BC30 Respondents to the 2007 and 2008 EDs raised concerns about the term 'significant voting power' in the definition of a related party. They identified anomalies in its use such as when significant voting power created a related party relationship only when that power is held by individuals, not when that power is held by an entity. A further anomaly arose because two entities were classified as related to each other when a third person was a member of the key management personnel of one and had significant voting power in the other; however, they were not treated as related when a third person had significant voting power in both entities.
BC31 In response to these comments, the Board deleted the reference to 'significant voting power' because it was undefined, used inconsistently and created unnecessary complexity. The Board concluded that if the effect of 'significant voting power' was considered to be the same as 'significant influence', its deletion would have no effect because
…