Partners having trouble opening a business account because of my past bankruptcy :(

Mouse1812

That's not a contradiction

Directors are not the same as shareholders.

silvercar

Mouse1812 wrote: »

That's not a contradiction

Directors are not the same as shareholders.

I know they are different, but the names of shareholders need to be submitted on the Annual Return, therefore there is an identifiable link created between the discharged bankrupt and the company.

Limited companies often pay out dividends as a tax efficient way of getting money out of the company. Dividends have to be distributed according to shareholdings, therefore the company will be distributing money to the discharged bankrupt.

I would go back to the bank and point out the difference between shareholder and director - its quite a significant (but common) error to make.

There is a difference, but whether the bank is happy about the situation is a matter for them.

Mouse1812

silvercar wrote: »

I know they are different, but the names of shareholders need to be submitted on the Annual Return, therefore there is an identifiable link created between the discharged bankrupt and the company.

Well I hope no discharged bankrupts have subsequently acquired shares in BT then, or BP, or for that matter BAT...

Come on, that is just plain daft.

If you go back to the OP, there is one word which gives the game away.

Ineedaname

Considering the OP's problem isn't that they will receive dividends from the company, only that by being involved in it their partner is unable to open a business bank account at this time. The information given by Silvercar is relevant to a bank potentially finding out at a later date that the OP have become a shareholder after a business bank account has been opened.

A discharged BR can legally own shares in a company so your comment bears no relevance to the problem at hand.

Annisele

I think the difference between a (discharged) bankrupt holding shares in BT and in their partner's company is about the likely degree of control.

BT's market cap is huge, so any one individual can't own a high percentage of BT's shares unless they're very, very rich. So, when it comes to shareholder votes to remove a director, or to buy another company, or whatever - OP's tiny tiny shareholding would make no difference.

OP's partner's company is likely to be very small (compared with BT - no disrespect intended!). So, depending on the percentage of the shares OP owns, and the way the memorandum and arts are written, OP might have the right to appoint directors. (IMO OP's partner would have been dozy to have set things up that way, but it's possible).

The bank might have a rule that, rather than trying to individually consider shareholdings and company documents to work out whether it has a potential problem in this case, it's just "no discharged bankrupts to be shareholders".

OP - can your partner go back to the bank and find out exactly what it's rule is?

silvercar

Mouse1812 wrote: »

Well I hope no discharged bankrupts have subsequently acquired shares in BT then, or BP, or for that matter BAT...

Come on, that is just plain daft.

If you go back to the OP, there is one word which gives the game away.

BT, BP etc are plc (public limited company) not a Ltd (privated limited company) ie they are quoted (on the stock exchange) and shares are bought and sold without reference to other shareholders and directors.

You are comparing apples with pears.

bubblebum1982

Hi.

My partners a civil engineer so yes the company will be a relatively small one. I only hold one share (not sure how that's calculated percentage wise) and other than that I have no other input into anything. Our accountant advised him to add me as a share holder.

Hi is currently waiting for a phone call from Barclays as this has been ongoing now for near on a month. They refused at first saying there was a discrepancy on my behalf so we explained the bankruptcy (having already done so in person at the first appointment) explained that the debit that may show on my credit file was all pre-bankruptcy and that I was discharged a year later in 2008 - we went on to then provide proof of this and was told over the phone that it would be enough and that providing the credit team ok it, the account would be opened in 24hrs - this was last Monday and were still chasing.... They seem to be passing us from pillar to post at the mo and no one actually wants to explain a reason.

I spent ages trawling through posts on here and have come across people who themselves have been bankrupt and have been allowed to run a company themselves along with a bank account - some within months of being discharged

Xx

WhiteHorse

bubblebum1982 wrote: »

He has appointed me as a shareholder.

Shareholders are not appointed. Are you sure that you mean shareholder?

Can this be right? Even when I will have no access to either the company or bank account, I am merely just a name on a piece of paper?

The prospect of a recently discharged bankrupt as a Company Director would always get a negative response from the bank.

A significant shareholder might have the same effect because they could dictate what the Board does.

bubblebum1982

Yes I am just a shareholder - its all been set up with companies house as the accountant stated that post bankrupts can be share holders in a ltd company.

Xx

silvercar

bubblebum1982 wrote: »

Yes I am just a shareholder - its all been set up with companies house as the accountant stated that post bankrupts can be share holders in a ltd company.

Xx

The problem is not whether bankrupts can be shareholders but whether the bank wants to open an account for a limited company where one of its shareholders is bankrupt.