European Company Law

Libertatea de stabilire a societatilor [comerciale] este un subiect actual si in continua transformare. Actualitatea provine din necesitatea de a gasi o solutie pentru dezvoltarea afacerilor si, din perspectiva societatilor (a dreptului care le guverneaza in Uniunea Europeana), gasirea unui instrument valid (juridic) si posibil (intuitiv), atragator pentru intreprinzatori si nu doar o himera cu nume frumos.

Titlul IV al Partii a treia („Politicile si actiunile interne ale Uniunii”) denumit „Libera circulatie a persoanelor, a serviciilor si a capitalurilor” din Tratatul privind Functionarea Uniunii Europene (TFUE) reglementeaza in capitole distincte „lucratorii”, „dreptul de stabilire”, „serviciile”, „capitalurile si platile”.

Subsecvent primului capitol, urmatoarele capitole vor urmari descrierea si fundamentarea pilonilor prin care libertatea de stabilire se poate aplica in practica: jurisprudenta CJUE, directiva referitoare la fuziunile transfrontaliere, directivele referitoare la filiale si sucursale precum si reglementarea societatii europene. Aceste elemente intregesc „sistemul” dreptului de stabilire in Uniunea Europeana, ne ofera explicatiile necesare, optiunile posibile pentru societatile din statele membre precum si posibile cai de urmat. Cum vom observa, in unele situatii exista o „concurenta” intre reglementari si practica (comerciala, a societatilor, pe de o parte si practica jurisdictionala a CJUE, pe de alta parte).

O importanta parte din prezenta lucrare va fi dedicata distinctiei dintre libertatea de stabilire a societatilor si libera circulatie a capitalurilor, cu referire speciala la „actiunea de aur”.

Aspectele practice sunt cele mai importante, astfel incat am luat in considerare problematica alegerii legii favorabile, si scopul acestei mobilitati societare – in acest sens avem in vedere in primul rand sistemul de taxe care pare sa fie principalul mobil al modificarii sediului societatilor.

Daca multe din elementele constituirii unei societati (capitalul, persoanele, marfurile) sunt, in principiu, fara oprelisti in UE (reprezentantii companiilor circula liber, libertatea de desfasurare a comertului este maxima), ne-am putea intreba daca liberatea de stabilire a societatilor comerciale este mai mult un moft universitar sau este o problema pragmatica. Raspunsul la aceasta „dilema” este tocmai constructia acestei carti, care isi doreste sa prezinte jurisprudenta pertinenta de la nivelul Uniunii Europene si din Romania, in materie.

Lucrarea se adreseaza tuturor  celor care sunt interesati de fenomenul mobilitatii societatilor in Uniunea Europeana, fiind prezentate instrumentele prin care libertatea de stabilire functioneaza. Este in primul rand un volum didactic, o culegere de jurisprudenta relevanta in domeniul libertatii de stabilire cu o introducere desfasurata in primele sapte capitole. Prima editie a acestui volum a fost publicat la Editura Tribuna Economica. Ii multumesc si pe aceasta cale domnului profesor Emilian Stancu, primul redactor al cartii. Prezenta editie cuprinde informatii si jurisprudenta relevanta pana la data de 27 noiembrie 2014.

This Paper explores and summarises the Director's Duties of the UK Companies Act 2006 with emphasis on "the duty to promote the success of the company.

Tags:
Companies Act 2006 model articles, Companies Act 2006 summary
companies act 2006 pdf
companies act 2006 model articles
companies act 2006 regulations 2013
Companies Act 2006 UK
UK Companies Act 2006

This work addresses the impact of language diversity and nation-specific doctrinal structures on harmonized company law in the EU. With this aim, two emblematic case studies will be analysed. The first case study is related to the definition of 'merger' adopted in the Company Law Directive 2017/1132 (originally in the Third Company Law Directive and the Cross-Border Merger Directive); by relying on the example of the SEVIC case decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), it will be shown that scholars' and courts' conception of the definition of 'merger' varies according to own domestic doctrinal structures. The second case study is related to the notion of 'registered office', which is key for establishing the scope of several harmonizing provisions and the freedom of establishment; this paper analyses termi-nological fluctuations across language versions of EU legislation and the impact of domestic taxonomies and legal debates upon the interpretation of these notions. These case studies show that company law concepts, despite their highly technical nature, are influenced by discourse constructions conducted within national interpretative communities, and by the language used to draft statutory instruments and discuss legal issues. The task of the CJEU is to counterbalance these local tendencies, and yet it is unlikely that doctrinal structures, rooted in national languages and legal cultures, will disappear.

