving the law in a highly unsatisfactory state.
  • References (1)

    Moreover, it is clearly established that the Directive has no inbuilt safeguards against conflicts of interest: see Case C-104/96, Cooperatieve Rabobank “Vechten Plassengebied” BA v. Minderhoud [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1025; [1997] E.C.R. I-7211; [1998] 2 B.C.L.C. 507; [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 270, ECJ.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Institutional Repository - IRUS-UK 0 60
Share - Bookmark