What allowances has the Government proposed for company meetings?
The Government’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act introduces amendments to the current rules for companies on holding meetings, to address the difficulties companies are facing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The new provisions apply to meetings held between 26 March 2020 and 30 September 2020 (referred to as the “Relevant Period”). Subsequent regulations by the Government can be used to shorten this period or extend by up to 3 months but not past 5 April 2021.
The provisions will have retrospective effect, so meetings that were held after 26 March 2020 that may not have met the usual legal requirements due to lockdown, will be validated under these new provisions. These provisions under the Act make amends to relevant legislation and override a company’s articles of association.
For general meetings and certain other meetings of companies, the Act states that:
- The meeting need not be held in any particular place;
- The meeting may be held, and any votes may be cast, by electronic means or other means;
- The meeting may be held without anyone being in the same place
- Persons attending the meeting no longer have the following rights: the right to attend in person, the right to participate in the meeting other than by voting, or the right to vote by particular means.
The aim of these changes is to facilitate virtual meetings, and remove the need for a physical venue.
Where a company was required to hold its AGM between 26 March and 30 September 2020, it can be held at any time before 30 September 2020. The Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to further extend the deadline.
Related FAQs
Employees are generally permitted to take holidays during furlough. However, Government guidance has been updated to state that “Employees should not be placed on furlough for a period simply because they are on holiday for that period.” If a period of furlough happens to coincide with an employee’s holiday then you should ensure that there are business grounds to support furlough being used in that instance so that it isn’t just being used as a means to fund holiday utilisation.
There is no minimum period of notice you are required to give employees of their return, but from a good HR practice point of view you should be speaking to your staff and letting them know what the plan is; giving people a reasonable amount of notice of return will allow them to prepare both practically and psychologically.
The change in the law has the potential to place much greater financial risks on suppliers, making it more difficult to exit a contract with a customer of doubtful solvency. This will place increased emphasis on appropriate financial due diligence and credit checking before entering into supply contracts.
In addition to the obvious issues around financial risk, suppliers will also need to think carefully about how their contracts are drafted. For example, any form of right that is drafted so as to be triggered on customer insolvency will clearly be problematic. These could include:
- Retention of Title provisions, which are commonly drafted so that the right to enter premises and retake possession of the goods is triggered on insolvency;
- Provisions for brand protection, which seek to control how goods are dealt with on termination of the contract.
This is potentially a very significant development for many businesses. We would strongly recommend specialist advice be obtained so that:
- businesses understand the potential increased risks faced; and
- where possible, contracts are updated so that appropriate protections are maintained.
- Audit
- Identify your off-payroll contractors
- Determine the status of off-payroll contractors
- CEST – HMRC employment status checker for tax purposes
- Communication – liaise with affected workforce
- Contracts – get them compliant
- Consider the Ward Hadaway toolkit
Yes probably in our opinion, even if you are not considering taking any formal action against them. Ultimately if a doctor is suspended this could be considered as causing them reputational damage and it therefore is correct that they are afforded the protections (in particular in relation to keeping exclusion/suspension under review) of MHPS. Under Part V of MHPS there is provision for excluding practitioners if they are a danger to patients and they refuse to recognise it or if they refuse to co-operate. It doesn’t refer to a particular risk for the practitioner themselves, but it would appear logical that it would apply.