Hot topics

This subtopic contains Practice Notes and other content on current topical issues that are of interest to Corporate lawyers.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 delivers a wide range of reforms and enhancements relating to corporate transparency and the integrity of information held at Companies House, including:

  1. new statutory objectives for the Registrar of Companies (Companies House) which some commentators are describing as reframing the role of Companies House from one of ‘record-keeper’ to ‘gatekeeper’

  2. a substantial package of new requirements relating to identity verification which directors, people with significant control (PSCs) and anyone filing a document at Companies House will be subject to (unless specifically exempt). Identity verification would work in one of two ways:

    1. the individual’s identity would be verified directly using a process provided by Companies House, or

    2. the individual’s identity would be verified by an ‘authorised corporate service provider’ (ACSP)—namely a person who is required to carry out anti-money laundering checks under the UK’s money-laundering regulations and who has registered at Companies House

  3. a range of

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Corporate News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Corporate by content type :

Popular documents