header-logo header-logo

26 February 2009 / Paul Christopher , Gemma Campbell
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Features , Company , Constitutional law , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Directly Liable

Directors should be wary of the new flexible approach for returning money to investors, say Paul Christopher & Gemma Campbell

Probably the most significant change from previous practice in Guernsey law under the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (the Company Law), which came into effect on 1 July 2008, was the consignment to history of the concept of capital  maintenance, which was discarded in favour of a solvency model as the basis of a company’s ability to pay distributions and dividends.

To recap, the term “capital maintenance” meant that a company must raise the capital which it has stated it will raise in its memorandum and, broadly, a limited company  could not return capital to its shareholders other than in compliance with and as authorised by explicit statutory provisions. Any unauthorised returns were illegal at common law. The rules were primarily intended for the protection of the creditors. However, experience has shown to be questionable the extent to which the capital maintenance rules provided such protection, especially since there were various wide ranging common law and statutory exceptions.

The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll