Companies within companies

[cerberaperv]

I’ve recently carried out DD on a company and found its shareholders to be other companies, and when you look into them on companies house, it goes back to the original company. It seems there’s no way of finding the names of the people behind the primary company.

It’s not the first time I’ve come across this and am asking why are they set up this way and is it to hide away from public record?
I’m sure the answer to why may be personal or unknown but normally when you look at public records you can see the people behind the company.

[hyphen]

Does it say who the People with significant control (PSC's) are?

New laws came into force, I think last year, where if the PSC's and the Beneficial owners are different, it has to be reported:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-reporting-r...

[StevieBee]

cerberaperv said:

normally when you look at public records you can see the people behind the company.

Normally, yes but I don't think it's a legal requirement - you can elect anonymity. Many celebs and sportspeople earn their money via a company that they own rather than being appointed directly and they wouldn't want their home address available for public access so will normally assign an accounting firm or law firm to act as the service address and their name removed from public record.

[Jockman]

StevieBee said:

Normally, yes but I don't think it's a legal requirement - you can elect anonymity. Many celebs and sportspeople earn their money via a company that they own rather than being appointed directly and they wouldn't want their home address available for public access so will normally assign an accounting firm or law firm to act as the service address and their name removed from public record.

Withholding your address is good practice for anyone.

OP it could be a timing issue if a company is set up then shares are immediately reallocated. This means you have to wait a while for the next Confirmation Statement.

[db10]

In the U.K. a company can’t own shares in its parent (US entities can, it’s called hook stock) so something seems wrong here

[sleepezy]

Companies Act 2006 said:

136Prohibition on subsidiary being a member of its holding company
(1)Except as provided by this Chapter—
(a)a body corporate cannot be a member of a company that is its holding company, and
(b)any allotment or transfer of shares in a company to its subsidiary is void.
(2)The exceptions are provided for in—
section 138 (subsidiary acting as personal representative or trustee), and
section 141 (subsidiary acting as authorised dealer in securities).

Unless it predates the legislation (1948 being the relevant date for that)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/...