Death of principal director/shareholder intestate
Discussion
Why has the possibility of hiring someone capable of running the company been eliminated out of hand, unless the whole essence of the business hinged around the particular talents of the principal. Earlier stated that it's a viable business, just not so in the hands of the junior directors, coupled with no one is indispensable.
FiF said:
Why has the possibility of hiring someone capable of running the company been eliminated out of hand, unless the whole essence of the business hinged around the particular talents of the principal. Earlier stated that it's a viable business, just not so in the hands of the junior directors, coupled with no one is indispensable.
Indeed. I would assume a large expenditure has just been freed up (sadly) for investment elsewhere.Equus said:
FiF said:
... the whole essence of the business hinged around the particular talents of the principal.
This, essentially.Aiui, possibly covering ground you have already thought through.
No will, so intestate, no appointed executor, so no one to administer the estate.
An administrator needs to be appointed by means of an application to Probate Office for a Grant of Letters of Administration.
There are restrictions on who can apply, and essentially it's the same bods as names in the Intestacy rules, usual for the highest named on the list to be the applicant. Probably best if they get a legal firm to act on their behalf imo, probate office are usually more than helpful to non legal members of public, but in view of the circs here it would be my choice. Yes it costs.
Order of permitted applicants is, for the record, see Intestacy rules list below.
The married partner or civil partner of the person who has died.
The child(ren) of the person who has died (or grandchildren if the child is pre-deceased)
The parent of the person who has died
The brother or sister of the person who has died (or their children if they have predeceased)
The half-brother or half-sister of the person who has died (or their children if they have predeceased)
The grandparents of the person who has died
Aunts and uncles of the person who has died (or their children if they have predeceased)
Half aunts and uncles of the person who has died (or their children if they have predeceased)
The Crown
Where there is more than one person that is able to apply, then each of these is able to apply for a Letter of Administration. This will be granted to the person that makes the first correct application to Court.
Once that is done then the administrator can start to act in the best interests of the estate, which may be to wind up the business. Presumably they would have controlling vote.
Edited by FiF on Sunday 21st January 14:01
FiF said:
Once that is done then the administrator can start to act in the best interests of the estate, which may be to wind up the business. Presumably they would have controlling vote.
The administrator of the estate would have controlling shareholding, but would it not be the directors who vote on winding up the business? The directorship isn't part of the estate - that vote simply ceased to be.They could possibly call a meeting of shareholders, and issue more shares to dilute the share pool to themselves. Then elect a new managing director, and as controlling shareholders, they could liquidate the company, and disperse the funds in accordance to share percentage.
This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
Cyberprog said:
They could possibly call a meeting of shareholders, and issue more shares to dilute the share pool to themselves. Then elect a new managing director, and as controlling shareholders, they could liquidate the company, and disperse the funds in accordance to share percentage.
This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
The shareholders would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a court battle, You can’t just issue more shares to dilute holdings in order to remove a majority shareholer. This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
Op, seek proper legal advice from those qualified to give it.
darreni said:
Cyberprog said:
They could possibly call a meeting of shareholders, and issue more shares to dilute the share pool to themselves. Then elect a new managing director, and as controlling shareholders, they could liquidate the company, and disperse the funds in accordance to share percentage.
This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
The shareholders would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a court battle, You can’t just issue more shares to dilute holdings in order to remove a majority shareholer. This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
Op, seek proper legal advice from those qualified to give it.
Cyberprog said:
They could possibly call a meeting of shareholders, and issue more shares to dilute the share pool to themselves. Then elect a new managing director, and as controlling shareholders, they could liquidate the company, and disperse the funds in accordance to share percentage.
This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
I don't think you can remove a majority shareholder this way...This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
Eric Mc said:
darreni said:
Cyberprog said:
They could possibly call a meeting of shareholders, and issue more shares to dilute the share pool to themselves. Then elect a new managing director, and as controlling shareholders, they could liquidate the company, and disperse the funds in accordance to share percentage.
This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
The shareholders would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of a court battle, You can’t just issue more shares to dilute holdings in order to remove a majority shareholer. This may depend upon the articles of association, and if they would meet the quorum required.
Op, seek proper legal advice from those qualified to give it.
Eric Mc said:
Yes, Cyberborg's advice could land you in trouble pretty pronto.
Yes, even I'm not daft enough to think that simply issuing more shares to dilute a previous majority shareholder out of control would be legal! 
Fortunately, I don't anticipate any arguments or resistance, in this case - everyone will just want it sorted ASAP.
Cheers, chaps!
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff