05-19-2011, 09:18 PM
AGREED...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, san" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kamranACA</i>
<br />XYZ can be treated as subsidiary of ABC as the direct and indirect (through associates) holding together makes-up the 'control' that ABC can exercise on XYZ.
Section 3 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 accounts for 'direct' and 'indirect' both sort of holdings to establish the holding/subsidiary relationship. Though the term 'indirect holding' is not defined, yet, it encompasses the holding through associates, other subsidiaries or directors.
Pls keep in mind that 'A' and 'B' are "associates" of the ABC under the difinition provided by the Companies Ordinance, 1984 regardless that they are not directors/CEO etc.
Regards,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, san" id="quote">quote<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kamranACA</i>
<br />XYZ can be treated as subsidiary of ABC as the direct and indirect (through associates) holding together makes-up the 'control' that ABC can exercise on XYZ.
Section 3 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 accounts for 'direct' and 'indirect' both sort of holdings to establish the holding/subsidiary relationship. Though the term 'indirect holding' is not defined, yet, it encompasses the holding through associates, other subsidiaries or directors.
Pls keep in mind that 'A' and 'B' are "associates" of the ABC under the difinition provided by the Companies Ordinance, 1984 regardless that they are not directors/CEO etc.
Regards,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
