Off-market buyback by written resolution: majority and seller's eligibility (CA 2006 ss.694-695)
Ravensworth Engineering Ltd is a private company limited by shares with unamended model articles, which contain no restriction on the purchase of its own shares. Its 1,000 ordinary shares, each with one vote, are held by Hugo (300), Beatrix (400) and Cyrus (300). Hugo is retiring, and the company has agreed in principle to buy back all of his shares under a contract made directly with him (not on a recognised investment exchange). It has ample distributable profits to fund the price. The directors propose to seek the members' approval of the contract terms by written resolution before the contract is entered into.
Which statement correctly describes the members' approval needed?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: An ordinary resolution on which Hugo is not an eligible member, so it is passed if holders of over half of the other 700 votes agree.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
An off-market buyback contract must be authorised in advance by ordinary resolution; on a written resolution the selling member is not an eligible member (CA 2006 ss.694(2), 695(2)).
Off-market buyback by written resolution: majority and seller's eligibility (CA 2006 ss.694-695)
A purchase by a company of its own shares other than on a recognised investment exchange is an off-market purchase. Under s.694(2) CA 2006, the terms of the contract must be authorised by a resolution of the company before it is entered into (or the contract must be conditional on such authorisation). Since amendments in 2013 the section requires only a 'resolution', which means an ordinary resolution unless the articles require more (s.281(3)); the model articles do not. Section 695(2) provides that where the resolution is proposed as a written resolution, a member holding shares to which the resolution relates is not an eligible member. Hugo is therefore excluded. The eligible voting rights are Beatrix's 400 and Cyrus's 300, and a simple majority of that total (more than 350) is needed. Beatrix's agreement alone would pass it.
Why A is wrong: Section 694 requires only an ordinary resolution, and Hugo is not an eligible member on a written resolution about his own shares (s.695(2)).
Why B is wrong: The word 'special' was removed from s.694 in 2013; an ordinary resolution suffices, so Beatrix and Cyrus need not both agree.
Why D is wrong: Section 695(2) makes the selling shareholder ineligible to vote on a written resolution authorising the purchase of his shares.
Why E is wrong: Funding from distributable profits does not remove the requirement in s.694 for members to authorise an off-market purchase contract.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Written special resolution: 75% of total voting rights of eligible members (CA 2006 ss.21, 283)
What is the status of the written resolution?
Allotting shares for cash in a single-class private company: s.550 authority and s.569 pre-emption
Which shareholder resolution(s), if any, are needed before the directors can make the allotment to Lucía?
Substantial property transactions with a director: members' approval (CA 2006 ss.190-191)
Which of the following best describes what the Companies Act 2006 requires before Kestrel Joinery Ltd buys the van?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.