1-20 of 59 results for legtitle:"Companies Act 2006"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.234 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- legtitle:"Companies Act 2006"
- We searched for
- legislationTitle_t:"Companies Act 2006" OR legislationTitle_ses:368496
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 18 January (HL12949), whether the overriding obligation for a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss as set out in section 393 of the Companies Act 2006, relates to...
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 18 January (HL12949), whether the overriding obligation for a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss as set out in section 393 of the Companies Act 2006, relates to...
The true and fair test in section 393 of the Companies Act is the overarching test that is applied to a company’s annual accounts. If a company produces accounts, in accordance with the legal requirements, which are inconsistent with the Companies Act requirement to give a true and fair view, then the directors must depart from the accounting standards to the extent necessary to give a true and fair view. Particulars of any such departure, the reasons for it and its effect must be given in a note to the accounts.
The IAS Regulation (EU Regulation No. 1606/2002) includes requirements to consider the accounting standards system as a whole. Article 3(2) of that Regulation provides that a new form of international accounting standard can only be adopted if it is not contrary to the principle that an undertaking’s accounts must give a true and fair view of the undertaking’s assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss. This requirement ensures that no new form of international accounting standard is adopted for use in the UK if the application of that standard would lead to companies in general contravening the true and fair test.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 18 January (HL12950), whether the scope of the review of the standards of auditing in the UK will cover all references to auditor duties in the Companies Act 2006; and whether the review will be resourced with...
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 18 January (HL12950), whether the scope of the review of the standards of auditing in the UK will cover all references to auditor duties in the Companies Act 2006; and whether the review will be resourced with...
The terms of reference for Sir Donald Brydon’s independent review into the effectiveness of audit will be published in due course. The review will look widely at the expectations that users of accounts have of audit and the extent to which those expectations can be satisfied. In his evidence to the House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s ‘future of audit’ inquiry on 4th February, Sir Donald confirmed that his review would look at auditors’ role in relation to company law and the capital maintenance requirements. The review will draw on the necessary skills and expertise.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so why, there is a difference between the statutory definition of a liability required for companies accounts as set out in Part 18 and Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006 and the Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports)...
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so why, there is a difference between the statutory definition of a liability required for companies accounts as set out in Part 18 and Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006 and the Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports)...
The Government considers that there is no difference between the meaning of a liability, as recorded in companies’ accounts, in Parts 18 and 23 of the Companies Act 2006, compared with the definition of a liability in The Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 102, which may be applied in accordance with Part 15 of the Act.
The FRC issues the standards for the purposes of section 464 of the Companies Act 2006, having been prescribed as the standard issuing body by the Statutory Auditors (Amendment of Companies Act 2006 and Delegation of Functions etc) Order 2012 (SI 2012/1741). In doing so the FRC must adhere to the requirements set out in statute. Unquoted companies are required to use accounting standards issued by the FRC, including FRS 102, when preparing their accounts under the Companies Act, except where they choose to use International Accounting Standards.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the requirements relating to (1) auditors, and (2) accounts set out in sections 92, 498(1) and (2), 519, 714(4), 836, and 837 of the Companies Act 2006 are intended (a) for the protection of creditors and shareholders, or (b) to be useful to users of accounts.
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the requirements relating to (1) auditors, and (2) accounts set out in sections 92, 498(1) and (2), 519, 714(4), 836, and 837 of the Companies Act 2006 are intended (a) for the protection of creditors and shareholders, or (b) to be useful to users of accounts.
These sections of the Companies Act 2006 cover a range of matters including auditor’s duties and capital maintenance. Taken together, they provide for the protection of shareholders and creditors of the company and the provision of information that is useful to users of the accounts who take an interest in the financial position of the company.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what accounting framework is (1) applicable, and (2) suitable to deliver the requirements relating to (a) auditors, and (b) accounts set out in sections 92, 498(1) and (2), 519, 714(4), 836, and 837 of the Companies Act 2006.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what accounting framework is (1) applicable, and (2) suitable to deliver the requirements relating to (a) auditors, and (b) accounts set out in sections 92, 498(1) and (2), 519, 714(4), 836, and 837 of the Companies Act 2006.
The Companies Act 2006 provides for two alternative accounting frameworks, “Companies Act accounts” where more detailed accounting rules are within the Act (supplemented by accounting standards) and “IAS accounts” where detailed rules are set out in the International Accounting Standards.
The accounting frameworks as provided for in the Companies Act 2006 are applicable and suitable for the purposes of sections 92, 498(1) and (2), 519, 714(4), 836, and 837 of the Companies Act 2006.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the difference in the definition of a liability in Part 18 and Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006 compared to that used in the International Accounting Standards; and what assessment they have made of whether any such difference...
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the difference in the definition of a liability in Part 18 and Part 23 of the Companies Act 2006 compared to that used in the International Accounting Standards; and what assessment they have made of whether any such difference...
The Government has undertaken no assessment of difference in the meaning of a liability as used in Parts 18 and 23 of the Companies Act 2006 and that in the International Accounting Standards, which may be applied in accordance with Part 15 of the Act. This would be a matter for the courts.
As the noble Baroness may be aware, the Government has recently commissioned a review of the standards of auditing in the UK to identify what more can be done to ensure audits meet public, shareholder and investor expectations. This will include consideration of what the requirements should be for audits in the future. The review is intended to ensure UK audits remain world leading. It will test the current model and ask whether it can be made more effective. Terms of reference for the review will be published in due course.
Lords motion to approve. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to approve. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
My Lords, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendment of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2018 will make amendments to the Companies Act 2006. The amendments are consequential to the changes in the law introduced by the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. They are necessary because...
My Lords, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendment of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2018 will make amendments to the Companies Act 2006. The amendments are consequential to the changes in the law introduced by the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. They are necessary because...
My Lords, try as I might, I can find absolutely nothing wrong with the regulations. I have tried very hard to do so and failed completely. It is perhaps worth noting that it is unfortunate that this problem arose in the first place; presumably the original drafting ought to have...
My Lords, try as I might, I can find absolutely nothing wrong with the regulations. I have tried very hard to do so and failed completely. It is perhaps worth noting that it is unfortunate that this problem arose in the first place; presumably the original drafting ought to have...
I am obliged to the noble Lord for his efforts in trying to find some flaw in the regulations. I am relieved that he was not able to do so. I do not see how the problem of prior claims could arise, because we would be within the six-year time...
I am obliged to the noble Lord for his efforts in trying to find some flaw in the regulations. I am relieved that he was not able to do so. I do not see how the problem of prior claims could arise, because we would be within the six-year time...
Motion that the draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendment of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 28 June, be approved. Agreed to on question.
Motion that the draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendment of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 28 June, be approved. Agreed to on question.
Motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for offences relating to filing false information with Companies House under section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006 in each of the last 5 years.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for offences relating to filing false information with Companies House under section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006 in each of the last 5 years.
Since January 2013, criminal proceedings have been instituted by the Department against one person for two offences under s1112 Companies Act 2006. A guilty plea was entered to one offence and the second was withdrawn.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will make it his policy to amend the Companies Act 2006 to reduce the number of recognised supervisory bodies.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will make it his policy to amend the Companies Act 2006 to reduce the number of recognised supervisory bodies.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has no such plans. The Recognised Supervisory Bodies have an important role in approving and registering statutory auditors, inspecting their work and investigating possible instances of professional misconduct. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) oversees the work of RSBs and has particular responsibilities of its own where there is a public interest in an independent body fulfilling these tasks.