Company Law Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. A89ZA:"Page 282, line 2, at end insert—" ““(   )   Notice must be given to the Registrar— (a)   when the conditions are met, or (b)   if the conditions are not met, upon the lapsing of the validity of the resolution.”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. A89ZA is a probing amendment. We seek to add an additional subsection at the top of page 282, which would be subsection (8). Clause 578(4) states:"““A resolution under this section may specify conditions which must be met before the redenomination takes effect””." Should there not also be some notification to the registrar of the satisfaction, or, indeed, non-satisfaction, as the case may be, of the condition? The amendment will require a company to give notice to the registrar when it is in a position to carry out an agreed re-denomination allowed by conditional resolution. That situation has similarities with the one that we discussed in our debate on company names. That is where a company has to give notice to the registrar on the passing of a conditional resolution to change its name. We proposed an amendment that the notice should be required on the satisfaction of those conditions rather than the passing of the resolution. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, did not accept our argument or our amendment then; I hope that he, or his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, may be more inclined to do so now. I therefore, in hope, beg to move.