Thomas
You are right it is implausible. :)
In general AFAIK a company taking actions requires it to have an executive in which case as long as it is put together correctly the executive goes to jail and the directors including company secretary are protected by a corporate veil (unless they have themselves been negligent, acted as execs etc).
Not that you should sleep well on the back on of non-legal hearsay but I've been a CEO for 15 years, 3 countries and at least 6 companies and never managed to get a board member jailed in my place yet. :)
Andrew
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/29 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Wed, October 29, 2008 15:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Indeed. The thing is, even if you don't have a secretary, somebody has to liaise with companies house, etc., so why not call them Company Secretary?
There is also the secondary benefit. The Company Secretary is the person legal responsible / goes to court in the dock for the actions of a company when an identifiable human is required - and is the one sent to prison, etc. which saves time amongst rather than all the Directors having to draw straws l-0
{{fact}}
Sounds very implausible to me...
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l