header-logo header-logo

02 September 2013
Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Trading rights for shares: employee shareholder scheme goes live

Employees can now trade their rights at work for shares as the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s controversial “employee shareholder” scheme takes effect this week.

In return for at least £2,000 worth of shares in their employer company, employees will give up their rights not be unfairly dismissed in certain circumstances, to statutory redundancy payment, to request time off for study or training, to make a flexible working request, and to give only eight weeks’ notice to return early from maternity, adoption or parental leave.

However, they will still be protected from discrimination-related dismissal, health and safety-related dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal. If returning from parental leave, they can make a flexible working request within 14 days of their return.

Writing in this week’s NLJ, employment law solicitor Roderick Ramage describes the scheme as “harebrained”.

He warns that the value of shareholdings in unquoted companies is often “illusory rather than real”; that valuing the shares is “an uncertain exercise”; that dismissed employees might claim employment rights on the grounds the valuation was incorrect and the shares are worth less than £2,000; and that employees will lose both statutory redundancy and their shares in the event of insolvency.

From a company owner’s perspective, minority shareholdings dilute the controlling shareholders’ rights and create regulatory complications, he said.

The scheme, introduced under the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, took effect on 1 September. However, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph “only a handful” of companies has shown any interest.

Daniel Barnett, employment barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, said: “Takeup is expected to be highest with startup companies and with highly paid senior executives, where they can take advantage of the first £50,000 capital gains on those shares being tax free.

“There are protections built in when the employer offers a job on this basis: the employee shareholder must be given full written details of the rights s/he is giving up and the type of shares being offered, s/he has a right to independent advice (to be paid for by the employer) and a seven-day cooling off period.”

“Problems will arise if an employee-shareholder leaves the company and wants to sell back the shares. If the company is not listed on the stock market, valuing the shares is elusive and the employee may find themselves stuck with whatever the employer offers.”

 

Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll