scholarly journals GROUNDS FOR THE INVALIDATION OF THE RULINGS OF THE JOINT-STOCK COMPANY SUPERVISORY BOARDS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECENT CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT

2021 ◽  
pp. 53-60
Author(s):  
A. V. Smitiukh ◽  
V. S. Veremchuk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supervisory Boards

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.

scholarly journals Corporate governance vs. crisis of company

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (No. 6) ◽  
pp. 275-277
Author(s):  
P. Moulis
Keyword(s):  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Natural Control ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Common

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.

scholarly journals BANKS’ SUPERVISORY BOARDS: COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION OF UKRAINE AND GERMANY

2020 ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Yu.I. Shvets ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Unions ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Executive Board ◽  
Tier System ◽  
Supervisory Boards

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.

scholarly journals Odpowiedzialność członków rady nadzorczej spółki akcyjnej za prawidłowość sprawozdań finansowych spółki

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 103-116
Author(s):  
Eligiusz Jerzy Krześniak
Keyword(s):  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Literal Interpretation ◽  
Supervisory Boards ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Polish Code

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.

The Right to Treatment and the Right to Refuse Treatment-recent Case Law

1974 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Bregman Kassirer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Important Case ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

Perhaps no other area of constitutional law has been expanding as rapidly as that pertaining to the rights of the incarcerated. The right to treatment has received the most judicial attention; one such case has just recently been granted review by the Supreme Court. This important case, and others which have appeared in recent months are presented for discussion in this article.

scholarly journals Le contrôle judiciaire des erreurs de droit en présence d'une clause privative

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Patrice Garant ◽  
Sylvio Normand
Keyword(s):  
New Brunswick ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court

Administrative Tribunals have jurisdiction to deal with questions of law. In the exercise of such jurisdiction they may sometimes make mistakes in the construction of the statutes, regulations or other instruments. Even in the presence of a privative clause, an inferior tribunal should not be the supreme interpret of the law. It is one of the requirements of the « rule of law » that the Superior Court should have a supervisory « droit de regard ». Traditionally, only errors of law going to jurisdiction were out of the shield of the privative clause ; the Superior Courts used to restrain their intervention only after charactarizing the alleged error as « jurisdictional error of law ». Two difficulties came to arise from the approach about whether there exists an error of jurisdiction or one « merely » of law. Firstly, who can tell whether there is a genuine error of law. Secondly, what criteria transmute in the minds of Superior Court Judges an error into one of jurisdiction. The recent case law convinces us of the necessity of a different approach in order to achieve some clarity in this field of Administrative law. Mr. Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada hints at it in the Nispawin and the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation cases. This approach would put an end to the confusion that still prevail in other Supreme Court cases like Blanco or Labrecque. The distinction between errors of law going to jurisdiction and « merely » errors of law is unrational and so unpracticable that it should be abandoned and replaced by what we suggest in the following lines... Mr. Justice Robert Reid of the Ontario Divisional Court has also expressed the same concern in a remarquable judgment.

scholarly journals Insurance related problems in bareboat charter agreements

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Albano Gilabert Gascón
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Insurance Contract ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIn 2017, the majority of the United Kingdom Supreme Court held in its judgment in the Gard Marine and Energy v China National Chartering (The Ocean Victory) case that, in bareboat charters under the ‘BARECON 89’ form, if both the owner and the charterer are jointly insured under a hull policy, the damages caused to the vessel by the charterer cannot be claimed by the insurer by way of subrogation after indemnifying the owner. The interpretation of the charter party leads to the conclusion that the liability between the parties is excluded. Faced with the Supreme Court’s decision, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) adopted a new standard bareboat charter agreement only a few months later, the ‘BARECON 2017’ form, which amends, among other clauses, the one related to insurance. The present paper analyses (i) the new wording of the clause mentioned above and (ii) its incidence on the relationship between the parties of both the charter agreement and the insurance contract and its consequences for possible third parties. Despite BIMCO’s attempt to change the solution adopted by the Supreme Court and his willingness to allow the insurer to claim in subrogation against the person who causes the loss, the consequences, as it will be seen, do not differ much in practice when the wrongdoer is the co-insured charterer. On the contrary, when the loss is caused by a time charter or a sub-charter, in principle, there will be no impediment for the insurer to sue him.

The concept of human dignity in the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada on Charter Equality Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Equality Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Additional Burden ◽  
The Impact

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.

The UK courts and EU law post-Brexit

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. Christopher-Vajda
Author(s):  
Christopher Vajda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Following the expiry on 31 December 2020 of the ‘transition period’ under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, the relationship between UK and EU law had changed. Whilst much EU legislation at that date will continue to apply in UK law as ‘retained EU law’ and judgments of the EU courts handed down before that date will remain binding on UK courts as ‘retained EU case law’, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can depart from that case law. Whilst EU court judgments handed down after that date are not binding on UK courts, they may be taken into account. This article considers both the status of EU retained case law and when the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal may depart from it, and the future of EU law that is not ‘retained EU case law’ and how judgments of the European Courts and national courts of its Member States may influence UK judges in the future.

scholarly journals KEWENANGAN BADAN PENGAWAS PEMILU DALAM PENANGANAN PELANGGARAN ADMINISTRASI DITINJAU DARI PERSPEKTIF SISTEM PERADILAN INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-85
Author(s):  
Alasman Mpesau
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
General Election ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Courts

In the General Election and Regional Head Election Law, the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu) has the authority supervisory to each Election stages, it is the center for law enforcement activities of the Election (Sentra Gakkumdu) to criminal acts and carrying out the judicial functions for investigating, examining, and decided on administrative disputes of General Election and Regional Head Election.  With the Bawaslu’s authority then placed as a super-body institution in the ranks of the Election Management Body, due to its essential role in building a clean and credible electoral system, it also has potential for abuse of power within it. In Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power has defined state institutions that have the authority to administrate judicial functions. These are the Supreme Court and Judicial Bodies that under its lines of general court, Religious Courts, Military Courts, Administrative Court (PTUN) and the Constitutional Court. The research method is normative juridical, that focuses on the analysis of the laws and regulations on General Election, Regional Head Elections and the Law on Judicial Power. The analytical tool is descriptive analysis, by describing the main issues, an analysis is carried out that was supported by case-approach related to the research. The study concludes that Bawaslu in carrying out judicial functions in its position as a semi-judicial institution has not a hierarchical relationship to the Supreme Court (MA) and the Constitutional Court (MK); however, what does exist is functional relationship.

scholarly journals Life After Bilski

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lemley
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Real World ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
District Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Abstract Ideas ◽  
New Applications

In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court declined calls to categoricallyexclude business methods - or any technology - from the patent law. It alsorejected as the sole test of subject matter eligibility the FederalCircuit’s deeply-flawed "machine or transformation" test, under which noprocess is patentable unless it is tied to a particular machine ortransforms an article to another state or thing. Subsequent developmentsthreaten to undo that holding, however. Relying on the Court’s descriptionof the Federal Circuit test as a "useful and important clue', the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office, patent litigants, and district courts have allcontinued to rely on the machine-or-transformation test in the wake ofBilski: no longer as the sole rule, but as a presumptive starting pointthat threatens to effectively become mandatory. In this Article, we suggesta new way to understand the exclusion of abstract ideas from patentablesubject matter. No class of invention is inherently too abstract forpatenting. Rather, the rule against patenting abstract ideas is an effortto prevent inventors from claiming their ideas too broadly. By requiringthat patent claims be limited to a specific set of practical applicationsof an idea, the abstract ideas doctrine both makes the scope of theresulting patent clearer and leaves room for subsequent inventors toimprove upon - and patent new applications of - the same basic principle.Recasting the abstract ideas doctrine as an overclaiming test eliminatesthe constraints of the artificial machine-or-transformation test, as wellas the pointless effort to fit inventions into permissible or impermissiblecategories. It also helps understand some otherwise-inexplicabledistinctions in the case law. Testing for overclaiming allows courts tofocus on what really matters: whether the scope of the patentee's claimsare commensurate with the invention’s practical, real-world contribution.This inquiry, we suggest, is the touchstone of the abstract ideas analysis,and the way out of the post-Bilski confusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document