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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll