Takeovers—legal and regulatory

Public company takeovers toolkit

The Public company takeovers toolkit acts a guide to public company takeovers. It provides an overview of each phase of a takeover and the tasks that lawyers are required to complete as part of each phase. The toolkit includes links to Checklists, Precedents (with Drafting Notes), Forms, Practice Notes and an explanation of the key drafting and negotiating points to consider on takeovers.

See Practice Note: Public company takeovers toolkit (which is part of the Public company takeovers toolkit)) for a guide to using the toolkit and an overview of the issues it covers.

Public company takeovers quiz

We have prepared a public company takeovers quiz, which tests users’ knowledge on various aspects of the UK takeover regime. The quiz is in multiple choice format and at the end of each question the correct answer is displayed together with feedback and links to relevant materials. The quiz is intended for use by private practice lawyers, in-house counsel, corporate finance professionals and other parties engaged on takeover transactions. For further details, see Practice Note: Public company takeovers quiz.

Structuring

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