header-logo header-logo

09 May 2014
Issue: 7605 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Company law

Re Olympus UK Ltd and others [2014] EWHC 1350 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 12 (May)

The issue before the court was whether a proposed cross-border merger would be compliant with, and effective under the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/2974) (the Regulations) and Council Directive (EC) 2005/56 in circumstances where the shareholders in the transferor company had agreed not to receive shares or other securities in the transferee. Consideration was given to regs 2(2) and 4 of the Regulations and Art 2(2)(a) of the Directive.

The court ruled that it would not be right to read the definitions of cross-border merger in the Directive as requiring an issue of shares in the strict sense of that word in English company law. All that was required was that the rights of members of the transferor company, in the case of a merger by absorption, to be offered shares in exchange should be recognised, even if those rights were simultaneously declined by all the members. The same flexibility might be read into the relevant provisions of the Regulations. Regulations 2(2) and

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll