Comments for Boardroom Disputes

Comment on The limits of shareholders agreements by easyDispute over trade mark « Law in the cloud

easyDispute over trade mark « Law in the cloud — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:20:15 +0000

[...] by John H Leave a Comment My colleague Ed Weeks (on his Boardroom Disputes blog) has written a number of times over the past couple of years on the dispute between Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou and the [...]

Comment on Easy Disputes by easyDispute over trade mark « Law in the cloud

easyDispute over trade mark « Law in the cloud — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:17:56 +0000

[...] 21, 2010 by John H Leave a Comment My colleague Ed Weeks (on his Boardroom Disputes blog) has written a number of times over the past couple of years on the dispute between Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou and [...]

Comment on Nipping shareholders disputes in the bud by Ed Weeks

Ed Weeks — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:29:49 +0000

Thanks for your queries about the company picking up the costs of a shareholders’ agreement. I am not an accountant and therefore my views on this point are non-expert but my thoughts are (a) I don’t see any reason why not (b) yes and (c) not necessarily.

It will depend on the nature of the shareholders agreement itself. If it is an agreement solely between the shareholders governing their shareholding relationship outside of the company then it is unlikely that it will be seen as a legitimate expense of the company and it is more likely to be seen as a benefit in kind if the cost is picked up by the company. The position is different if the agreement covers management of the company and the company is a formal party to the agreement (which is often the case). In those circumstances it is much easier to justify the company bearing all or a major part of the cost.

Comment on Nipping shareholders disputes in the bud by David Lynch

David Lynch — Tue, 25 May 2010 22:12:52 +0000

re cost of shareholder’s agreements
I note you mention that the company may pick up the cost. If a company does this (a) would it be tax deductible for corp tax (b) would the company be able to reclaim VAT on the costs and (c) would it be a benefit in kind on the shareholders

Thx

Comment on All is not well in the boardroom of UK Plc by Ed Weeks

Ed Weeks — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:12:48 +0000

Agree is a bit of a feeble analogy. Have been too busy firefighting some actual shareholder disputes to concentrate on blog. Note to self - must improve standard of articles as it appears that somebody actually reads them.

Comment on All is not well in the boardroom of UK Plc by Saffron

Saffron — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:59:49 +0000

Laughably tenuous analogy - I would start explaining the multitude of reasons why, but I don’t have time. Like the article all the same. Keep writing.

Comment on The effect of Boardroom Disputes on relations with Banks by sandra407

sandra407 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:58:34 +0000

Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. Cheers! Sandra. R.

Comment on Insolvent companies - who is to blame! by Ed Weeks

Ed Weeks — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:07:28 +0000

Well that told me!

Comment on Insolvent companies - who is to blame! by Saffron

Saffron — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:40:27 +0000

*walks up to Mr Weeks, sticks tongue out, blows massive raspberry, wiggles behind and leaves* huh

Comment on Insolvent companies - who is to blame! by Ed Weeks

Ed Weeks — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:32:36 +0000

In my previous comment I omitted the crucial word “not” in the final sentence. If the company does not trade its way out of an insolvent position then the directors are vulnerable to a claim for wrongful trading.