Company Law Reform Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 40:"Page 45, line 1, leave out from ““limited”” to end of line 2." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked why Clause 102(2) was necessary. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to revisit the detail of the arguments that were put forward in Committee again, save to say that we laid a marker at that time that we might revisit the drafting of this clause. This issue is whether the condition in subsection (2)(b) of Clause 102—which prevents a limited company from re-registering as unlimited in circumstances where it was previously limited, but had re-registered as unlimited, then re-registered again as limited—is strictly necessary, given that Clause 105(2) prevents a limited company which has re-registered as unlimited from reverting back to limited status. We have concluded that the condition is not necessary, because the situation cannot arise. The amendment removes the superfluous drafting in Clause 102. I am grateful to the noble Lord for prompting us to look at this clause again and hope that he will agree to the amendment. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 103 [Application and accompanying documents]: