scholarly journals Uchwały zarządu i rady nadzorczej spółki akcyjnej w procedurze podwyższenia kapitału zakładowego w granicach kapitału docelowego

Author(s):  
Maksymilian Saczywko

The paper focuses on resolutions adopted by the management board and the supervisory board of a joint-stock company to increase the share capital of a public limited company within its authorised capital. The author outlines the origin and nature of the authorised capital, the content and form of the abovementioned resolutions, their legal nature and different types of possible defects in them. Challenging defective resolutions is particularly important in practice. That matter is not regulated explicitly in Polish law. The possible solutions available under Italian and Spanish regulations that are presented indicate that the challenging of defective resolutions of the management board and the supervisory board in capital commercial companies, particularly those adopted in connection with authorised capital, should also be regulated in Poland.

Author(s):  
B. V. Zmerzlu

The article States that the organization of activities and management of commercial ports in Estonia is organized on the basis of the law on ports and the law on commercial sea transport in the current version. The port of Tallinn received its modern legal organization in 2018 with the formation of the corresponding joint-stock company and registration on the Nasdaq Tallinn exchange on June 13, 2018. the Basic regulations governing the system of its higher management are the «Regulations on the Association of Aktiaselts Tallinn Sadam» and «Rules of procedure of the Supervisory Board of Aktiaselts Tallinn Sadam». In them set out the procedure for possession and use of the stock of this company, Supervisory Board, management Board and other bodies working on permanent and temporary foundations; requirements for Board members.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 103-116
Author(s):  
Eligiusz Jerzy Krześniak

RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD OF A JOINT-STOCK COMPANY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMPANY’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTSDirective 2006/46/EC aims to clamp down on the manipulation of data contained in the annual accounts. While this regulation was implemented in Polish law, no account was taken of the need to adapt it to the Polish regulations already in force that arise under the Polish Code of Commercial Partnerships and Companies. Some of the provisions of the Directive were transposed into Polish law according to the “cut + paste” formula, failing to take into consideration the specificity of the Directive and the Directive as a whole. Consequently, the interpretation of relevant national provisions may potentially lead to the conclusion that members of the supervisory board of a joint-stock company are to be held jointly and severally liable together with the manager of the company for ensuring that the content of the annual accounts accurately reflect the reality. In the author’s opinion, such a conclusion would be too far-reaching. The analysis shows that as it concerns the scope and principles of liability of members of supervisory boards related to the annual accounts, there are arguments for adopting a less restrictive than solely literal interpretation of Article 4a of the Accounting Act. As a result, in the author’s view, it is impossible to attribute responsibility to a member of the supervisory board of a joint-stock company for errors or misstatements in the annual accounts as long as he exercised due care and diligence in performing his duties and in particular assured together with other members of the board that the process of drafting and publication of the annual accounts proceeded smoothly and was carried out properly.


2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 79-97
Author(s):  
Paweł Marcin Zdanikowski

This article presents a new Polish regulation concerning the simple joint-stock company (Polish: prosta spółka akcyjna; SJSC). It is a legal form of commercial company, dedicated mostly (but not exclusively) to new-technology entities. Its main advantage is the possibility to subscribe shares in exchange for a contribution in the form of work or services provided to the company. This will make it possible for SJSC promoters to attract investors in order to run the enterprise, while maintaining control over the company and excluding personal liability for its obligations. Another characteristic is that the SJSC has no share capital. Even so, the degree of actual protection of company's creditors does not seem lower than that provided by companies supplied with a share capital. This is because the creditors’ interests are secured not only by the obligation to conduct the solvency test before paying out funds to a shareholder, but also by restrictive rules of responsibility of management board members for company's liabilities if the enforcement carried out against the company proves ineffective.


2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (No. 6) ◽  
pp. 275-277
Author(s):  
P. Moulis

There is a lot of available investigations in the area of company crisis reasons problems nowadays. These inquiries were summarised into the indicators of company crisis reasons. The development and level of these indicators is not possible to consider to be company crisis reasons but above all to be its manifestation. The veritable reason of crisis is the absence of effective control mechanisms in the company, especially of the “natural” control mechanisms. The natural control mechanism means such as rises from the substance of joint stock companies (respectively legal rules of joint stock company). There is a presumption of control activities interaction among the General Assembly, Supervisory Board and Board. Control mechanisms work on the common economic principles’ base in this sense and it means that the owner is considered to be the primary managing element and the management acts as the derivative managing element. The assumption of effective economic principles functioning is the existence of standard variable of these relations i. e. the existence of relevant interests.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (20) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Khatuna Jinoria

Obtaining shares in a joint stock company grants the owner important rights and imposes several obligations on them. In the list of shareholders’ rights, one of the most important subjects is the right to sue the shareholder’s lawsuit. The right to bring in front of courts certain aspects of company-related activities is the legal mechanism of protecting the shareholders other rights. Shareholders’ lawsuit plays an important role in the protection of minority shareholders. Shareholders’ lawsuit also includes two types of legal actions: direct lawsuit and derivative lawsuit. Georgian case law is not very advanced in this area. When shareholders bring matters in front of courts, the number of precedents adhered to is rare. As for the derivative lawsuit, the relative novelty of this legal institution in Georgian legislation causes the lack of deeper understanding. Georgian doctrine does not provide thorough analysis of legal nature and divergence of shareholders’ lawsuits when it comes to case law. As mentioned above, it is quite scarce.


Author(s):  
Iwo Jarosz

In recent years we have witnessed an almost unprecedented effort of legislators and legal academics in Europe to make limited liability companies in various jurisdictions more modern, simpler and more accessible. These endeavors are usually related to the liberalization of statutory requirements regarding the minimum share capital amounts. Lively debates among academics and practitioners, as well as regulatory competition, seem to be the factors making the legislative changes dynamic and evolutionary. The issue of limited liability companies’ regulatory reform were also the subject of proposed European legislation, including the now abandoned proposal of a harmonised single-member limited liability company model known as Societas Unius Personae SUP. In Poland there has also been, for  almost a decade, a discussion on whether and how to follow the example of Germany and its Unternehmergesellschaft and other European countries and liberalize the capital requirements for the Polish limited liability company. Lately the Polish legislator has introduced the so-called simple joint-stock company prosta spółka akcyjna, which had been drafted to be an attractive offer for start-ups, aiming, in the perception of its proponents, to achieve the modernization and simplification desired by contemporary legislators and supposedly accomplished in other jurisdictions, all the while maintaining serious levels of creditor protection. The author employs formal-dogmatic and comparative methods to describe the capital structure of the new company type and to confront it with certain other statutory developments, especially the Societas Unius Personae as a serious and well-thought-out, nonetheless failed venture, to try to assess the solutions set forth by the Polish legislator.Kapitał zakładowy prostej spółki akcyjnej w świetle dotychczasowych przepisów i projektów prawodawstwa europejskiegoW ostatnich latach europejscy ustawodawcy i przedstawiciele nauki prawa podejmowali nieomalże bezprecedensowe wysiłki w kierunku modernizacji, uproszczenia i zwiększenia dostępności spółek z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością. Działania te zazwyczaj zmierzały do liberalizacji ustawowych wymogów dotyczących minimalnych kwot kapitału zakładowego. Czynnikami dynamizującymi zmiany legislacyjne wydają się żywe dyskusje w środowisku akademickim oraz na łonie praktyki, a także konkurencja regulacyjna. Kwestie reformy spółek z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością były również przedmiotem projektów prawodawstwa europejskiego, w tym projektu dyrektywy w sprawie zharmonizowanego modelu spółki z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością jednoosobowej znanego jako Societas Unius Personae SUP. Także w Polsce od prawie dekady toczy się dyskusja w przedmiocie zmian dotyczących spółek z o.o., w szczególności tego, czy polskie ustawodawstwo powinno podążyć za przykładem Niemiec i znanej z niemieckiego porządku prawnego Unternehmergesellschaft oraz innych krajów europejskich i zliberalizować wymogi kapitałowe dla tego typu spółek. Sejm przegłosował niedawno ustawę wprowadzającą tak zwaną prostą spółkę akcyjną. Ten nowy typ spółki ma w założeniu stanowić atrakcyjną propozycję dla start-upów, prowadząc — zdaniem jej zwolenników — do modernizacji i uproszczenia pożądanego przez współczesnych prawodawców przy jednoczesnym utrzymaniu stosownego poziomu ochrony wierzycieli. Autor próbuje ocenić rozwiązania zaproponowane przez polskiego ustawodawcę w zakresie struktury kapitałowej nowego typu spółki, konfrontując je z innymi rozwiązaniami, w tym w szczególności z projektem Societas Unius Personae — przedsięwzięciem ostatecznie nieudanym, choć przemyślanym i zasługującym na uwagę.


