Individual investors and trust beneficiaries should already have
taken advice over rules forcing disclosure of the identities of
individuals with "significant control or influence" over
UK companies and limited liability partnerships. Such individuals
ultimately have to decide whether to step away or accept that their
names will be publicly disclosed in the UK. If they
haven't already considered their position then they should be
taking appropriate advice now without further delay.
That's the view of Ogier lawyer Alexander Curry, who is
speaking about the Register of People with Significant Control (the
PSC Register) at the International Forum on beneficial Ownership in
London this week.
The PSC Register has been in force since April (with UK filing
requirements effective since June) and this creates
responsibilities for UK-incorporated companies and limited
liability partnerships to maintain a register of all those with
"significant control and influence" – but the
legislation includes a "subjective test" that leaves a
significant grey area about what "significant control and
influence" actually means.
The definition of "significant control" includes
An objective test capturing those with more than 25% share
ownership or voting rights, and those with the power to appoint or
remove the majority of directors.
A subjective test capturing those who actually exercise or can
exercise "significant influence or control", or those who
actually exercise or can exercise "significant influence and
control" through a trust or firm that itself meets the
Alex, who has written a briefing on the rules and who
addressed a previous conference on the same subject in February in
London, said that the existence of the PSC Register should prompt
individuals to take advice from onshore and offshore lawyers about
structuring, and ultimately to choose between giving up control of
the assets in question or accepting that their details would be
He said: "Since the PSC Register came into force in the UK,
clients with entities in the UK are now having to be more in tune
with their structures.
"They need to consider whether or not as a result of the
way they have set up their existing corporate structures, they are
deemed to be a person who controls who has influence over that
"They also need to work out whether or not they wish their
details to be published in the UK and if they do not, they need to
be taking advice, both onshore and offshore, to make sure that
changes are made to protect their identities.
"There are provisions for carve-outs in certain
circumstances but these are not going to be applicable to everyone,
and should not be relied upon.
"Ultimately, the position is that you have to step away
either by selling certain assets or relinquishing control and/or
influence, or you have to accept that your name is going to be made
public in the UK."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
I am writing to update you on the progress of the Criminal Finances Bill through the UK Parliament, which includes amendments concerning the creation of public registers in the UK's Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories
The Companies Act 2006 requires that certain branches of overseas companies operating in the UK must be registered with Companies House and must file certain documents. These notes provide an overview of the requirements.
Until the decision of the Mauritius Supreme Court in Sumputh v Holborn College Limited 2012 SCJ 193, it was understood that a judgment creditor which sought to enforce a judgment delivered by a superior court of the United Kingdom could avail itself of any of the following three pieces of legislation namely...
We have previously reported on this case in the context of a dispute about law and jurisdiction2. Specifically, the second reinsurer, Glacier Re, being a company based in Switzerland, sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English court, preferring to have the matter determined in Switzerland under Swiss law. They were unsuccessful in that attempt, and the dispute between the Claimant and Glacier Re was subsequently settled.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).