This paper critically examines the concept of free movement of services in the internal market of the EU. It highlights the various services and the interpretation of this freedom of services by the Court of justice of the European Union in line with Article 56 & 57 of the TFEU.

An entry which analyses history, contents, developments and perspectives of the process of harmonization of the Company Law of the Member States performed by the European Community (through directives, regulations and case law) within the framework of the Internal Market

A diciotto anni di distanza la Corte di Giustizia conclude il percorso intrapreso con la ben nota sentenza Centros, con la quale aveva dato avvio al processo d’ampliamento della liberta` di stabilimento (ed alla concorrenza tra ordinamenti), e giunge ad applicare i principi pronunciati in materia di costituzione all’estero di una societa` (per poi stabilirne una succursale nello Stato membro di provenienza dei soci fondatori) e di trasferimento della sede effettiva in altro Stato all’ipotesi della societa` gia` costituita della quale sia trasferita la sola sede legale in un altro Stato membro (per giovarsi della legislazione di quest’ultimo), mantenendo l’attivita` nello Stato di provenienza. La sentenza in commento e` di particolare rilievo per la riaffermazione in termini generali del principio di liberta` di stabilimento e l’ampiezza che la stessa assume anche in rapporto ai casi in cui con la deliberazione societaria s’intenda mutare soltanto – per via della modificazione della sede legale – la lex societatis mantenendo invariata la sede effettiva della societa` . L’A., accogliendo favorevolmente le statuizioni della Corte, ne sottolinea non solo la portata concreta rispetto a vari profili (ivi compresa la disciplina UE dell’insolvenza delle societa`), ma anche la rilevanza in termini ricostruttivi dell’istituto della trasformazione transfrontaliera, quale strumento di disciplina dell’ente nella continuita` dei rapporti endo ed extrasocietari

While the exact impact of run-away climate change, continued biodiversity destruction and unchecked social impacts of the current financial challenges we see is unknown, we know one thing for certain: Business as usual is not an alternative. To shift over to a sustainable path, we need companies to contribute. Clearly, our governments, even if they were brave and progressive enough, cannot single-handedly adopt sustainability. The contribution of business is needed. And if business shifts in the right direction, customers, employees and indeed whole societies may shift with them.

The pressing question then is whether CSR is an answer. Some interesting developments, including the paradigm shift in the EU Commission’s definition of CSR, open up for a revisit of the potential of the CSR concept. We put forward that CSR can play an important part in facilitating such a necessary contribution from companies, if the following three conditions are met: Firstly, the promotion of CSR must encompass both the level of legal compliance and of action beyond compliance. The well-known business capture of CSR that we have seen as voluntary, as a case of ‘don’t regulate us and we can talk about how we behave’ does not suffice. This tends to lead to delimitation against legal obligations and an unwarranted Corporate Governance/CSR dichotomy.

The implicit support of shareholder primacy entails that sustainable business, in the environmental and social sense, quickly will hit a ceiling. Secondly, CSR must be true or core CSR, dealing with the business of the company, how that is conducted and the impacts of that business. Thirdly, CSR must entail an integration of environmental and social concerns in the decision-making of the company in such a way as to lead to an internalisation of externalities.

In the second section of this chapter, we discuss the role of the board in a CSR context, while the third section investigates the recent developments at EU level, where we find that despite a paradigm shift in the definition of CSR, little is done to integrate CSR concerns into the duties of the board. The fourth section therefore poses the question what role the EU has in this context, concluding that the contribution of the EU most likely is a necessary prerequisite to achieving the shift away from business as usual and onto a sustainable path.

Η παρούσα μονογραφία παρουσιάζει και αναλύει τα νομοθετικά και ερμηνευτικά ζητήματα του ν. 4601/2019 για τους εταιρικούς μετασχηματισμούς (μετατροπή, συγχώνευση και διάσπαση επιχείρησης). Ειδικότερα, αντιμετωπίζει τα κυρίαρχα προβλήματα της διεύρυνσης του πεδίου εφαρμογής του ν. 4601/19 στις επιχειρήσεις, που έχουν οικονομική οργάνωση και της έκτασης των πρόσθετων και συμπληρωματικών ρυθμίσεων μέσω εταιρικών/ εξωεταιρικών διαμορφώσεων και ερευνά το επιτρεπτό αυτών ως συναλλακτικά μορφώματα υπό το ν.4601/19. Τα προβλήματα αυτά οφείλονται σε νομοθετικές ασάφειες και αντινομίες σχετικά με τη ρύθμιση των μετασχηματισμών και της σύγκρουσης του εταιρικού δικαίου με το φορολογικό, ζητήματα τα οποία εντοπίζει και αποπειράται να αποσαφηνίσει ο Συγγραφέας.
This monograph deals with various types of Business Transformations (conversion, merger, division of a company, hive-off of various divisions), which were introduced into Greek law with the Law 4601/19, in fragments from the German law on Business Transformations (UmwG) and from the incorporation of the EU Directive 2017/1132 / EC of the European Parliament of 14 June 2017.

The European Commission issued two proposals for Directives as regards the use of digital tools and processes in company law and cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions of companies amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132. This article presents the new legislative package and takes a critical approach to the provisions thereof.

Rev. prat. Soc. / Uitgeverij Bruylant -© Groep Larcier UCLouvain Extranet / Rev. prat. Soc. / Uitgeverij Bruylant -© Groep Larcier UCLouvain Extranet / Rev. prat. Soc. / Uitgeverij Bruylant -© Groep Larcier UCLouvain Extranet / Rev. prat. Soc. / Uitgeverij Bruylant -© Groep Larcier UCLouvain Extranet / Rev. prat. Soc. / Uitgeverij Bruylant -© Groep Larcier UCLouvain Extranet /

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. -2. Lo spin-off universitario societario: fattispecie e tipologie. -2.1. Gli elementi di specialità. -3. Ambito di utilizzo del modello organizzativo "spin-off s.r.l.". -4. Spin-off universitario e disciplina della s.r.l. -5. La configurazione statutaria e parasociale dello spin-off s.r.l. alla luce dei regolamenti di ateneo. Alcuni spunti di best practice statutaria.

Le transfert transfrontalier du siège social des sociétés commerciales et ses implications dans la pratique notariale Sophie Maquet Notaire associé à Bruxelles Présidente de la Commission de nomination de langue française pour le notariat Édouard-Jean Navez Maître de conférences à l'Université catholique de Louvain Chargé de conférences au Master en gestion fiscale de la Solvay Brussels School 3 Voy. à cet égard V. Simonart, La personnalité morale en droit privé comparé, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1995, n os 443 et s., et les références citées. 4 En ce sens, voy. not. F. Passelecq, « Les sociétés commerciales », Les Novelles, n o 5210. 5 Sur ces arrêts, voy. infra. 6 A. Siville, Traité des sociétés anonymes belges régies par le Code de commerce, t. I, Bruxelles-Paris, Bruylant-Marescq, 1898, p. 15, n o 26 ; P. Wauwermans, Manuel pratique des sociétés anonymes, 3 e éd., Bruxelles-Paris, Bruylant-Librairie générale de droit, 1921, n o 1097, p. 541 : « au moment de la répudiation de la loi d'origine par le transfert du principal établissement, la personnification civile primitive disparaît et c'est une autre qui peut naître » ; Ch. Resteau, Traité des sociétés anonymes, t. I, 2 e éd., op. cit., n o 29, p. 23 : « La nationalité ne se perd que dans des conditions déterminées par la loi ; à part cela, elle est indélébile, elle s'attache à la personne et est inséparable de celle-ci. Or, la loi des sociétés n'indique pas dans quels cas une société anonyme perdra sa nationalité. Il faut donc décider que, née en Belgique, la société restera belge jusqu'à sa disparition. Il en résulte qu'il ne suffit pas qu'une société transporte son siège social ou son principal établissement hors de Belgique pour cesser d'être Belge. Aussi, si l'assemblée générale, délibérant à une très grande majorité, décidait de transférer le siège social à l'étranger, la société resterait Belge, la décision de l'assemblée générale étant nulle. Mais si le transfert avait lieu à l'accord de tous les actionnaires, la société cesserait d'exister, tout au moins comme société belge ; elle cesserait même complètement si la décision des associés n'était pas accompagnée des formalités prescrites par la loi du lieu du nouveau siège social, pour acquérir la personnalité civile dans ce pays. La société anonyme qui voudra changer de nationalité devra donc, au préalable, procéder à sa liquidation, pour se reconstituer ensuite à l'étranger, dans le pays dont elle voudra acquérir la nationalité en évitant cependant de mériter de la part d'actionnaires opposants le reproche d'avoir fait indirectement ce qu'elle ne pouvait faire directement. » ; J. Van Ryn, Principes de droit commercial, t. I, pp. 264-265, n o 375 : « le siège social ne pourrait être transféré à l'étranger, car le déplacement entraînerait alors un changement de nationalité qui, lui-même, impliquerait disparition de l'être moral et constitution d'une nouvelle société » (voy. aussi n os 799 et 800) ; A. De Smet et S. Frédéricq, « Le transfert du siège social », Rev. dr. intern. comp., 1958, p. 153, n o 11 ; J. Van Ryn, « Conséquences juridiques du transfert en Belgique du siège social d'une société étrangère et du transfert à l'étranger du siège social d'une société belge », note sous Cass., 12 novembre 1965, R.C.J.B., 1966, p. 409, n o 20. 7 En ce sens, T. Tilquin et B. Fanard, « Les éléments essentiels de la société », in Le droit des sociétés aujourd'hui : principes, évolutions et perspectives, Bruxelles, Éd. du Jeune Barreau, 2008, p. 55, n o 44. 8

This book corresponds to the dissertation presented in the University of Coimbra, Faculty of Law in October 2006 and publicly discussed in May 2007. It analyses the liability of controlling stockholders vis-à-vis the corporation and other stockholders on the basis of influence exercised over the board of directors. The first part is dedicated to a thorough dogmatic approach of the relevant pieces of statutory law, namely (but not exclusively) Article 83(4) of the Corporations Code. The second part starts with a general overview of the private-international-law characterization problems that may arise to this respect, analyses the ambit of the lex societatis under Portuguese law, and finishes with the discussion of the interplay between the Portuguese statutory rules, including the constitutional principle of equality, and European-Union rules, namely the freedom of establishment of corporations, for the latter to some extent interfere with the interpretation of the former, specially in the context of transnational groups of companies, for which Portuguese law reserves a particular statutory regulation.

This article tackles some questions of International Company Law under the Portuguese legal system, especially concerning European procedural law, conflict of laws and international commercial arbitration.
In what concerns European procedural law, attention is paid to the jurisdiction rules laid down in the Brussels I Regulation, regarding its scope of application, the fundamental general rule and the exclusive jurisdiction rule applicable to companies (art. 22, nr. 2 of the Regulation).
As far as the conflict-of-law rules are concerned, attention is given to the determination of the law governing the company (lex societatis) under Portuguese law – which traditionally follows a mitigated form of the real seat theory –, within the context of the current developments related to the right of establishment under EU law (from Daily Mail to Cartesio, passing by Centros, Überseering and Inspire Art case-law of the ECJ) and the proposals for the approval of Community-wide unified conflict-of-law rules regarding the company’s personal status.
Still, with respect to conflict-of-law problems, some specific questions are analysed, namely in what measure did the recent 2006 Portuguese Company Law Reform affect the private international law regime of groups of companies in Portuguese Company Law, for it is dubious (and herein denied) whether such substantive rules now apply to foreign (non-European) parent companies of Portuguese subsidiaries. Moreover, some interesting questions arise in the field of the applicability, by means of the conflict-of-law instrument of substitution, of several company law substantive rules to legal realities shaped by foreign law, such as, for instance, the needs (herein also denied) for an intensified supervisory legal regime for Portuguese subsidiaries of foreign parent companies, whenever such parent companies already meet equivalent requirements.
Finally, attention is given to the assessment of the arbitrability of company law disputes, under the pertinent Portuguese statutory rules on international commercial arbitration, with a special look at the possibility of settlement by arbitrators of disputes in which the validity of general meeting resolutions is challenged or the liability of directors is claimed.

