It would be helpful to have an indication of the
Government's latest thinking on the possible introduction of regulations
on overseas LLPs
The Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000 gives
the Secretary of State the power to make regulations on oversea
LLPs. At present we have no plans to introduce regulations on
oversea LLPs. In our response to the Trade and Industry Committee's
Report we said that should we decide to make regulations on overseas
LLPs we would consult widely. That remains the position.
(NB Any regulations would be subject to affirmative
However, during the Bill's progress through
Parliament two issues were raised in relation to oversea LLPs:
To allow oversea LLPs which already
have a place of business in the UK to use the words "Limited
Liability Partnership" after their name; and
Identifying oversea registered LLPs
from UK registered LLPs.
An amendment was made to the Schedule to the
Bill which will allow oversea LLPs to use the words "Limited
Liability Partnership" or "LLP" after their name.
As a corollary, the draft LLP Regulations require
an oversea LLP to exhibit in every place where it carries on business
in Great Britain, and on its letters and official publications,
its name and the country in which it is incorporated.
This is to avoid confusion between an oversea
LLP and an LLP registered under the LLP Act 2000.
A note on any figures available on the uptake
to date of LLP status would be of interest
It is our intention to commence the LLP legislation
in early 2001. Companies House carried out a market survey during
July this year. There are still great uncertainties as to the
number but Companies House best guess is that there is likely
to be in the region of 8000 LLP registrations in the three years
following implementation of the new legislation.
Draft Insolvency Bill, Second Report of 1999-2000,
HC 112; Government Response, Fourth Special Report, HC 227
1. In September 1999 draft clauses, intended
primarily to provide for a moratorium on creditors' actions to
allow a company to come to a voluntary arrangement with its creditors
were sent out by DTI for "a short technical consultation".
The Committee decided that this constituted draft legislation,
and accordingly undertook a brief inquiry, reporting in December
2. The Government's response, received in
February 2000, was brief and uninformative. Two recommendations
for change were accepted:
the clause imposing on secured creditors
an obligation to give notice of appointment of an administrative
receiver was dropped;
the proposed prohibition of a nominee
subsequently acting towards the company in a different capacity
was also dropped.
Most of the Committee's other specific recommendations
and concerns were summarily dismissed. This included the Committee's
view that the provisions allowing those other than licensed insolvency
practitioners act as nominees or supervisors should be left out
of the bill.
3. A number of issues raised by the Committee
were pursued in the course of proceedings in both Houses. Its
concerns about the need for affirmative rather than negative resolution
in relation to powers to extend the scope of the bill to large
companies, which had been "noted" by the DTI, were taken
up by the Lords Delegated Powers Committee, and following their
recommendations the bill was amended accordingly. A number of
the points raised by the Committee were pursued in the Commons
at both committee and report stage.