Archive for the 'subsidiary companies' Category

Bribery Act could disadvantage UK firms, warns Lord Goldsmith – Daily Telegraph

“The Bribery Act could unfairly prejudice British companies after key aspects of it were watered down by the Ministry of Justice, according to former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 25th April 2011

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S – WLR Daily

Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S [2011] UKSC 16; [2011] WLR (D) 126

“When a Scottish holding company’s entire shareholding in one of its subsidiary companies had been pledged to a Scottish creditor as security and, pursuant to Scots law, the creditor had become the registered shareholder, the subsidiary company was, for the purposes of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, no longer a subsidiary of the holding company.”

WLR Daily, 6th April 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel Betriebs GmbH v Finanzamt Linz; Osterreichische Salinen AG v Same – WLR Daily

Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel Betriebs GmbH v Finanzamt Linz; Osterreichische Salinen AG v Same(Joined Cases C-436/08 and C-437/08); ; [2011] WLR (D) 49

“Legislation of a member state which discriminated against portfolio dividends received by a resident company from a company resident in a non member state party to an EEA Agreement, was contrary to the principle of free movement of capital, where that discrimination was based upon a comprehensive agreement of mutual assistance. It was not contrary to article 63FEU of the FEU Treaty for member states to exempt from corporation tax portfolio dividends which one resident company received from another whilst subjecting portfolio dividends which a resident company received from a non member state company party to an EEA Agreement or from a company resident in another member state, provided that the tax was credited against tax payable in the members state of the recipient company and the administrative burdens were not excessive. National legislation which discriminated against dividends received from non member states on the basis of the shareholding held by the recipient company in the non member state company was not contrary to article 63FEU provided the mechanisms in place to off set the charges to tax led to equivalent results.”

WLR Daily, 18th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd – WLR Daily

Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd [2010] UKSC 55; [2010] WLR (D) 218

“The sale of a company’s assets to a shareholder was not an unlawful distribution of assets if the court concluded that it was a genuine commercial transaction at arm’s length even if it appeared with hindsight that the sale was at an undervalue. The court’s conclusion depended on a realistic assessment of all the relevant facts and not simply on a retrospective valuation exercise in isolation from all other inquiries. The essential issue was how the transaction was to be characterised, and that was a matter of substance and not form.”

WLR Daily, 8th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

How to avoid losing a subsidiary by mistake: lessons from the Court of Appeal – OUT-LAW.com

“A parent company can inadvertently lose control of its subsidiary, according to a ruling by the Court of Appeal. An expert has said that the circumstances in which this will happen are rare but that directors of group companies should mitigate the risks.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 26th January 2010

Source: www.out-law.com

Progress Property Co Ltd v Moore and another – WLR Daily

Progress Property Co Ltd v Moore and another [2009] EWCA Civ 629; [2009] WLR (D) 214

“The sale of a company’s assets at an under value by a company having control of selling and buying companies did not make the sale a dressed up unlawful distribution of its assets or ultra vires the company if the person arranging the sale honestly believed the transaction to be other than a gratuitous distribution of the company’s assets to shareholder, even though that person was the director of the selling and buying companies.”

WLR Daily, 29th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners – WLR Daily

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2008] EWHC 1569 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 228

“Legislation concerning controlled foreign companies (CFC), which relied on ss 747 and 748 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for its effectiveness, was not compliant with European Community law and must be disapplied so that, pending such amending legislation or executive action, no charge could be imposed on a taxpayer company under that legislation.”

WLR Daily, 8th July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


March 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories