4 (a) Except in relation to specifically exempted companies， such as those involved in charitable work， companies are required to indicate that they are operating on the basis of limited liability. Thus private companies are required to end their names， either with the word ‘limited’ or the abbreviation ‘ltd’， and public companies must end their names with the words ‘public limited company’ or the abbreviation ‘plc’。 Welsh companies may use the Welsh language equivalents (Companies Act (CA)2006 ss.58， 59 & 60)。

　　Companies Registry maintains a register of business names， and will refuse to register any company with a name that is the same as one already on that index (CA 2006 s.66)。

　　Certain categories of names are， subject to the decision of the Secretary of State， unacceptable per se， as follows：

　　(i) names which in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitute a criminal offence or are offensive (CA 2006 s.53)

　　(ii) names which are likely to give the impression that the company is connected with either government or local government authorities (s.54)。

　　(iii) names which include a word or expression specified under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (s.26(2)(b))。 This category requires the express approval of the Secretary of State for the use of any of the names or expressions contained on the list， and relates to areas which raise a matter of public concern in relation to their use.

　　Under s.67 of the Companies Act 2006 the Secretary of State has power to require a company to alter its name under the following circumstances：

　　(i) where it is the same as a name already on the Registrar‘s index of company names.

　　(ii) where it is ‘too like’ a name that is on that index.

　　The name of a company can always be changed by a special resolution of the company so long as it continues to comply with the above requirements (s.77)。

　　(b) The action of passing off was developed to prevent one person from using any name which is likely to divert business their way by suggesting that the business is actually that of some other person or is connected in any way with that other business. It thus enables people to protect the goodwill they have built up in relation to their business activity. In Ewing v Buttercup Margarine Co Ltd (1917) the plaintiff successfully prevented the defendants from using a name that suggested a link with his existing dairy company. It cannot be used， however， if there is no likelihood of the public being confused， where for example the companies are conducting different businesses (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Dunlop Motor Co Ltd (1907)) and Stringfellow v McCain Foods GB Ltd (1984)。 Nor can it be used where the name consists of a word in general use (Aerators Ltd v Tollitt (1902))。

　　Part 41 of the Companies Act (CA) 2006， which repeals and replaces the Business Names Act 1985， still does not prevent one business from using the same， or a very similar， name as another business so the tort of passing off will still have an application in the wider business sector. However， the Act introduced a new procedure to deal specifically with company names. As previously under the CA 1985， a company cannot register with a name that was the same as any already registered (s.665 Companies Act (CA) 2006) and under CA s.67 the Secretary of State may direct a company to change its name if it has been registered in a name that is the same as， or too like a name appearing on the registrar‘s index of company names. In addition， however， a completely new system of complaint has been introduced.

　　(c) Under ss.69-74 of CA 2006 a new procedure has been introduced to cover situations where a company has been registered with a name

　　(i) that it is the same as a name associated with the applicant in which he has goodwill， or

　　(ii) that it is sufficiently similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the applicant (s.69)。

　　Section 69 can be used not just by other companies but by any person to object to a company names adjudicator if a company*s name is similar to a name in which the applicant has goodwill. There is a list of circumstances raising a presumption that a name was adopted legitimately; however even then， if the objector can show that the name was registered either， to obtain money from them， or to prevent them from using the name， then they will be entitled to an order to require the company to change its name.

　　Under s.70 the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint company names adjudicators and their staff and to finance their activities， with one person being appointed Chief Adjudicator.

　　Section 71 provides the Secretary of State with power to make rules for the proceedings before a company names adjudicator. Section 72 provides that the decision of an adjudicator and the reasons for it， are to be published within 90 days of the decision.

　　Section 73 provides that if an objection is upheld， then the adjudicator is to direct the company with the offending name to change its name to one that does not similarly offend. A deadline must be set for the change. If the offending name is not changed， then the adjudicator will decide a new name for the company.

　　Under s.74 either party may appeal to a court against the decision of the company names adjudicator. The court can either uphold or reverse the adjudicator*s decision， and may make any order that the adjudicator might have made.

　　5 (a) As shareholders in limited companies， by definition， have the significant protection of limited liability， the courts have always seen it as the duty of the law to ensure that this privilege is not abused at the expense of the company‘s creditors. To that end they developed the doctrine of capital maintenance， the specific rules of which are now given expression in the Companies Act (CA) 2006. The rules， such as that stated in CA 2006 s.580 against shares being issued at a discount， ensure that companies receive at least the full nominal value of their share capital. The rules relating to the doctrine of capital maintenance operate in conjunction to those rules to ensure that the capital can only be used in limited ways. Whilst this may be seen essentially as a means of protecting the company’s creditors， it also protects the shareholders themselves from the depredation of the company‘s capital.

　　There are two key aspects of the doctrine of capital maintenance： firstly， that creditors have a right to see that the capital is not dissipated unlawfully; and secondly that the members must not have the capital returned to them surreptitiously. There are a number of specific controls over how companies can use their capital， but perhaps the two most important are the rules relating to capital reduction and company distributions.

　　(b) The procedure through which a company can reduce its capital is laid down by ss.641每653 Companies Act 2006.

　　Section 641 states that a company may reduce its capital in any way by passing a special resolution to that effect. In the case of a public company any such resolution must be confirmed by the court. In the case of a private company， however， court approval is not required as long as the directors issue a statement as to the company*s present and continued solvency for the following 12 months (ss.642 & 643)。 The special resolution， a copy of the solvency statement， a statement of compliance by the directors confirming that the solvency statement was made not more than 15 days before the date on which the resolution was passed， and a statement of capital must be delivered to the registrar within 15 days of the date of passing the special resolution.

　　Section 641 sets out three particular ways in which the capital can be reduced by：

　　(a) removing or reducing liability for any capital remaining as yet unpaid. In effect the company is deciding that it will not need to call on that unpaid capital in the future.

　　(b) cancelling any paid-up capital which has been lost through trading or is unrepresented by the current assets. This effectively brings the statement of financial position into balance at a lower level by reducing the capital liabilities in recognition of a loss of assets.

　　(c) repayment to members of some part of the paid up value of their shares in excess of the company*s requirements. This means that the company actually returns some of its capital to its members on the basis that it does not actually need that level of capitalisation to carry on its business.

　　It can be seen that procedure (a) reduces the potential creditor fund， for the company gives up the right to make future calls against its shares and procedure (c) reduces the actual creditor fund by returning some of its capital to the members. In recognition of this fact， creditors are given the right to object to any such reduction. However， procedure (b) does not actually reduce the creditor fund， it merely recognises the fact that capital has been lost. Consequently creditors are not given the right to object to this type of alteration (ss.645 & 646)。

　　Under s.648 the court may make an order confirming the reduction of capital on such terms as it as it thinks fit. In reaching its decision the court is required to consider the position of creditors of the company in cases (a) and (c) above and may do so in any other case. The court also takes into account the interests of the general public. In any case the court has a general discretion as to what should be done. If the company has more than one class of shares， the court will also consider whether the reduction is fair between classes. In this it will have regard to the rights of the different classes in a liquidation of the company since a reduction of capital is by its nature similar to a partial liquidation.

　　When a copy of the court order together with a statement of capital is delivered to the registrar of companies a certificate of registration is issued (s.649)。