In: IDET, Miscelâneas, n.º 5, Almedina, Coimbra, 2008, pp. 41-108

Abstract Field Project - master COR-GOV a.a. 2019/2020 (2° ed.)
Candidato: dott. Iemmolo Angelo Giulio
Relatore responsabile: Prof. Cetra Antonio

TITOLO
La tutela dei diritti partecipativi nelle fasi di mutamento degli assetti di Corporate Governance - il recesso del socio
(The protection of participatory rights in Corporate Governance changes - Shareholders’ exit rights)

OBIETTIVO
L’obiettivo della ricerca si inserisce nel più ampio tema della difficile gestione della relazione principal-agent rispetto alle problematiche di gestione e controllo delle società (agency capitalism). Lo spunto di ricerca è dato da alcune rilevanti novelle al diritto societario italiano introdotte con la riforma del 2003, tra cui la riforma dell’art. 2437 cc, il cui comma I, lett. G oggi prevede, quali modificazioni che legittimino il diritto di recesso, quelli “concernenti i diritti di voto o di partecipazione”. Una formula ampia che ha innescato un dibattito attorno alle ipotesi che vi possano – legittimamente o meno – essere ricondotte.
Vi sarà, quindi, un’attenzione mirata su come, rispetto a tali nuove possibilità, il diritto di recesso si atteggi nei confronti delle questioni di governance societaria, come modifiche statutarie delle competenze e dei quorum assembleari, nonché della più rilevante (almeno ai fini del percorso accademico qui in oggetto) delle novità introdotte dalla riforma del 2003, ovvero la possibilità per le società di diritto italiano di scegliere tra diversi sistemi di amministrazione e controllo.
QUADRO DI RIFERIMENTO
Verranno, quindi, studiate e analizzate almeno le seguenti fonti dottrinali, giurisprudenziali e normative:
- studi sulla tutela delle minoranze (tra cui gli scritti in onore del prof. Alberto Mazzoni: “La tutela del socio e delle minoranze”);
- studi sui Corporate Governance changes, rispetto anche alle modifiche recentemente introdotte al più diffuso tipo societario italiano, la S.r.l., con cui sono strutture le PMI alla base dell’economia nazionale;
- gli articoli del codice civile in merito al diritto di recesso, principalmente quindi art. 2437, (diritto di recesso rispetto alla sezione X “Delle modificazioni dello Statuto”), ma anche 2376 (assemblee speciali rispetto alle modifiche che pregiudicano i diritti di una categoria), 2473 (recesso del socio nella S.r.l.), 2497 quater (diritto di recesso nei gruppi sottoposti a direzione e coordinamento alieno) nonché 2380 e ss (sistemi di amministrazione e controllo nella S.p.A.) e 2475 e ss (norme speculari riguardo alla S.r.l.);
- la massima del Consiglio notarile di  Milano n. 17, rubricata “Varianti organizzative e modifiche dei sistemi di governance”;
- l’analisi svolta in merito dalla Suprema Corte, la funzione nomofilattica tra interpretazione estensiva ed interpretazione restrittiva della citata norma introdotta dall’art. 1437, comma I, lett. G. (sent. Cassaz. Civ. sez. I del 01-06-2017, n. 13875);
- il parere pro veritate reso in merito dal prof. Stella Richter (2016), intitolato “Parere sul “punto G” dell’art. 2437 cod. civ. (e su altre questioni meno misteriose)”.

METODOLOGIA
“Quali pregiudizi attivano, dunque, il diritto di recesso (exit) del o dei soci di minoranza”, sarà la domanda principale cui chi scrive cercherà di rispondere. Consapevole che, rispetto al tema sussidiario del recesso in seguito a cambio del sistema di governance, vi è stata recentemente presa di posizione in senso negativo tanto da parte della dottrina (summenzionato parere del prof. Stella Richter), quanto della giurisprudenza (succitata sent. Cassaz. n. 13875/2017).
Si procederà, quindi, ad una breve ricognizione introduttiva di ciò che la novella del 2003 ha significato per il diritto societario italiano, dei motivi e delle ragioni sottese all’introduzione dei sistemi alternativi di amministrazione e controllo e delle nuove e più ampie ipotesi di recesso.
Si cercherà di analizzare, poi, forme e modalità attraverso cui tali cambiamenti si verificano (passaggio generazionale, modifiche statutarie, atti di trasformazione, etc.).
Sarà quindi messa sotto analisi la norma cardine del discorso in esame (art. 2437, comma I, lett. G) al fine di comprenderne appieno significato e portata, e discutere – come d’altronde è già più autorevolmente stato fatto – come la stessa si comporti nei casi di mutamenti della corporate governance.
Ultimo spunto di ricerca potrà essere dato dalla domanda se la tutela solutoria (e risarcitoria) sia un inevitabile letto di Procuste cui ricondurre i conflitti insorti tra maggioranza e minoranza; o viceversa se sussistano strumenti, attuali o de jure condendo, che risolvano o evitino diversamente l’insorgere di tali tipi di conflitti endosocietari.

