I dont know how it works as i stated!!! I was working along the lines of there being 10 shareholders for example. If I had 40%, 4 had 10% and 5 had 4%.... then i'm the one with the majority. Maybe you'd explain where im going wrong as its something ive never quite understood.
I dont know how it works as i stated!!! I was working along the lines of there being 10 shareholders for example. If I had 40%, 4 had 10% and 5 had 4%.... then i'm the one with the majority. Maybe you'd explain where im going wrong as its something ive never quite understood.
In that situation you'd have "the most" shares of any one individual, but to have a majority you need more than half of all shares, so 51%
I dont know how it works as i stated!!! I was working along the lines of there being 10 shareholders for example. If I had 40%, 4 had 10% and 5 had 4%.... then i'm the one with the majority. Maybe you'd explain where im going wrong as its something ive never quite understood.
That would just make you the largest shareholder. A majority usually means more than half, especially in this context. In the House of Commons a government has a majority when it has more than half of all MPs. Oddly, though an MP being elected is said to have a majority of whatever the difference is between their vote and the second-placed candidate, even though this is rarely half the total vote. But that's politics for you!
I dont know how it works as i stated!!! I was working along the lines of there being 10 shareholders for example. If I had 40%, 4 had 10% and 5 had 4%.... then i'm the one with the majority. Maybe you'd explain where im going wrong as its something ive never quite understood.
In that situation you'd have "the most" shares of any one individual, but to have a majority you need more than half of all shares, so 51%
I dont know how it works as i stated!!! I was working along the lines of there being 10 shareholders for example. If I had 40%, 4 had 10% and 5 had 4%.... then i'm the one with the majority. Maybe you'd explain where im going wrong as its something ive never quite understood.
That would just make you the largest shareholder. A majority usually means more than half, especially in this context. In the House of Commons a government has a majority when it has more than half of all MPs. Oddly, though an MP being elected is said to have a majority of whatever the difference is between their vote and the second-placed candidate, even though this is rarely half the total vote. But that's politics for you!
This from the Companies Act: A director of a company is taken to control a body corporate if, but only if— (a)he or any person connected with him— (i)is interested in any part of the equity share capital of that body, or (ii)is entitled to exercise or control the exercise of any part of the voting power at any general meeting of that body, and (b)he, the persons connected with him and the other directors of that company, together— (i)are interested in more than 50% of that share capital, or (ii)are entitled to exercise or control the exercise of more than 50% of that voting power.
So, if it could be shown that Person A held 49% and that Person B holding 2% or more was "connected with him" then they would both be deemed to be controllers of the company. Note that Person B or Person A for that matter would not have to be named directors. The Companies Act also refers to and contains a definition of a "shadow director" . That is someone who actually pulls the strings. (This only applies to UK registered companies of course.)
Comments
The other thread was re-opened yesterday lunchtime btw
You're just the largest shareholder with 49%. If the others club together they can out vote you.
To be majority shareholder you need 51% or more
A director of a company is taken to control a body corporate if, but only if—
(a)he or any person connected with him—
(i)is interested in any part of the equity share capital of that body, or
(ii)is entitled to exercise or control the exercise of any part of the voting power at any general meeting of that body, and
(b)he, the persons connected with him and the other directors of that company, together—
(i)are interested in more than 50% of that share capital, or
(ii)are entitled to exercise or control the exercise of more than 50% of that voting power.
So, if it could be shown that Person A held 49% and that Person B holding 2% or more was "connected with him" then they would both be deemed to be controllers of the company.
Note that Person B or Person A for that matter would not have to be named directors. The Companies Act also refers to and contains a definition of a "shadow director" . That is someone who actually pulls the strings.
(This only applies to UK registered companies of course.)