bcgov
RFC - Entity types for Continued In companies
- [ ] When companies Continue In BC from other jurisdictions, we need to decide on what entity type they should have in LEAR.
- [ ] Filing type = Continuation In - development is on-going.
Option 1 - [ ] Create new types in LEAR for the new Continued In companies
- C - for Continued In BC Ltd.
- CUL - for Continued In BC ULC
- CCC - for Continued In BC CCC
- CBEN - for Continued In BEN Pros:
- Matches the COLIN model
- Would be easier for the data migration COLIN --> LEAR Cons:
- Would have to review every completed company filing and add the new types to a list of entity types
Option 2 - [ ] Continue to use existing LEAR entity types for the new Continued In companies
- BC - for Continued In BC Ltd.
- ULC - for Continued In BC ULC
- CC - for Continued In BC CCC
- BEN - for Continued In BEN Pros:
- Would require no further changes to the already completed company filings Cons:
- Might complicate the data migration COLIN --> LEAR
- Might require Names UI changes
@davemck513 @OlgaPotiagalova @argush3 @severinbeauvais @vysakh-menon-aot @riyazuddinsyed @JazzarKarim @thorwolpert
I think all of the BCA types are already in the schema. https://github.com/bcgov/business-schemas/blob/main/src/registry_schemas/schemas/business.json#L22 @lmcclung do you have some historical context from the business on the registration number series?
Is there a CBEN, afaik there are no other jurisdictions with this type of company?
LEAR has some enum definitions already, eg, https://github.com/bcgov/lear/blob/main/legal-api/src/legal_api/models/business.py https://github.com/bcgov/lear/blob/main/legal-api/src/legal_api/resources/v1/nr_type_map.py
However, some LEAR code lists will need to be updated, eg. models/filing.py.
And here's the common definition that the UIs use: https://github.com/bcgov/bcrs-shared-components/blob/main/src/modules/corp-type-module/corp-type-module.ts
So, for the purposes of this RFC, the question is: do we want to keep matching the COLIN model, or do something different?
This is a good RFC, could we expand this to provide rational for all Prefixes? We have a few acts in the Registry: BCA, COOP, Societies, Firms, and then a whole slew of historical small ones. I don't know the reason for breaking BCA types into a myriad of prefixes/subtypes, and then afaik there's some attempt to map XPRO and Continued In to these subtypes and then further distinguish between business created in BC, and elsewhere. I think knowing why and how subtypes are defined, will help with the ContinuedIn and XPro questions.
That's an amazing idea, Thor! Would update this RFC to include looking at prefixes and their influence on the corp types.
@thorwolpert @Mihai-QuickSilverDev any update on this?
cc: @NaveenHebbale
@vysakh-menon-aot In consultation with @severinbeauvais and @JazzarKarim there is a strong preference for Option 1 above. In fact, a good portion of the work required by Option 1 is already in place.
When we were working on the data mapping with David Roberts before legal name work took over, we had the mapping as per option 1.
I do think it would be easier to keep using option 1 for data migration purposes. But I'm not entirely sure if there is actually a good reason to have to distinguish a company that was continued in via the legal type once it's been migrated into LEAR.
Current snapshot of mapping
NRs are also tied to filing and type, they might need some rework too if this change is made. I think NR types are far too complicated (personally) and am hoping in any rewrite we do, to move to just 4 types: Firms, Coop, Society, and BCA.
I believe Namerequest UI is already aware of C/CUL/CCC (not CBEN) entity types.
I have a slight preference for Option 1 as the entity type will tell us that it was continued in... and that we can look for extra business information if we want to see where it was continued in from (ie, business sub-object similar to amalgamated/ting businesses). Of course, we could probably do that using Option 2 as well but it feels like we'd be looking for something that usually isn't there just to see if it's a special case (ie, continued in business).
Sorry, I don't have a time machine to ask why it was set up that way to begin with. In hindsight, just having a Continued In indicator would have made sense when CPRD was first built. However, now that we've got this precedent set, changing it would be a big change that would result it a lot of extra work throughout Name Request and the database tables. I know having the C, CUL, CCC helps with reporting out to our Federal/Provincial/Territorial partners. It's also used in building reports/flat files, and to display different information in the business summary. I think it is also used to determine the extra fields in the BN message (but have asked IT Ops to provide me with a sample BC vs C BN15 request. Update: I've attached the sample messages - looks like it has a different program reason code.
Oh, and as for the QA, QB, QC, QE those subsequent letters, I think the related to when the legislation was updated. So if one version of legislation was from 1890-1902 they might be QA. If legislation updated in 1902 then next sequence would be QB, etc. Without looking at the database, I can't tell you when this switched over.
My recommendation is to continue using the same pattern (Option 1). We don't need any more refactoring detours.
BN messages to create BN9/15 (BC) or just BN15 (Continuations)
and BC
Thank you @lmcclung for providing useful context. There are enough reasons to believe that Option 1 is the option to go with.
@thorwolpert @argush3 @vysakh-menon-aot @Mihai-QuickSilverDev , what's the next step for this RFC? Shall we just proceed to implement continuation in filings using the C/CCC/CUL (and new CBEN) entity types?
Keeping with how it works now, works for me. Might be something to revisit in the future.
Entity Types:
- C - for Continued In BC Ltd.
- CUL - for Continued In BC ULC
- CCC - for Continued In BC CCC
- CBEN - for Continued In BEN
Corporation number (identifier) series for all the above entity types will be Cxxxxxxx same as what we have in COLIN. Generation of this number will be in COLIN similar to CORPS (BEN, BC, CC, ULC)
