I move amendment No. 12:
To delete subsection (2).
The purpose is to deal with recommendations in the report on Bankruptcy Law. That was an old report, a report of a committee set up in the 1920s. We have a new Bankruptcy Committee now. I suggest it would be better to await any recommendations of that Committee and to omit this subsection altogether.
What would be the position pending the recommendations of the Bankruptcy Commission ?
Whatever is in the bankruptcy law would apply at the moment : I do not know exactly—
Is subsection (1) of Section 42 a copy of the existing law?
Subsection (2) was intended to cover for a recommendation in the Bankruptcy Committee's Report. I should say in elaboration of what I have already said, that some doubts have arisen as to what precisely the Bankruptcy Committee had in mind in this connection. As we have a new Bankruptcy Committee now and as we are not sure what the old Bankruptcy Committee intended, I think we can omit this subsection.
Subsection (1) of Section 42 says it need not be under its common seal. That is a negative expression. What should it be "under?"" A document or proceeding requiring authentication by a company may be signed by a director, secretary or other authorised officer of the company and need not be under its common seal. "
I feel that subsection (1) of Section 42 could be taken to be in conflict with subparagraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section 38. They are both in the old Act.
What does subsection (1) of Section 42 mean? It need not be "under its common seal." What does that mean?
Surely the word " authentication " is the vital word there? It is not the document requiring execution : it is only something to authenticate it.
Yes. For example: " I certify that the foregoing is a true copy. " That is what it amounts to.
In future, that authentication will be taken as all right?
That was the position in the past. It is not new.
Subsection (b) is what we add on as what we thought possible if we had got the full report of the Bankruptcy Committee?
That is right. I think " authentication " is limited to the certifying of document, etc.
That the company is the company.
That the copy is a copy, that it is authentic.
That the document is what it is purported to be.
Very well.
