scholarly journals Mandatory and Default Rules in Serbian Company Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-92
Author(s):  
Branislav Malagurski
Keyword(s):  
Company Law ◽  
Freedom Of Will ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mutual Relations ◽  
Default Rules ◽  
General Provision ◽  
Special Duties

The matter of company law in Serbia is regulated by the Law on Companies, which does not contain the general provision defining whether it is based on the freedom of will, unlike the Law on Obligations, which defines so. Even therefrom, it can be concluded that the rules of the Law on Companies are in general mandatory.  Such conclusion only confirms the exception-provision which defines that founders of the LLC their mutual relations and their relations with the Company regulate freely, unless by this Law otherwise defined.  So, only the rules regulating mutual relations of founders and their relations with the LLC are default, unless otherwise provided in particular case. Other rules of the company law in Serbia are in general mandatory.  However, even when the provisions regulating certain matter being mandatory, it does not mean that there is absolutely no space for deviations, like in below described cases of special duties, for example. But such deviations do not necessarily mean that the rules from which it is deviated are default ones.

The Doctrinal Basis of The Rights of Company Shareholders

1998 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Grantham
Keyword(s):  
Political Power ◽  
The State ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Corporate Form ◽  
Moral Force ◽  
The Law ◽  
Normative Implications

THE concept of ownership is a complex, powerful and controversial idea. In law it explains, justifies and gives moral force to a host of rights and duties as well as serving to legitimate the allocation of wealth and privilege. The influence of this idea is, furthermore, everywhere embodied in the law. In company law, legal and economic conceptions have both rested on and have been shaped by the normative implications of ownership. Historically, ownership was the principal explanation and justification for the central role of shareholders in corporate affairs. As owners, shareholders were entitled to control the management of the company and to the exclusive benefit of the company's activities. Ownership also served to legitimate the corporate form itself. So long as it was owned by individuals the economic and political power of the company was both benign and a bulwark against the intrusion of the state.

An Economic and Jurisprudential Genealogy of Corporate Law. By Michael J. Whincop. [Aldershot: Ashgate. 2001. xviii, 222, (Bibliography) 20 and (Index) 5 pp. Hardback £45. ISBN 1–84014–773–3.]

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-492
Author(s):  
John Armour
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Law ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Economic Methodology ◽  
Evolutionary Account ◽  
High Profile ◽  
Intuitive Appeal ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law

Economic analysis has recently gained a high profile in English company law scholarship, not least through its employment by the Law Commissions and its resonance with the Company Law Review. This approach has taught us much about how company law functions in relation to the marketplace. Whincop’s book is, however, the first attempt to use economic methodology not only to explain how the law functions, but also to provide an evolutionary account of why the history of English company law followed the path it did. The result is a thesis that, whilst complex, has a powerful intuitive appeal for those familiar with Victorian company law judgments.

The Mind and its Tenement; Their Mutual Relations

1856 ◽  
Vol 2 (18) ◽  
pp. 479-494
Author(s):  
C. Lockhart Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Mental State ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
The State ◽  
The Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mutual Relations ◽  
The Mind

“The knowledge concerning the sympathies and concordances between the mind and the body” saith the founder† of modern science, in discoursing of human philosophy, or the knowledge of ourselves, as he terms it, is “fit to be emancipate and made a knowledge by itself. The consideration is double: either how and how far the humours and effects of the body do alter or work upon the mind; or again, how and how far the passions and apprehensions of the mind do alter or work upon the body. The former of these,” (the influence of the body on the mental state,) continues Bacon, “hath been enquired and considered as a part and appendix of medicine, but much more as a part of religion or superstition. For the physician prescribeth cures of the mind in phrensies and melancholy passions; and pretendeth also to exhibit medicines to exhilarate the mind, to confirm the courage, to clarify the wits, to corroborate the memory and the like: but the scruples and superstitions of diet and other regimen of the body in the sect of Pythagoreans, in the heresy of the Manicheans, and in the law of Mahomet do exceed. … The root and life of all which prescripts is besides the ceremony, the consideration of that dependency, which the affections of the mind are submitted unto, upon the state and disposition of the body.”

The Role of the Directors

2021 ◽  
pp. 125-194
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Financial Reports ◽  
The Public ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk

This chapter describes the role of the directors. The duties of the directors are owed to the company and while the shareholders are the primary indirect beneficiaries of those duties, the law integrates the interests of creditors and also of wider society. The law is primarily focused on ensuring compliance with the Companies Act and the constitution rather than with the enhancement of economic interests. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 serves as a mechanism through which the public interest is integrated into company law, while the UK Corporate Governance Code adds a further procedural dimension to the operation of the board of directors. The chapter then looks at how the idea of designing remuneration in a way that guides the directors to act either for the benefit of the shareholder or for the benefit of the company is flawed and has served as a motor justifying increasing rewards without bringing about commensurate increases in performance. It also analyses the duties of the directors to keep accounting records and to produce financial reports.

Corporate Actions

2021 ◽  
pp. 77-102
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Entity Theory ◽  
Real Entity ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corporate Actions ◽  
Human Actors ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability

This chapter evaluates the rules that determine the attribution of the actions of human actors to companies. These contain elements that demonstrate that company law is designed for the operation of organizations and that therefore a real entity theory is best suited to explain the law as it stands, and also to formulate normative recommendations. Indeed, conceiving companies as serving real entities helps to explain the approach taken by the law in relation to corporate criminal liability. Companies are actors whose acts are sometimes determined by their shareholders and directors. But they do not fully control what companies do. Companies act autonomously through habits and procedures that have formed between the individuals who act for and contribute to them. These procedures cause companies to become independent of their individual actors and can lead to blameworthy conduct.

Law of Torts

Japanese Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 191-211
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Oda
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
The Law ◽  
General Provision

Tort is part of the Law of Obligations. Provisions on tort liability are found in Book Three, the Law of Obligations, of the Civil Code. There is only a single general provision on tort. The legislature expected rules to develop out of case law. A person who intentionally or negligently infringes upon others’ right or interests protected There is a body of case law which sets out details of tort law such as causation and fault. There have been cases where the shift of the burden of proof was at issue.　

Commentary on the Provisions of the Companies Act 2006, Part 13, Sections 281 to 361

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Kosmin ◽  
Catherine Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Company Law ◽  
Business Organisation ◽  
The Law

The Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), which on enactment contained over 1,300 sections, 47 Parts and 16 Schedules, received the Royal Assent on 8 November 2006. The preamble to CA 2006 states that it is ‘An Act to reform company law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to companies; to make other provision relating to companies and other forms of business organisation; to make provision about directors’ disqualification, business names, auditors and actuaries; to amend Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002; and for connected purposes.’ This legislation was the result of a thorough review and overhaul of the statutory provisions affecting registered companies and it replaced all the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 (CA 1985) and other associated statutes. Since November 2006 further additions and amendments have been made to the CA 2006; this is testament to the proposition that the law is ever-evolving to meet new situations and challenges.

7. Creditors

2020 ◽  
pp. 223-260
Author(s):  
Paul Davies
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Creditor Protection ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Wrongful Trading ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law

Because of limited liability, creditor protection has always been a feature of company law. Large creditors can contract ex ante for customised protection and the law facilitates this in various ways, notably by the creation of the floating charge. Non-adjusting creditors require the protection of mandatory rules, at least in some situations. Creditor protection in relation to companies in the vicinity of insolvency is now well established, not only through ‘wrongful trading’ but also via transaction invalidity rules and directors’ disqualification. For going-concern companies the emphasis is on rules restricting the shifting assets to shareholders via distributions and associated rules relating to the maintenance of capital.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document