[Refer: paragraph B60(b)]
B64
Substantive rights held by other parties may affect the decision maker’s ability
to direct the relevant activities of an investee. Substantive removal or other
rights may indicate that the decision maker is an agent. [Refer: paragraphs 18, B36,
B58–B61, B65, B66 and B69–B75 and examples 13, 14A and 14C].
B65
When a single party holds substantive removal rights and can remove the
decision maker without cause, this, in isolation, is sufficient to conclude that
the decision maker is an agent. If more than one party holds such rights (and no
individual party can remove the decision maker without the agreement of other
parties) those rights are not, in isolation, conclusive in determining that a
decision maker acts primarily on behalf and for the benefit of others.
In
addition, the greater the number of parties required to act together to exercise
rights to remove a decision maker and the greater the magnitude of, and
variability associated with, the decision maker’s other economic interests
(ie remuneration and other interests), the less the weighting that shall be placed
on this factor.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |