The concept of a Person with Significant Control (PSC) typically involves holding more than 25% of shares or voting rights in a company. In your scenario, where an individual holds technically less than 12.5% voting power but has the approval of other shareholders, becoming a PSC under normal definitions would not be feasible based solely on voting rights or share percentage.
However, if the individual’s influence extends beyond direct voting rights or shareholding, such as having control over the company’s decisions or agreements with other shareholders granting de facto control, it might still qualify them as a PSC. This could include scenarios where shareholders have consented to let this individual make key decisions, even though formal voting rights don’t reflect significant control.
To formally register as a PSC under these circumstances, the individual or company would need to demonstrate significant influence or control, potentially through contractual arrangements or other mechanisms. It’s crucial to document these arrangements adequately and confirm they align with the legal requirements in the jurisdiction where the company operates.
Consulting with legal or corporate governance professionals is advisable to ensure compliance and accurate representation of the individual’s influence or control within the company’s structure.
One Comment
This is a compelling discussion on the nuances of what constitutes a Person with Significant Control (PSC). It brings to light an important aspect of corporate governance—that influence isn’t solely defined by ownership percentages.
To further elaborate, it’s essential to recognize that the definition of significant control can vary by jurisdiction, so understanding local regulations is pivotal. In some regions, having the ability to influence decisions through informal arrangements or relationships with other shareholders might lead to recognition as a PSC, even if the individual does not meet the traditional thresholds for shareholding.
Moreover, beyond contractual agreements, this situation underscores the importance of shareholder agreements and corporate governance documents that clearly outline roles and responsibilities. By formalizing the intended control structure, companies can avoid potential disputes or regulatory issues down the line.
It’s also worth mentioning that transparency is crucial. Keeping the company’s stakeholders well-informed about such arrangements not only aids in compliance but also fosters trust among shareholders. Regularly reviewing and updating corporate governance policies can help ensure that they reflect the actual control dynamics within the company.
In summary, while the thresholds for being classified as a PSC may not be met strictly by shareholding, the surrounding context and agreements can establish significant influence. Therefore, a thorough understanding of both legal frameworks and internal governance structures is essential for anyone navigating this complex landscape.