Share incentives

Share incentives

This subtopic is intended as an introduction to employee share incentive schemes for Private Client practitioners. Share schemes and incentives specialist lawyers will often be instructed by a company to give substantive advice in this area, but it is important for Private Client lawyers to understand the basics.

Introduction to employee share ownership schemes

Employee share ownership typically happens in one of the following scenarios:

•
business succession or ownership succession—private owners, such as an entrepreneur or family business, decide to sell all (more usually, part) of their shareholdings to their workforce
•
insolvency or closure threat—employee buyouts can prove an effective route to recovery for businesses that might otherwise fail
•
independence—companies may decide that a significant and even majority employee stakeholding will demonstrate and help protect the company's independence
•
privatisation—the privatisation of various companies have provided occasional opportunities for employee buyouts, and
•
owner vision—as in the case of John Lewis, Arup Group or Scott Bader, at the outset of the business or later on, the founder of a business opts for employee ownership

There are many ways in which share ownership schemes

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Private Client weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Wigglesworth v Beetson, in which the claimant failed in an action for estoppel and adverse possession; (2) the Hansard Society to host a briefing on parliamentary process for Assisted Dying Bill; (3) Khan v Khan, which considered family property and constructive trusts; (4) analysis of the Autumn Budget announcement to bring unused pension funds and death benefits within the scope of IHT; (5) Palmer v Sans, which found that there was no transaction at an undervalue where property was already held on trust for the transferee; (6) KA v FA (The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening), where the court recognised an overseas adoption notwithstanding failure of common law test; and (7) Kireeva v Bedzhamov, in which the Supreme Court has confirmed the application of the immovables rule to English property.

Privy Council rules BVI company shares are not immovable property (Al Thani v Al Thani)

Private Client analysis: In a decision which will come as a relief to private individuals who own shares in BVI companies, the Privy Council has decided that section 245 of the BVI’s Business Companies Act 2004 does not have the effect of re-categorising shares as immovable property for the purposes of succession. Written by Kyle Bonnell, pupil at XXIV Old Buildings.

Supreme Court confirms application of immovables rule to English property

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Ms Kireeva’s (Russian bankruptcy trustee’s) appeal to overturn the Court of Appeal’s’ decision regarding matters arising out of the bankruptcy of Mr Bedzhamov. Peter Declercq and Patrick Elliot, partners at DCQ Legal (who acted for Ms Kireeva), discuss the implications of the judgment.

UT finds FTT made errors when setting aside HMRC best judgment assessment (HMRC v Sintra Global)

Tax analysis: In Sintra Global, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) insofar as it related to a notice HMRC had issued to an individual making him liable for the payment of a civil evasion penalty charged against a company he was a director of. The UT found that the FTT had failed to follow the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Pegasus Birds in relation to the assessment the penalty was based on.