The United Kingdom

Rühmkorf, Andreas; Plessis, Jean Jacques du

doi:10.4324/9781315206097-2

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is instructive that these undertakings were not provided for under the CDDA86 but were introduced by Section 1A of the IA00, mainly to save the time the court and the parties (the government and the director involved) from the costly process of litigation. Although the conditions under which disqualification undertakings are made are similar to disqualification orders, a shorter period of disqualification is usually imposed on persons who voluntarily make this offer (Ruhmkorf and Du Plessis, 2017, p. 60).…”

Section: Disqualification Of Directors: Lessons From the Uk And Nigeriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disqualification orders barring a person from acting as a director of a company for a defined season may be made by the court in pursuance to an application in that regard made by the Insolvency Service[11]. It is also important to note that under Section 2 of the CDDA86, the court may make this order suo motu , where it convicts a person of an indictable offence (Ruhmkorf and Du Plessis, 2017, pp. 33-39).…”

Section: Disqualification Of Directors: Lessons From the Uk And Nigeriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That only a tiny fraction disqualifications are done by court orders is illustrative of the lack of tendency on the part of courts and authorities to pursue the “judicial route” to disqualification, which as stated earlier, can be triggered primarily at the behest of the regulators and sometimes by the courts. The seeming primacy of disqualification undertakings can be attributed to the complexity of the procedures surrounding court ordered disqualifications, such as the grounds on which an application can be made, and by whom (Ruhmkorf and Du Plessis, 2017, p. 68). This seeming inertia on the part of authorities is also evident in competition disqualification, where, as of the writing this article, there have been only three competition disqualification undertaking, whereas there has been no court ordered competition disqualification because the introduction of disqualification to UK competition law in September, 2003[33].…”

Section: Disqualification Of Directors: Lessons From the Uk And Nigeriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparative study on disqualification of company directors in the UK and Nigeria:

Caliskan

Subai

2020

JFC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to argue that the disqualification of directors, coupled with other liabilities to which they may be subjected, particularly in insolvency, should be sufficient to deter wrongdoing, because of the impact they tend to have on their personal and professional lives. It, however, argues that the “deterrence” effect would be dependent on the existence of other factors such as the efficient application of the law, publicity and post-disqualification monitoring. Design/methodology/approach Using the UK as its primary case study, while also making reference to Nigeria and Turkey, this paper will show that while the existence of disqualification as a sanction exists in the first two countries, it is virtually absent from Turkey. And that while directors’ disqualification provisions are routinely applied in the UK, they are hardly invoked in Nigeria, except perhaps with respect to listed companies, due perhaps to a lack of awareness of its existence or potency. Findings This paper will conclude by making a case for a stronger application of the law, as it relates to directors’ disqualification in the UK, call for an elaboration of the legal framework in Nigeria as well as the need for a public awareness of its provisions and potential impact and contend that Turkey should put in place a legal framework for directors’ disqualification patterned also after the UK framework. Originality/value The uniqueness of this paper stems from its tri-country focus. In that respect, the UK, which is a more advanced economy, with a robust and dynamic company law regime, is used as the primary case study, whereas at the same time, developments in Nigeria, particularly with that country’s capital market, will be extracted and compared with the UK framework. Turkey, on the contrary, has been chosen as a case study mainly because it has no directors’ disqualification mechanism in its legal system. Comparing directors’ disqualification in one developing country, Nigeria, and a developed country, the UK and determining their upsides and downsides will be beneficial to Turkey in respect to establishing a deterrent effective disqualification mechanism on directors.

show abstract

Section: Disqualification Of Directors: Lessons From the Uk And Nigeriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Disqualification Of Directors: Lessons From the Uk And Nigeriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Disqualification Of Directors: Lessons From the Uk And Nigeriamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparative study on disqualification of company directors in the UK and Nigeria:

Caliskan

Subai

2020

JFC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to conventional approaches, directors' and managers' duties are only concerned with the monetary value of the company and not its reputation or impact on its stakeholders. 79 If, however, the nature of a corporation is not reduced to pecuniary interests, it could be argued that the decision-makers in a company are also responsible for its corporate conduct in relation to human rights.…”

Section: A Civil Liabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The State Duty to Protect against Human Rights Violations through Transnational Business Activities

Krajewski¹

2018

Deakin Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transnational corporations are currently not formally bound by international human rights obligations. Instead, states have a duty to protect individuals against human rights abuses by third parties, including corporations. While it is undisputed that this obligation extends to all individuals living on the territory of the respective state, the extraterritorial scope of the duty to protect remains contested. This is especially the case for human rights violations through transnational business activities. The state on whose territory the violation occurs has a duty to protect human rights by adopting and implementing labour and environmental laws applicable in that state. However, it is less clear if and to what extent the state of the main seat of the mother company or the global ordering company — the ‘home state’ — also has a human rights duty to regulate transnational business activity. This article argues that such a duty can be based on existing human rights doctrine and standards of general international law such as the ‘no harm’ rule and the due diligence principle. It argues that states have a duty to regulate transnational business activities of corporations over which they exercise jurisdiction if human rights violations caused by such activities are predictable and preventable. In its final part, the article assesses various approaches in state practice which could be seen as instruments in the fulfilment of the duty to regulate transnational business activities.

show abstract

Individual Sanctions of Competition Law: A Comparison between the UK and Turkey

Caliskan¹,

Öner²

2019

European Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a highly advocated view that a competition law with sanctions targeting individuals would achieve a greater deterrent impact than one that does not. Having introduced individual sanctions does not, however, guarantee that a market would have less anticompetitive conduct, because these sanctions are effective only insofar as they are severely implemented on wrongdoing individuals. UK competition law is one example of this issue because cases where individuals have been targeted and punished are significantly fewer than the authorities expected, in spite of it being more than 15 years since individual sanctions were introduced amidst high expectations. This article examines the individual sanctions of competition law in the UK and Turkey. It argues that Turkey is on the right path by departing from the way in which EU law enforces the rules of competition law, and is moving closer to UK law. However, it is argued that further steps should be cautiously considered to avoid the same issues which UK competition law is currently experiencing, as there are serious doubts that the latter has achieved the desired deterrent effect.

show abstract

The United Kingdom

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

A comparative study on disqualification of company directors in the UK and Nigeria:

A comparative study on disqualification of company directors in the UK and Nigeria:

The State Duty to Protect against Human Rights Violations through Transnational Business Activities

Individual Sanctions of Competition Law: A Comparison between the UK and Turkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About