Maintenance of capital

The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) defines 'share' in relation to a company as a ‘share in the company's share capital'.

A company's share capital is the total number of shares of a fixed nominal value issued by it to investors on or after the company’s incorporation: those investors then become the company’s shareholders. A company’s shareholders accept a liability to contribute sums to the company, when called to do so, such liability being capped at an amount equal to the nominal value of the shares they hold.

Share capital and its maintenance

It is a fundamental rule of English company law that a limited company having a share capital must maintain that capital; a company must not reduce it or return it to shareholders, except as prescribed by law. This capital maintenance rule is intended to protect a company’s creditors by ensuring that the assets that represent the share capital of a company remain available to them for future recourse. It underlies many of the CA 2006 provisions relating to share capital, including the requirements and restrictions relating to:

  1. the nominal value of shares

  2. payment for shares

  3. distributions

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