Template:Branches and affiliates: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Few things are apt to cause more confusion, fear and loathing for less good reason the legal status, as regards ''itself'', of a company’s various [[branch]]es. | |||
Few things are apt to cause more confusion, fear and loathing for less good reason the legal status, as regards itself, of a company’s various [[branch]]es | |||
It is apt to thoroughly confuse [[muggle]]s which, on a busy day, can be the last thing a [[legal eagle]] needs, but on a slow one is fertile grounds for a little sport at the expense of our [[Muggle|non-magical friends]]. You will be surprised how often one is asked to review, approve or even sign a [[contract]], [[keep-well agreement]] or [[service level agreement]] between a branch of a company and its head office. | |||
*'''[[Affiliate]]s''': By contrast, a company’s [[affiliate]] is a related but separate [[legal entity]]. If a company is a person, its affiliate is its parent, child, or sibling. Parent affiliates are actually even called [[parent]]s. Children are [[wholly-owned subsidiaries]], ugly stepchildren and bastards are [[majority-owned subsidiaries]] and siblings are known as companies “under common ownership”. There is plenty of scope for ugly sisters, black sheep and long-lost cousins from Australia, as you can imagine. Proper [[Affiliate|affiliates]] may be consolidated from a financial reporting perspective, but generally (and unless it has specifically agreed to) an affiliate is not responsible for performing the obligations of its any of its [[affiliate]]s unless it agrees to do so by [[contract]] (such as a [[guarantee]]). | The most pragmatic response is just to sign it, wearily, but purists will find this at least aggravating and many will regard it as nothing less than a betrayal of the attorney’s sacred oath. It should not take a first in jurisprudence from Cambridge to comprehend that a fellow cannot enter a legal contract with herself.<ref>Or a lease: {{casenote|Rye|Rye}}.</ref> | ||
*'''[[Branch|Branches]]''': If a [[company]] is a [[Corporate personality|person]] — and legally, it is — think of a [[branch]] like its arm or leg. A “[[branch]]” is a single office or presence of the larger [[legal entity]]. It does not have its own [[legal personality]], [[creditworthiness]] or independent standing in the commercial world. Like an arm or a leg, it is part of a greater whole. It may just be a single premises of the company — the “Muswell Hill branch of Sainsbury’s”, for example — but in the world of [[high finance]] it is usually the whole presence of that [[legal entity]] in a given city or country. | |||
*'''[[Affiliate]]s''': By contrast, a company’s [[affiliate]] is a related but separate [[legal entity]]. If a company is a person, its affiliate is its parent, child, or sibling. Parent affiliates are actually even called [[parent]]s. Children are [[wholly-owned subsidiaries]], ugly stepchildren and bastards are [[majority-owned subsidiaries]] and siblings are known as companies “under common ownership”. There is plenty of scope for ugly sisters, black sheep and long-lost cousins from Australia, as you can imagine. Proper [[Affiliate|affiliates]] may be consolidated from a financial reporting perspective, but generally (and unless it has specifically agreed to) an affiliate is not responsible for performing the obligations of its any of its [[affiliate]]s unless it agrees to do so by [[contract]] (such as a [[guarantee]]). <br> | |||
Revision as of 22:56, 12 December 2020
Few things are apt to cause more confusion, fear and loathing for less good reason the legal status, as regards itself, of a company’s various branches.
It is apt to thoroughly confuse muggles which, on a busy day, can be the last thing a legal eagle needs, but on a slow one is fertile grounds for a little sport at the expense of our non-magical friends. You will be surprised how often one is asked to review, approve or even sign a contract, keep-well agreement or service level agreement between a branch of a company and its head office.
The most pragmatic response is just to sign it, wearily, but purists will find this at least aggravating and many will regard it as nothing less than a betrayal of the attorney’s sacred oath. It should not take a first in jurisprudence from Cambridge to comprehend that a fellow cannot enter a legal contract with herself.[1]
- Branches: If a company is a person — and legally, it is — think of a branch like its arm or leg. A “branch” is a single office or presence of the larger legal entity. It does not have its own legal personality, creditworthiness or independent standing in the commercial world. Like an arm or a leg, it is part of a greater whole. It may just be a single premises of the company — the “Muswell Hill branch of Sainsbury’s”, for example — but in the world of high finance it is usually the whole presence of that legal entity in a given city or country.
- Affiliates: By contrast, a company’s affiliate is a related but separate legal entity. If a company is a person, its affiliate is its parent, child, or sibling. Parent affiliates are actually even called parents. Children are wholly-owned subsidiaries, ugly stepchildren and bastards are majority-owned subsidiaries and siblings are known as companies “under common ownership”. There is plenty of scope for ugly sisters, black sheep and long-lost cousins from Australia, as you can imagine. Proper affiliates may be consolidated from a financial reporting perspective, but generally (and unless it has specifically agreed to) an affiliate is not responsible for performing the obligations of its any of its affiliates unless it agrees to do so by contract (such as a guarantee).