The new rules for controlling shareholders
The new provisions regarding controlling shareholders are set out primarily in Listing Rule 6. This Listing Rule sets out requirements where the company has a ‘controlling shareholder’. A controlling shareholder is a person who on its own or who together with any person with whom it acts in concert, exercises or controls 30 per cent or more of the votes able to be cast on all or substantially all matters at general meetings of the company. There is no definition of parties acting in concert.
There is a requirement for a written binding agreement between the company and its controlling shareholder. The agreement must remain in place as long as the company continues to have a controlling shareholder. There are mandatory content requirements for this agreement, designed to ensure the company’s independence from the controlling shareholder…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
Landlords must protect tenants’ deposits and provide tenants with prescribed information, regardless of when the tenancy commenced and when the deposit was received.
In the Yam Seng case, the court was willing to imply a duty of good faith to give business efficacy to a commercial contract. Since that case, the law has been somewhat uncertain.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.