ivorystraws said:Thanks for the detailed response dam099. Your points are very valid but I still have some questions.
Was the one random sample you downloaded from the CRO implemented professionally?
Its difficult to say for sure but I'd say so they may have been, the subscribers signatures were witnessed by a solicitor who I'd assume probably advised on the process.
ivorystraws said:So essentially, in my case, when I stated that to have obtained, "a wide range of (M&A) examples" and have "rechecked it (M&A) against many examples", would this not cover the potential pitfalls you are speaking of, with respect to broad objects clauses and common typos/structural mistakes within the documents?
Yes it probably would, my concern would be more someone who has not taken the time to educate themselves looking at the broad clause and seeing the first clause relating to the specific business, modifying it and then deleting all the rest because they think they don't need it.
ivorystraws said:Can I ask that if someone was to "educate themselves as to the requirements and potential pitfalls" of the whole company formation process, without necessarily going through with this process themselves, where would you receommend that they do this? I think it's good just to have information on this whole process and that any company director should have at least a vague understanding of it.
I'm not really sure on this one my (somewhat rusty) knowledge comes from my studies for my qualification so I can't recomment specific courses for this but I'd imagine some must exist.
ivorystraws said:Also, you made a valid point about businesses evolving over time into activities not necessarily covered by the objects clauses, so would you recommend businesses to have some sort of structural legal review completed at regular intervals i.e. every 3 - 5 years or so possibly?
I would say that would be rare, better to just have a very broad objects clause from the outset so that its nearly impossible to go ultra vires.
ivorystraws said:Or in such a situation where a small business were to find themselves with an object clause which did not currently cover it's activities and the company fails.... would this lead to problems, similar to the ones you previously outlined, with the liquidator?
Finally, can you expand on your second paragraph i.e. in what situations generally, would a liquidator deem that the directors of a failed company have carried out ultra vire activities and that they be personally responsible for any resulting debts? Is it possible that this may occur in the situation I outlined in the paragraph above this?
I can't say that there is a general rule and the liquidator would not have the final say anyway he would likely have to pursue the directors through the courts so it would be a judgement call on his behalf. If losses/debts arose as a result of ultra vires acts and he felt there was a reasonable chance of recovering some/all of these from the directors he may chose to pursue them.