WhatsApp)
Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper [1892] AC 125 is an old and controversial English company law case concerning shares. It concerns the rule that shares should not be issued quot;at a discountquot; on the price at which they were issued. Under United Kingdom company law the rule is now codified in Companies Act 2006, sections 552 and 580. Facts
How do I set a reading intention. To set a reading intention, click through to any list item, and look for the panel on the left hand side:
Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper [1892] AC 125 is an old and controversial UK company law case concerning shares. It concerns the rule that shares should not be issued quot;at a discountquot; on the price at which they were issued.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, Return to quot;Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roperquot; page.
OOREGUM GOLD MINING CO. OF INDIA V. ROPER 1892
Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper [1892] AC 125 is an old and controversial UK company law case concerning shares. It concerns the rule that shares should not be issued quot;at a discountquot; on the price at which they were issued.
In Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India Ltd v Roper (45) the House of Lords held that it is illegal for a limited company to issue its shares at a discount. This decision was made on the basis of what is now (4) of the Act which provides that the memorandum shall state the amount with which the company will be registered and quot;the division thereof into shares of a fixed amountquot;.
would only be liable on the amount and value of shares which they hold see Ooregum Gold Mining Co. of India Ltd v Roper [1892] AC 125 (HL), at 133. However, a statutory exception to this common law rule was introduced in order to allow the issue of shares at a discount in certain circumstances with the
Also similar to this issue is the case of Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper [1892] AC 125. This involved a case of devaluing the shares of a company which the judge ruled was a prohibited practice.
Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper: | | | Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper | | | World Heritage Encyclopedia, the aggregation of the largest online encyclopedias available, and the most definitive collection ever assembled.
Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper. No description defined. Statements. instance of. legal case. 0 references. country. United Kingdom. 0 references. court. Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. 1 reference. imported from Wikimedia project. English Wikipedia . Sitelinks. Wikipedia (1 entry) edit.
#0183;#32;Video Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper. Facts. The Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India issued 120,000 shares at #163;1 each. Shareholders said they wanted to sell on the shares for 5 shillings, ( 25 new pence) one quarter of the value the shares were issued at, but that the buyers would be credited with a full #163;1 in the company.
Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper AC 125 is an old and controversial English company law case concerning shares. It concerns the rule that shares should not be issued quot;at a discountquot; on the price at which they were issued. Under United Kingdom company law the rule is now codified in Companies Act 2006, sections 552 and 580; the Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India issued 120,000 shares at #163;1
#0183;#32;Fully paid and partly paid shares Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India Ltd v Roper Shares held by SH will only be deemed to be fully paid up when a company receives payment that is equivalent to the nominal or par value As the co did not receive a payment that is equivalent to the par value of shares, those shares shall be deemed to be partly paid up shares Cos AA usually provide the co with
OOREGum . GOLD MINING COMPANY OF INDIA . v. ROPER, [1892] A. C. 125, H. L. The recent affirmance by the law lords of the House of Lords of the doctrine that a subscriber to the shares of a corporation is liable for the last penny of the unpaid portion of his shares, is in such striking contrast to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Handley v.
Also similar to this issue is the case of Ooregum Gold Mining Co of India v Roper AC 125. This involved a case of devaluing the shares of a company which the judge ruled was a prohibited practice. This essay is an example of a student''s work
WhatsApp)