Tuesday, 13 May 2014

Ceisteanna (316, 317, 318)

Maureen O'Sullivan

Ceist:

316. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will instruct the Companies Registration Office to explain the irregular manner in which it conducted business with a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21432/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Maureen O'Sullivan

Ceist:

317. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will instruct the Companies Registration Office to explain its conduct with a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21433/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Maureen O'Sullivan

Ceist:

318. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will instruct the Companies Registration Office to explain its conduct with a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21434/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa (Ceist ar Jobs)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 316 to 318, inclusive, together.

I am advised by the Companies Registration Office (CRO) that the company referred to by the Deputy was struck off the companies register for failure to file Annual Returns and dissolved in December 1998. The company made an application to the High Court in 2007 for restoration to the register. As is standard in such cases, the CRO was requested to supply a Letter of "no objection" to the restoration and it issued such a letter in April 2007 stating it would have no objection to the restoration provided the company delivered in advance to the CRO all of its outstanding Annual Returns and Accounts for the period 1991-2007 in this case.

The requested Annual Returns and Accounts were delivered to the CRO and as they appeared in order on their face and were duly signed by officers of the company, as notified to the CRO they were accepted by the CRO in April 2007 and are available as registered documents on the public register of companies.

I am further advised by the CRO that two B10 Forms ("Notification of appointment/resignation of director/secretary or change in details of director/secretary" ) were submitted to the Office on 14 February 2007. As these Forms appeared on their face to be in order and duly signed, they were subsequently registered by the CRO. The CRO was the recipient of further statutory filings and non-statutory correspondence from the company between its restoration in 2007 and 2010. The CRO is satisfied that the register now reflects accurately the position of appointment of directors and secretaries as notified to the registrar by the company. The onus rests with companies and their officers to ensure that accurate information is filed with the CRO.

It would appear that there is a dispute between a number of parties attached to the company. One of the parties has alleged that the B10 filings of February 2007 were “fraudulent” and the CRO advised the complainant to refer the complaint to the appropriate authorities for investigation.

I should stress that the CRO does not have an adjudication role in relation to the determination of who was, or who was not, a director or secretary of a company at a particular point in time. The role of the CRO is to register the various statutory forms submitted by companies that on their face comply with the statutory requirements. It would be a matter for the Courts to determine a dispute as to who, in fact, the directors of a particular company were on various dates. The CRO would immediately comply with any direction issued by the Court in that regard.