Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 91:"Page 37, line 31, after first ““company”” insert ““(whether limited or unlimited)””" The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 and 98. The underlying intention behind Clause 90 is to enable any private company, whether limited or unlimited, to re-register as a public company, provided it has a share capital. Subsection (4) makes this clear by explicitly providing that unlimited companies may re-register as public. However, subsection (2)(a) provides that the company must first be ““limited by shares”” in order to re-register as public, a condition that an unlimited company cannot satisfy. The first amendment puts beyond doubt that both limited and unlimited companies may re-register as public under this clause. The second amendment removes any scope for confusion resulting from the condition that an unlimited company must be ““limited by shares”” by providing instead that the company must ““have a share capital””. I am sure that noble Lords will have noticed the reference to the Chartered Companies Act 1837 in Clause 93. I am afraid that that is simply wrong. The Act has been repealed and Amendment No. 98 removes the reference. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.