Talk:Public limited company
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Public limited company article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 What is it?
- 2 Naming of PLC articles
- 3 who owns and control public limited company
- 4 Naming convention for Companies and Businesses
- 5 SARL?
- 6 Copy?
- 7 Globalisation
- 8 Wikipedia is not a how-to
- 9 The link to the Hungarian version is certainly not correct
- 10 "PLC" vs "plc" vs "p.l.c."
- 11 Countries
- 12 Why the UK-specific tag?
- 13 incorporating PLCs in Northern Ireland after 1st Oct 2009
- 14 Move?
- 15 plc or PLC?
- 16 Globalisation
- 17 Basic info missing
- 18 Companies Act 2006 changes
What is it?
- A PLC (UK Name) is a company that can list on a stock market, in Europe companies have a different legal process if they are on a stock market and have different rules and regulations. This is common in most of the world. In practice it means a minimum amount of cash that goes in to set the company up and a lot more rules that the company must follow (even if it is not on the stock market). RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Naming of PLC articles
who owns and control public limited company
a PLC is, by definition, owned by its shareholders.
As for control there are as many different answers as there are PLCs as they are controlled according to the by-laws that the company is incorporated under. This is usually that the shareholders elect a board which can be under a variety of methods: most frequently each share gets 1 vote - so a shareholder with 100 shares gets less influence that someone with 1000, sometimes there are different classes of shares, so one type of share gets more influence than another, sometimes there is a golden share where control of the company rests in a single share that may nominally be of the same value as all the others but grants the owner greater influence in board elections. Oftehn the board is elected anually at an AGM. The board is usually comprised of large shareholds.
The board may then elect a chairman of the board who is in charge of the company, though (s)he may hand over day to day control to a CEO or Managing Director or to other people in a variety of other methods. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to draw attention and comment to on a draft poll to determine naming convention for companies and businesses. I have looked around a number of places and have only seen comments to the effect of "we should have a convention" or "do we have a convention" on how to name a XXX company. This has either the effect of drawing a few uninterested comments or a stirring up a heated debate. In either case the net result is generally zero. Your comments to help clarify this poll and later corresponding vote would be greatly appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Is the French equivalant SA or SARL? I'm just asking cause I can't find SARL on Wikipedia, but my dictionary translates plc as SARL and ltd. as SA. Is this a mistake or is it correct? - RedHot 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- SA is PLC
- SARL is ltd
RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"In Malaysia, the word berhad or Bhd indicates the same characteristic."
Who cares? Why specifically mention Malaysia? Every country in the world would have their own word for a 'public limited company', but they don't get a special mention... This is an article about companies in Ireland and the UK, by the looks of it.
FTA: "To help you meet this filing requirement, we send a pre-printed 'shuttle' form to your registered office a few weeks before the anniversary of incorporation. This will show the information that you have already given us" - looks copied from somewhere?
I believe it is all copied from Companies House. As CH is a public government body offering a service, and offering this information free, I wouldn't expect there was a copyright problem (though I could be wrong). However, it should certainly be restyled to make it appropriate for Wikipedia.188.8.131.52 19:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- it looks like a lot of this article is a straight copy-and-paste job from official literature. I've added the cleanup tag as it's not very encyclopaedic.BaseTurnComplete 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
User:GoTeamVenture added the globalisation tag back on 3rd April. My proposal would be to create a page above PLC for the international equivalent and then link into the the individual country pages where available for the equivalent in each country. There was article on Societas Europaea which is a pan European equivalent. It now merged with and redirects to European Company Statute.
If this is Ok we can take off the globalisation tag. RonaldDuncan 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a how-to
"In contrast, a public company (sometimes known as a 'listed' company) offers its shares for sale upon the open market - they are 'listed' upon the stock exchange. In Britain, they are usually distinguished by the letters 'PLC' after their name."
"PLC" vs "plc" vs "p.l.c."
Is it worth mentioning that p.l.c. is the form now (as of 2006) mandated for corporate documents, and then using a less cumbersome form throughout the document? "p.l.c." (with the quotes, and with the punctuation) looks horrendous. I would suggest that for the article body (after the initial mention) PLC or plc (without punctuation) should be used - the former rather than the latter in order to keep with general English language style of capitalising acronyms. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but the topic is probably sufficiently different in other countries that it would be worth just having different articles. Lawdroid (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Why the UK-specific tag?
- Quite. Although one or two other countries use the term, "plc" is not in worldwide use. I have removed the tag. --Picapica (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
incorporating PLCs in Northern Ireland after 1st Oct 2009
Isn't this bit out of date? "Northern Ireland has a separate Registrar of Companies. In the Republic of Ireland the equivalent [it refers to Companies House] executive agency is the Companies Registration Office, Ireland."
I've found this on Companies House: "The Companies Act 2006 was fully implemented on 1 October 2009 and the Northern Ireland companies register was fully integrated into Companies House. Companies House maintains a satellite office in Belfast, headed by the Registrar of Companies for Northern Ireland."
Do these statements exclude one another or not? Does anyone know how it really is? I don't want to edit it myself, because I'm just a confused student :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
plc or PLC?
Technically speaking it should be capitalised but plc has become the accepted form, much the same way that laser and radar are no longer capitalised. I'd say it's fine the way it is (edit: in its uncapitalised form that is) -ross616- (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
By the looks of things, that globalisation tag has been haunting this article for quite some time, so i think we should come to a consensus on it, although on the surface there doesn't seem much to argue about. As far as I am aware, plc is a British term, and while other countries do have their equivalents, surely, since these equivalents have their own page and mentioning them here would just be going off topic, a "not to be confused with..." bar at the top would clear up this problem? -ross616- (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Basic info missing
I came here to answer the question "When was the plc suffix introduced?" This is a very tricky question to Google, as you keep getting results for programmable logic controllers, and something like "public limited company invented" tends to bring up American results. There's a huge amount of (perhaps too much) technical detail here, but very little in the way of simple overview/history of the plc concept. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Companies Act 2006 changes
Some of this article doesn't seem to have been updated for the changes introduced by Companies Act 2006 that commenced in 2009. I just spotted and fixed a problem with the Annual Returns section (the 363S shuttle return is no longer provided by companies house, the CA2006 equivalent AR01 form must be filled out in full), but I'm pretty sure there are more. I think the description of company formation process is out of date (I haven't done it recently, but the form naming described appears to be the old one) and I also suspect some of the costs described are from the old system, too (I think paper Annual Returns have gone up to £40, now). JulesH (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)