the legal framework for governance
play

The Legal Framework for Governance 31 January 2015 Tom Morrison - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Legal Framework for Governance 31 January 2015 Tom Morrison INTRODUCTIONS Gerry Morrison & Tom Morrison LEGAL STRUCTURES AND EDUCATION PROVIDERS Legal Structures for Further Education Providers Statutory Further Education


  1. The Legal Framework for Governance 31 January 2015

  2. Tom Morrison INTRODUCTIONS

  3. Gerry Morrison & Tom Morrison LEGAL STRUCTURES AND EDUCATION PROVIDERS

  4. Legal Structures for Further Education Providers • Statutory Further Education Corporations • Education Act 2011 • Companies • Charitable Status • Subsidiaries - wholly owned subsidiaries - joint venture companies • Relationship between Further Education Corporations and Subsidiaries • Academy Trusts

  5. Statutory Further Education Corporations • Majority of Further Education Colleges • Set up by order of the Secretary of State under the FHEA • Powers vested by Act of Parliament • Independent Corporate Bodies • Own legal personality distinct from governors/members • Instruments and Articles of Government • Purposes set out in Section 18 and 19 FHEA • Composition, procedures, internal powers • Private training providers = mainly companies • A few colleges are companies

  6. Education Act 2011 • Prior to EA 2011 Further Education Corporations’ instruments and articles could only be amended by regulations made by SOS under FHEA • Amending regulations issued periodically, uncommon for FE Corporations to request bespoke changes • Less flexible, hard to change governance structures, internal procedures • FE Corporations at a disadvantage to private training providers and colleges established as companies

  7. Post-Education Act 2011 • FE Corporations’ freedom to amend instruments and articles • Instruments and articles must specify how FE Corporation may amend them • SOS power to amend, replace or revoke • Change composition of governing body, procedures and internal powers • Balance flexibility, efficiency with protecting the organisation’s aims, assets and beneficiaries • Remove some of the previous disadvantages • Provided instruments and articles comply with Schedule 4 of FHEA (minimum requirements for governance)

  8. Post-Education Act 2011 • FE Corporations’ power to dissolve themselves • FE Corporations may transfer property, rights and liabilities upon dissolution to specified education providers for educational purposes • Consultation required • FE Corporations can use EA 2011 powers to convert legal structure • Rationale for change?

  9. Companies • Limited by shares • Limited by guarantee • Regulated and incorporated by Companies House • Companies Act 2006 • Memorandum and Articles • Power to amend articles and dissolve • Two-tier system of governance - directors and members • Statutory directors’ duties

  10. Powers • Power for FE Corporations to convert legal structures to companies • Can be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Further Education Corporation or joint venture companies • Academy Trusts

  11. Charitable Status • FE Corporations are exempt charities • Principal Regulator SOS for Department for Business Innovation and Skills • FE Corporations cannot amend instruments and articles to cease being charities • Governors’ legal duties and responsibilities as charity trustees • The Charity Commission, The Essential Trustee: What you need to know • Aims for public benefit

  12. Advantages Charitable Status • Tax breaks • FE Corporations exempt from corporation tax, income and capital gains taxes arising out of the provision of education and stamp duties • Fundraising • PR benefits • Asset-lock

  13. Disadvantages Charitable Status • Perceived red tape (charity law) • Complex rules trading activities • FE Corporations cannot carry out large scale non- charitable trading or non-primary purpose trading • Routed through subsidiary • Ultra vires, breach charity law, tax penalties • Rules on payment of governors as charity trustees • Partnership/joint ventures with non-charities additional red tape

  14. Tom Morrison & Gerry Morrison SUBSIDIARIES, JOINT VENTURES AND COLLABORATION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR

  15. Subsidiaries • Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries – colleges can establish separate legal entities to run different activities across their group – ring-fences risks/liabilities – commonly create wholly-owned subsidiary companies – tax efficient gifting of surplus to parent college – diversification of activities – development of new brands – acquire private training providers

  16. Relationship between Further Education Providers and Subsidiaries • Non-charitable subsidiary - arm’s length commercial relationship between subsidiary and parent charity • Subsidiary = separate legal entity with its own legal personality • Directors of subsidiaries not all the same as college governors • Conflicts of interest • Charity law regulates funding of subsidiaries by FE Corporations • Reporting/Monitoring

  17. When might a subsidiary be appropriate and what are the alternatives?

  18. Legal models for collaboration • Wide ranging • No single definition • Interchangeable use of terms • Joint venture = JV • Legal entity (Specific Purpose Vehicle = SPV) • Partnership • Contractual joint venture • Collaboration or subcontracting?

  19. Joint Venture Companies • Partnerships/joint ventures between FE Corporations and non-charities/other organisations/colleges • Ring-fences risk/liabilities • Apprenticeship training agencies • Owned by the College and one or more third parties • Membership Agreement

  20. Rationale • Key to any successful collaboration • Short term requirement? • Longer term benefits? • Driven by specific project requirements? • Political drivers? • Cost saving? • Creating capacity? • Better together? • Rationale should dictate choice of legal model

  21. Distinct projects • Large scale projects • Bringing together multiple partners • Geographic reach • Capability • Capital projects - more likely to be SPV • Revenue projects - more likely to be contractual JV

  22. Longer term requirements • Collaborative working for the long term • Explored other options - e.g. merger? • Typically transfer of functions into a SPV • Outsourcing • Procurement • Governance of the SPV • Longer term contractual alternatives

  23. Academy Trusts • Companies limited by guarantee • Exempt charities • Sponsored by Colleges • Set up multi-academy trusts • Independent, separate legal entities, own legal personality • Funded directly by Department for Education via a funding agreement • Relationship with the college as sponsor • Conflicts of interest

  24. Group discussion and questions

  25. Tom Morrison Gerry Morrison Partner Partner tom.morrison@rollits.com gerry.morrison@rollits.com 01482 337310 01482 323239 01904 625790 01904 688539

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend