Capital Maintenance

In this paper, we'll discuss the pros and cons of company law rules that require a firm's share
capital to
be maintained indefinitely. An analysis of the existing method of capital maintenance is mandated under
the Companies Act of 2006.
The protection of a corporation's legal capital is a long-standing and well-known tenet of company law.
To protect creditors from the greater risk of opportunistic actions on the part of company directors due
to limited liability, this provision was originally established in the case of Trevor v. Whitworth. In the
United Kingdom, the minimum equity stake required by the concept does not apply to privately held
enterprises. Shareholders' ability to transfer their holdings in a firm may be restricted if its net worth is
less than the value of their equity assets. The interests of a company's minority shareholders can be
safeguarded through the enforcement of capital restrictions that limit the issuing of new shares, the
repurchasing of existing shares, and the issuance of redeemable shares. These measures ensure that
shareholder value is not diminished. Rules for the preservation of capital and general contract, security,
and insolvency laws all work together to protect creditors.
The notion of capital maintenance is important to our legal system for corporations. According to this
theory, a corporation cannot return capital to its shareholders unless unanimous approval is given by
the shareholders, and the firm must receive adequate payment for each share of stock it issues.
Creditors are safeguarded from post-contractual opportunism and shareholder wrongdoing with regards
to a company's capital by capital maintenance rules. Modern ideas of capital preservation can be traced
back to precedents established by the courts in the nineteenth century. This attitude exists to protect
creditors in the event that shareholders initiate a "run" on the company's funds. These common law
norms were ultimately superseded by the more stringent regulations introduced by the Second EU
Directive on Business Law. The Directive only applies to the public sector, leaving private sector
regulation to the discretion of individual member states.
In order to understand the nature and utility of legal capital, it is necessary to distinguish between
creditors who may negotiate new conditions with the business and those who cannot. Large,
dependable creditors, such as banks, should be distinguished from smaller, less dependable debtors,
such as wholesalers. Smart creditors who advance large amounts of money voluntarily to a corporation
will have greater access to resources and leverage than involuntary creditors or small voluntary
creditors. Some groups of people are powerless to negotiate better terms for the businesses they fund.
Since these creditors lack the flexibility to adjust their terms in reaction to the business, it will be argued
that they require further legal protection.
Restrictions on a company's ability to provide financial support to its stakeholders, including minimum
capital and nominal share requirements, laws restricting distributions from sources other than
distributable profits, provisions on decrease of capital, and restrictions on transcendence and
repurchase of a company's shares. owe can be found in the umbrella of rules governing the
replenishment of a company's capital.
Public firms in the United Kingdom must raise at least £50,000 in "minimum capital" under the
"minimum capital rule," but private companies are exempt from this need. Further, the contribution
need not be made in whole at the time the shares are issued. It is sufficient to contribute 25% of the
nominal value of the share and 100% of any premium to be paid. This obligatory share capital
requirement is in place to protect creditor interests and is a condition of doing business for most
companies. In addition to meeting the above requirements, a public company must call a shareholders
meeting "to examine if any, and if yes, which measures must be undertaken in hope of dealing with the
issue" if its net assets fall below half of its called up share capital. However, its utility is debatable
because neither the shareholders nor the directors are required to take any action in this situation, such
as requiring the firm to cease trade.
The rule on minimum legal capital is considered the weakest of the standards of legal capital aimed to
safeguard creditors. The legal capital deposited into a business can be used rather fast after
incorporation, which is a common argument against utilising the minimum capital requirement to alert
creditors about a firm's assets. It has been argued that the 50,000 share level does not adequately
safeguard public companies from creditors since it is too low and meaningless. The fact that private
businesses are excluded from the rule's minimum capital requirement reduces both its value and its
effectiveness. Some have hypothesised that the minimum legal capital requirement is nothing more
than a "entrance price" for limited liability designed to prevent impulsive individuals from forming public
limited companies. Therefore, the existing minimum capital legislation serves no purpose as either a
credit protection mechanism or a measure of a company's value and financial health.
The primary consequence of legal capital regulations is to restrict the amount of dividends a company
can pay out to its shareholders. Paying out dividends to shareholders lowers a company's net worth and
raises the risk that it will go bankrupt. However, rather than outright outlawing asset transfers to
shareholders, rules and restrictions are established on when such transfers can be done to account for
the possibility that they may be efficient under certain circumstances. A corporation's distributions to its
shareholders cannot be considered a repayment of capital contributed by the shareholders. Because
giving money back to shareholders could undermine creditor interests even if the company hasn't
formally gone bankrupt. Even with such transfers, the value of the creditors' claims will decrease. As a
result, a rule has been put in place that prohibits businesses from using capital gains or other forms of
non-cash income to pay out dividends to shareholders.
In conclusion, creditor security is important to and a recurring theme in the capital maintenance needs.
Capital reductions can be monitored and analysed with the use of the capital maintenance regime.
Alternative approaches that are more efficient and adaptable than the current lowering of capital
provisions can easily accomplish the same creditor protection goals. The provisions are excessive in
relation to the goals they are supposed to achieve. They are out of date, and more importantly, they
don't take into account the fact that proper legislation already exist which require transparent and
honest corporate financial records.

Capital Maintenance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capital Maintenance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capital Maintenance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In this paper, we'll discuss the pros and cons of company law rules that require a firm's share

You might also like