RISULTATI ATTESI
Il risultato che ci si attende dall’elaborato è una più mirata ricognizione degli argomenti sopra esposti nei precisati confini tracciati dal rapporto tra i diritti partecipativi e il diritto di recesso, rispetto soprattutto alle future applicazioni dello stesso in caso di mutamento del sistema di governance.
Senza pretesa di assolutezza e nella consapevolezza sopra anticipata che il tema è stato già discusso in dottrina e – parzialmente – in giurisprudenza, si cercherà di capire se e quali profili di dubbio permangano e, in definitiva, quali rimedi sono concessi ai soci dissenzienti.

This year, the Dutch courts ruled two times in the AkzoNobel case. Two times, the courts denied the requests of activist shareholders of AkzoNobel to convene an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to dismiss AkzoNobel’s chairman of the super- visory board. The reason for the shareholders’ request was the decision of AkzoNobel’s board not to engage in negotiations with PPG Industries (PPG) concerning its takeover bid
on AkzoNobel. The main arguments of the courts were based on the idea that the decision on a takeover bid is part of the company’s strategy, which belongs to the domain of the board, and that the shareholders failed to show a reasonable interest for convening an EGM. Therefore, it seems that the courts in the AkzoNobel case imposed significant restrictions to shareholder rights relating to the general meeting, in favour of the autonomy of the board and the interests of other stakeholders.

These decisions raise the question: are the decisions in the AkzoNobel case consistent with earlier Dutch case law? And are these decisions compatible with the Shareholder Rights Directive? This article discusses both decisions in the AkzoNobel case. Afterwards, the broader Dutch legal framework is explained. In particular, other Dutch case law is discussed concerning the restriction of shareholder rights to add items to the agenda of the general meeting or to convene a general meeting, such as the Boskalis/Fugro case and the Cryo-Save case. Finally, the compatibility of the Dutch legal framework with the Shareholder Rights Directive is analysed.

Autocar limited is a registered company manufacturing car spares in the United Kingdom.  The company also has three wholly owned subsidary companies in New Zealand.  Murtex Limited, Jaxspeed Limited and Cloverleaf Limited. Murtex Limited has developed a number of light weight suspension struts for racing in the New Zealand 24 hour muscle car series.

Several competitors have been seriously injuried in  New Zealand due to the poor quality of materials supplied to Murtex by Cloverleaf Limited.  The problem appears to relate to some of the raw materials supplied by cloverleaf limited to Murtex Limited; as number of suspension struts constructed have broken in at least two radius points.  Murtex only uses metal supplied by cloverleaf when constructing these components.

The legal actions begun in the New Zealand courts amount to some £35,000,000.  Murtex Limited has product liability insurance cover up to £25,000,000. 

Advise Autocar Limited whether they can be held liable for any claims against Murtex for failure of the suspension struts.

During the last decade, the regulation of corporate social and environmental disclosure and reporting has gradually but steadily emerged. What explains its emergence at different levels of regulation and through varying modes of governance? Which political and socio-economic actors are involved? Who has benefitted from its emergence? The onset of the current economic and sustainability crisis has shown the need for a more 'regulated capitalism' and called for a re-assessment of dominant ideas about 'CSR' and 'corporate governance'. Better transparency and disclosure have often been indicated as a solution to this impasse.

