Same registered address, same director, different register number is it the same company?

Uyuni

There were a series of acquisions. A  US company has a subsidiary in UK this company in the UK has acquired other two companies in the UK.

The UK companies have same director/finance director, same registered address that were changed to one place, but different register number. 

Also the initial subsidiary has 2 names with small variant with different registered number and the  same director as the other company names. 

They serve a big government service. will this be the reason why they do it in this way to fence their liability?

In practice is the same company, it all merged, but operates as a group.

would you say the subsidiary will be a parent company? so even they are the same company they are treated a separate companies.

The employees are part of the group and can be quantified as a total from the group, is that correct? or do you calculate the initial number of employees of a each company? 

Thanks a lot. 

eskbanker

Uyuni said:

The employees are part of the group and can be quantified as a total from the group, is that correct? or do you calculate the initial number of employees of a each company?

What is it that you're trying to achieve here?  Is there something employment law related perhaps that would define number of employees by company to be significant?

MattMattMattUK

Uyuni said:

There were a series of acquisions. A  US company has a subsidiary in UK this company in the UK has acquired other two companies in the UK.

The UK companies have same director/finance director, same registered address that were changed to one place, but different register number. 

Also the initial subsidiary has 2 names with small variant with different registered number and the  same director as the other company names. 

They serve a big government service. will this be the reason why they do it in this way to fence their liability?

In practice is the same company, it all merged, but operates as a group.

would you say the subsidiary will be a parent company? so even they are the same company they are treated a separate companies.

The employees are part of the group and can be quantified as a total from the group, is that correct? or do you calculate the initial number of employees of a each company? 

Thanks a lot. 

For what purpose are you trying to establish this? It is normal for large companies to be made up of different Limited companies operating as part of a group, different companies operating different elements of the business, sometimes different sites. The reasons can vary, sometimes it is liability, sometimes it is specified in contracts, sometimes it is to allow sites to be transferred between suppliers etc. Legally they are separate companies even if they have the same parent. 

Hoenir

 Uyuni said:

In practice is the same company, it all merged, but operates as a group.

would you say the subsidiary will be a parent company? so even they are the same company they are treated a separate companies.

Legally seperate entities. Merging companies is complex, costly and time consuming. Absorbing a lot of senior management's time. Easier to do nothing and simply address issues as when they arise in the future in the normal course of events. Gradually slimming down the overall structure. 

Uyuni

[Deleted User] said:

Uyuni said:

The UK companies have same director/finance director, same registered address that were changed to one place, but different register number. 

Sounds like there are two companies.  You can check by searching on the company registration number here: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/

Thanks. Each company name has its own registered name, although it's all merged. they joined all management and support staff as part of one, as well as all frontline workforce within the different sites
The US company refers to its subsidiary company using one name only, as a group. 

By this merging the number of employees naturally increased, the email address are the same for each employee, so there is not distinction in company. for this reason I believe the total employee of the group will be actually the number of employees, regardless the name or names referred to it. thanks

Uyuni

eskbanker said:

Uyuni said:

The employees are part of the group and can be quantified as a total from the group, is that correct? or do you calculate the initial number of employees of a each company?

What is it that you're trying to achieve here?  Is there something employment law related perhaps that would define number of employees by company to be significant?

Yes, In regards of employment law.  Group management won't make any distinction, apart of sites where employees are, they will all be dealt within a system. So therefore that is the total of employees of the group merged from all the small companies.  

Uyuni

MattMattMattUK said:

Uyuni said:

There were a series of acquisions. A  US company has a subsidiary in UK this company in the UK has acquired other two companies in the UK.

The UK companies have same director/finance director, same registered address that were changed to one place, but different register number. 

Also the initial subsidiary has 2 names with small variant with different registered number and the  same director as the other company names. 

They serve a big government service. will this be the reason why they do it in this way to fence their liability?

In practice is the same company, it all merged, but operates as a group.

would you say the subsidiary will be a parent company? so even they are the same company they are treated a separate companies.

The employees are part of the group and can be quantified as a total from the group, is that correct? or do you calculate the initial number of employees of a each company? 

Thanks a lot. 

For what purpose are you trying to establish this? It is normal for large companies to be made up of different Limited companies operating as part of a group, different companies operating different elements of the business, sometimes different sites. The reasons can vary, sometimes it is liability, sometimes it is specified in contracts, sometimes it is to allow sites to be transferred between suppliers etc. Legally they are separate companies even if they have the same parent. 

Thanks. do you mean even if they have the same staff all managed with the same people that merged into one?

Not really for specific purpose, it's more a personal interest. Thanks

eskbanker

Uyuni said:

eskbanker said:

Uyuni said:

The employees are part of the group and can be quantified as a total from the group, is that correct? or do you calculate the initial number of employees of a each company?

What is it that you're trying to achieve here?  Is there something employment law related perhaps that would define number of employees by company to be significant?

Yes, In regards of employment law.  Group management won't make any distinction, apart of sites where employees are, they will all be dealt within a system. So therefore that is the total of employees of the group merged from all the small companies.  

It's still not really any clearer, but if it's a matter of employment law (e.g. scale of employer when consulting on redundancies) then it'll be the legal entity structure that prevails, regardless of shared directors, email addresses, etc.  It should be clear from contracts of employment, etc, exactly which entity any given employee is employed by, even if they're working alongside others in a different one....