Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 79:"Page 33, line 28, leave out subsections (2) and (3)." The noble Lord said: The clause requires a company to inform the registrar when it is agreed by special resolution to change its name. That is all well and good; however, it also requires a company to inform the registrar when a name change is agreed by special resolution but subject to the occurrence of a certain event or certain events. I do not follow the reason why companies should have to do that. Presumably, if that certain event does not happen there will be no name change and the notice will have been a waste of time. I also assume that the notice will not—as it makes no mention of registering the name—preclude a second company from registering the name in the intervening period, and therefore bar the first company from effecting its change of name on the occurrence of the event. Surely it would be more sensible and more deregulatory for companies to have to inform the registrar of a change of name only when that change is actually going to happen. The amendment seeks to give effect to that argument by removing subsections (2) and (3), which require notice of a conditional potential change. I beg to move.