Сьогодні процедура примусового викупу акцій мажоритарними акціонерами у міноритаріїв у багатьох країнах світу є
ефективним засобом захисту прав великих інвесторів і популярним тактичним прийомом, що дозволяє ефективно регулювати
процес корпоративного управління в господарських організаціях,
інструментарієм, який сприяє недопущенню корпоративних конфліктів між учасниками та паралізації діяльності підприємств.
За даними Національного депозитарію України станом на
01 вересня 2021 року в Україні було зареєстровано 386 процедури сквіз-аут. При цьому, не можливо не відзначити на багатьох
спірних моментах, пов’язаних із запровадженням відповідного механізму в національну правову екосистему (правомірність
втручання). Механізм примусового позбавлення права власності
був також предметом судового розгляду Федеральним конституційним Судом Німеччини.

concorso di tre condizioni che devono sussistere congiuntamente: a) la violazione dell'obbligo di adempiere (un'obbligazione di mezzi, e non di risultato) con diligenza professionale, ex art. 1176 2 c.c., agli obblighi imposti dalla legge o dallo statuto; b) l'esistenza di un danno risarcibile; c) l'esistenza di un nesso di causalità che leghi, secondo una valutazione oggettiva, il danno a un comportamento negligente. La liquidazione del quantum debeatur presuppone, dunque, che in corso di causa si chiarisca: a1) quale comportamento negligente si imputi all'amministratore, attraverso una adeguata prova della fonte negoziale o legale del diritto della curatela, ovvero anche soltanto attraverso la prova dell'inadempimento negligente ( 5 ); b1) il nesso causativo tra tale condotta colpevole e il danno sofferto dal patrimonio sociale ( 6 ).

The article presents the legal framework for the protection of members and creditors of a company in the context of a cross-border conversion, merger or division pursuant Directive 2019/2121/EU. Reference is made to CJEU case law, which could be considered relevant for the interpretation of these provisions. At the same time the article points out challenges that the national legislator may face when transposing these provisions into national law and offers legal interpretation and suggestions for overcoming these challenges.

In the context of the corporate group a virtually insurmountable obstacle for litigants, is circumventing the Salomon v. Salomon principle. The rule emanating from the renowned case of Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd1 is merely a byproduct of the doctrine of separate legal personality. The stricto sensu rule emanating from the case is that upon incorporation companies have a 'separate legal personality' which acts as a 'corporate veil' protecting the persons operating the company from personal liability. As the term suggests, having a separate legal personality establishes rights and obligations solely for the company; meaning the company and its shareholders/owners are separate and apart from each other, where the company retains autonomy and independence. Corporate group structures are also subject to this rule; Slade J contends, "The fundamental principle is that each company in a group of companies is a separate legal entity possessed of separate legal rights and liabilities".2

Si tratta dell'analisi della Proposta per una nuova direttiva in materia di società unipersonali a responsabilità limitata, presentata dalla Commissione UE il 9 aprile 2014 ed emendata dal Consiglio dell'UE in sede di orientamento generale il 29 maggio 2015. L'articolo fornisce un'analisi puntuale dei vari testi succedutisi, focalizzandosi sulle criticità emergenti in ciascuno di essi, ed immaginando possibili correttivi.

I have been thinking hard on the concept of corporate personality of the company.  And also how well recognized the company law is in Tanzania at large, and multifaceted subject which stretched quickly in dimensions in this modern time.
Suddenly something came up in my mind about several abilities of the company which are resulted by the aspect of corporate personality of the company such as the right to sue, the right to own property, the right to succession, the right to be sued and other right incorporated within the corporate personality of the company.
All of these rights gives or endows the company characters of human being (artificial characters). Then I look to another concept of bail and came with another idea, that if the company is treated as an artificial person and if the law allows any person who is related to the accused person may apply for the conditional release (means bail) from the custody of the accused person, can the company ask for the said conditional release?
Or     
It is the matter of law and practice that, any person who is related to the accused person may apply for the conditional release from the custody of the accused person. The question is, if corporate or a company is artificial person, means legal personality as per section 4 of Interpretation of the Law Act, Cap.1, R.E. 2002,  can such corporate apply for such conditional release? Or can such corporate act as surety as per Criminal Procedure Act (Cap 20 R.E 2002) or Cap.212?
This paper entails on the possibility of the company to ask for a conditional release of the accused person in which it relate with, by looking at the Tanzanian Company’s law Cap.212, and other jurisdictions. It involves three parts, the first part entail an introduction to company, the second entails an introduction to Bail and the last part entails  the possibility of the company to ask for a conditional release (bail) of the accused person to which it relate with.

