607 Penalty for contravention of this Chapter
607 Penalty for contravention of this Chapter
Companies Act 2006 | Legislation

(1)     This section applies where a company contravenes—

section 593 (public company allotting shares for non-cash consideration), or

section 598 (public company entering into agreement for transfer of non-cash asset).

(2)     An offence is committed by—

(a)     the company, and

(b)     every officer of the company who is in default.

(3)     A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)     on conviction on indictment, to a fine;

(b)     on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

Popular documents

LEXISNEXIS

Tomlin orders

Brexit: The UK's departure from the EU on exit day ie Friday 31 January 2020 has implications for practitioners dealing with provisions in the CPR relevant to cross border matters, including CPR 5.4C (discussed below). For guidance on the impact of Brexit on the CPR, see Cross border

LEXISNEXIS

The pari passu principle and collection remedies for the office-holder—the position under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016

The primary function of office-holders in personal and corporate insolvency is to collect in the assets belonging to a company or individual and to distribute these to the company's or individual's creditors. Office-holders have various duties and powers in order to ensure that they do this. For

LEXISNEXIS

Money laundering offences—tipping off and prejudicing an investigation

Tipping off and prejudicing an investigationIt would undermine the benefit to the authorities if, a suspicious activity report (SAR) having been made, the alleged offender were to be made aware of the interest in their activities so that they could take steps to cover up their misdeeds or disappear.

LEXISNEXIS

Forum non conveniens—scope and application

This Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear a dispute and is applied