The constitution of the company: dealing with insiders SUMMARYmp. 5 Under s9 the first members of th and init share ca X compa Jnaresb respondence (CA 2006, wand Si ate Regs racial hatred, or whi of ‘ : Le ot Under fora name which wou specifically nee the Gove that the company was connected with nment or any local authority (CA 2006, 554)form a company eat Britain would 56). During the lif ution (CA 2006, nple in Exxa0.( 1 granted an inj During the life of the red office. In kee previous principal Companies Acts companies ify their objects (what they were empowered to do, ¢ the memorandum of association, In Ch panies, Initially companies were formed by Parliament. Ac first they were granted spnction was to serve the public interest. As time Jin effect tually rovisions es issues with To eliminate any remaining problems th £49.10) and the Consultative Document, March 2005 (ch 5) prop. be formetodo (CA 2006, $31). A company might d to have an objects clause ani panies formed v Acts (the vast majority of ex panies) with a CA 2006, s31(2) db ion category. The re provided ved in the detail of ndhold me whe orporate y describes the compa th patter b justifying state regulati Mandatory ru types of rules. However the To the aggregate theory (hereafter, aggreg: formed by the ag come together fore has lite of solving rrk for‘The articles of association Board of Directors (the White public companies, under the the Compani te articles of | with many of the ravide for t70 the rao SI sim Wilberforce summed up the positi. fl tes acaar Significant f company lave, However itis wo he board consisten in ders wish hile the CA 2006, s 336 me fe companicReport, ch 6 paras 6,226.40) re or vote with the directors after with them behin: es. Thus there is at the 1 AGMs of public ompanies. If the CL endations had been implemented sharehol +8 would have been b med and institutions would have been effectively -y voted a particular way. The CLRSG al. uld also dispense with AGMS if ll the 7.6). The W edural recommendations of the CLRSC para 2.47). In the Consultative Document, Marc : ind as 1 for pub ngand the CA 2006 w (0 hold an Annnal General Me ‘The contract of membership 3 Und: evious Principal Companies Acts the constitution of th: 1985, 5 14 it was stated that:and the members Jing in che Act of 1844 that provided for a statutory cont 1856 Act, the Companies Act 1862, «16, the Com4182 |The constitution of he compan bound to abide by the ‘Acontract between the members? bers. Bare and members “inéer se: That, while we kn promote multiplicity of actio mended was to all sany and the other members be reflected in the whether a member can pa ow (paras. Jarity continues inthe C of the judi ween : : ce sage of the Bl chip ewes amend ing tea inhi ae, we hae a result we are le ship between the remiba predecessor which th154 | The of the members nstitution. The nority shareholders Whether the he shareholder then the individual individual 0 tion passed at the meeting, Jessel MR considered that n meeting were b jon invalidating a resolution. Jenkin ue, natn thera ofthe member n nature. These in mption rights ile this list provides tof the difficulty in sepa articles can be interpreted ei ‘company can put right, OF Th sof MacDougal and many of the cases tha in vidal judge156 | 7 pany: dea Le Trinidad 1887) a shareholder who had a right to b shareholder who had a right to_b holding of shares, should ar herefore could not en Kent or Romney Marsh mnember-director actior$-7.40) maintained this po