Thanks for getting the advice Ciaran I agree hold the meeting first then form the company
Delay the meeting until March 24th. I look forward to it. On Wed 28 Feb 2018 at 21:18, Ciarán Staunton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All > I am sorry if this is a longer than usual message and I will try to be > brief as there is a lot of ground to cover. And 3 questions at the end. > > I have secured (free of charge) the services of Robert Tallent of Synergy > Group. He is a sound person, he has a lot of experience of non-profit and > charity company formation, and provides advice on registration and > compliance for a range of different clients but usually small and > formative. His website is available if your websearch for his name with > "Synergy". > > As regards the conversations I have had with Bob I gave him the following > brief (which was what was agreed at the last): > - Which structure will protect the members and directors against legally > liability, and will share the limited liability equally? > - Which structure will closely match the requirements of the Foundation to > be non-for-profit? > - Which structure will allow for the eventual registration as a charity > (enabling donations) > - Which structure might in the future enable seeking a grant or employing > someone > > Bob has outlined to me that a Limited Partnership is a dangerous option > unless the lead partner is also a salaried executive director. The optimal > structure to satisfy all these is a *Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG)*. > The CLG once registered can then later seek charitable status from the > regulator, and is also free to apply for grants or other funds. The > understanding of non-for-profit with CLGs is simply to monitor that profit > seeking is not the main objective of the majority of activities, and that > when profits arise there is a plan to re-invest them. The DAC structure is > limiting in the scope of things the company may want to do which is why CLG > is not recommended. > > > 1. What I would like to clear up before the AGM is whether the members > of this mailing list wish the nominated group to proceed to form the > company before the AGM, or post the AGM. It may shape how the meeting > takes > place. > 2. Also Bob Tallent cannot attend on the 10th March and I think it would > be better to have him there to facilitate questions. His real value to > us > is advising on what we need to assemble on us. Would the members be ok > if > we postpone the AGM until the 24th? I have checked with Tadeusz and it > appears that Tog is available on that date. > 3. Also, can those guys who were working on a constitution and memos and > articles bring these to some advanced stage and propose them for the > AGM? > > I'm sorry again for the long email. Please speak up on all three. I know > you are all snowbound, so no excuses :) > > Ciarán > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ie mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie > _______________________________________________ Talk-ie mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