2021 ◽  
pp. 53-60
Author(s):  
A. V. Smitiukh ◽  
V. S. Veremchuk

The article presents the results of a study of the recent case law of the Supreme Court’s Economic Court of Cassation as for the grounds for invalidating the rulings of the joint-stock companies’ supervisory boards. Since the law does not define such grounds, the Supreme Court’s practice on this matter is crucial. It is concluded that the rulings of the joint-stock companies’ supervisory boards may be invalidated if there is a violation of the rights and legal interests of shareholders of the joint-stock company as well third parties. The specific grounds for the invalidation are highlighted in the article: excess of the powers by the supervisory board; the incompetence of its composition; failure to notify a shareholder on the appointment of a meeting of the supervisory board; lack of a quorum at a meeting of the supervisory board; other non-compliance with the requirements of legal rules governing the procedure for convening a meeting of the supervisory board and making decisions, if the aforesaid violation entailed the adoption of an incorrect act; violation by the ruling of the supervisory board of the rights and legal interests of shareholders or third parties. The authors propose to provide the above grounds for invalidation of the supervisory board’s ruling by the legislation. Also the ruling of the joint-stock company’s supervisory board made online (if the members of the board are outside the location of the company and the signing of the ruling does not take place on the day of the meeting is not a ground for invalidation of such a ruling.


Author(s):  
Alan Dignam ◽  
John Lowry

Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. This chapter focuses on the rights and liabilities of a shareholder which are the incident of the general nature of a share, as well as his particular rights and liabilities by virtue of owning a particular type or class of share. It first considers the legal nature of a shareholding and the different types of share capital and typical class rights of a shareholder, as well as the statutory procedure required of a company before it can effect a variation of shareholders’ class rights. Examples of classes of shares are then given, and preferential rights attached to preference shares are discussed. The chapter concludes by looking at European Union initiatives on shareholders’ rights.


2020 ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Yu.I. Shvets ◽  
◽  
◽  

The article is devoted to a comprehensive study of German legislation regarding the right regulation of the work of supervisory boards of joint stock companies — banks. During the writing of the article, the main legislative acts of Germany, the current version of which was published on the official website of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz), were studied and analyzed, as well as scientific articles by German scientists and practitioners. Corporate legislation of Germany is compared with the legislation of Ukraine regarding the legal regulation of the activity of banks, which are joint stock companies. It is established that the banking activity should be performed by a legal entity in the form of a joint stock company. The two-tier system of governance with supervisory boards and executive boards, as well as a clear division of powers of management and control between these bodies, must be mandatory for banks. Suggestions were made on the possibility of electing not only shareholders and independent directors, but also other bank stakeholders, to the Supervisory Boards, in particular the election of employees, trade unions and, as a consequence, strengthening the influence of the labor collective on the management of the company. Emphasis is placed on the existence in German corporate law of provisions allowing the election, in certain cases, of members of the supervisory boards in court for the application of the list of persons defined by law. It is concluded that such practice is not practicable in Ukraine at this time due to the lack of speed of court proceedings and the possibility of unfair actions to influence the joint stock company on this basis. It is proposed to provide a mechanism for appealing the decisions of the Supervisory Board by the company Executive Board. The implementation of these innovations could strengthen the system of checks and balances in the management of the bank, namely to ensure mutual control of the supervisory board and the executive board of the bank, as well as to make it impossible (to prevent) the possibility of making decisions that could lead to negative consequences in the activity of the bank. There are a number of other statements and suggestions that can be used in further legislative work to improve the legal regulation of corporate governance in Ukraine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document