A quasi trent’anni dall’emanazione del Regolamento comunitario 2137/1985 che ne segna la data di nascita, e a venticinque dalla effettiva possibilità di costituzione, il gruppo europeo di interesse economico (GEIE) è ancora percepito, nella migliore delle ipotesi, come una specie di “oggetto misterioso” nel panorama giuridico italiano ed europeo. Lo scopo di questo studio, che ha beneficiato del sostegno economico della Commissione Europea e della Provincia autonoma di Trento nell’ambito del Settimo Programma Quadro, Azione Marie Curie COFUND, progetto “TRENTINO”, è di tentare una riconduzione ragionata del GEIE a categorie che siano di maggiore familiarità per il giurista italiano, indagandone le problematiche principali (su tutte l’assenza del beneficio della responsabilità limitata dei membri per le obbligazioni assunte dal gruppo) ed offrendo ipotesi di soluzione.

LARCIER prudence s'échinent depuis de nombreuses années à dégager des critères permettant de distinguer les opérations relevant de la gestion normale du patrimoine privé de celles qui proviennent d'une spéculation excédant les limites d'une telle gestion.

relativa alle società a responsabilità limitata con un unico socio (c.d. Proposta SUP) Testo originale della Commissione (COM) (9/4/2014) -2014/0120 (COD) Testo dell'Orientamento Generale del Consiglio (O.G.) (29/5/2015) Emendamenti proposti dalla Commissione per il mercato interno e la protezione dei consumatori del Parlamento UE (IMCO) (23/7/2015), coordinati col testo originale della proposta (emendamenti in grassetto) Secondo documento di lavoro della Commissione giuridica del Parlamento UE (JURI-2DL) (5/1/2016)

Resumen: La Directiva 2019/2121 ofrece una regulación conjunta de las transformaciones societarias, las fusiones y las escisiones intracomunitarias. Aquí se analiza cómo la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Luxemburgo ha jugado un papel clave para la actuación del legislador europeo y las líneas generales de la regulación que se incluye en la Directiva, así como qué vías existen para la transposición de la misma en el Derecho español. Palabras clave: Sociedades. Transferencia internacional de la sede social. Fusiones internacionales. Escisiones internacionales. Abstract: Directive 2019/2121 offers a common regulation for cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions within the EU. Here, we will analyse how the works of the European law maker cannot be understood outside the framework of the case law produced by the Luxembourg Court. We will also analyse the main lines of the Directive, as well as the different possible paces for the transposition of the content of the Directive into the Spanish domestic law. Keywords: Companies. International transfer of company seat. International mergers. International divisions. I. Introducción La Directiva (UE) 2019/2121 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 27 de noviembre de 2019 por la que se modifica la Directiva (UE) 2017/1132 en lo que atañe a las transformaciones, fusiones y escisiones transfronterizas (DO, núm. L 321, de 12 de diciembre de 2019) pone fin a décadas en las que la transferencia internacional de la sede social dentro de la UE estaba regida tan solo por el Derecho originario tal y como había sido interpretado por el Tribunal de Justicia. Sin duda, esta regulación de la movilidad internacional de las sociedades es el aspecto más relevante de una Directiva que también regula por primera vez las escisiones internacionales y modifica, además, el régimen de las fusiones internacionales de sociedades dentro de la UE. A continuación, nos ocuparemos brevemente de estas tres partes de la Directiva (transformaciones, fusiones y escisiones) aunque poniendo el acento en la primera de ellas ya que, como veremos, es la más novedosa y transcendente. Lo relativo a las fusiones supone una revisión de una normativa ya existente [la Directiva 2005/56/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo,

This paper analysed the rationale for the use of alternatives to the modern corporate form. It equally analysed the main features of most of the alternatives as well as their positive and negative aspects from compliance and legal perspectives. Furthermore, it compared the differing regulatory cultures of the USA and Europe/the UK in terms of their business regulations.

ΠΡΟΣΚΛΗΣΗ

Διεθνές Συνέδριο Εταιρικού Δικαίου στο Πανεπιστήμιο Κύπρου
“Η Οδηγία για τις Διασυνοριακές Συγχωνεύσεις Εταιριών: Ενωσιακές Προοπτικές και Εθνικές Εμπειρίες”\“Cross-border Mergers Directive: EU perspectives and national experiences”