scholarly journals Some Current Problems with the Regulation of Limited Liability Companies in Serbia

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-145
Author(s):  
Vladimir Marjanski ◽  
Attila Dudás
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Forms ◽  
A Company

In Serbia, the legal status of limited liability companies (LLCs; društvo sa ograničenom odgovornošću, d.o.o.) is for the most part regulated by the Companies Act (Zakon o privrednim društvima). All four basic legal forms of company are regulated by this Act. Unlike in Austria and Germany, there are no special laws on LLCs and joint stock companies (JSCs). Regulating all legal forms of a company with the same act, including procedures for their liquidation, status changes (acquisition, merger, division, and spin-off), and changes of legal form, may be considered a conceptual shortcoming of the regulation relating to LLCs and of company law in Serbia in general. A specific law would enable legislators to tailor detailed rules pertaining only to LLCs, in which all peculiarities of this legal form of companies might be better addressed. Furthermore, there are relatively numerous legal norms applicable to JSCs, the appropriate application of which is can be legally extended to LLCs. However, most of them are not conceptually applicable due to the different nature of JSCs and LLCs. In addition, company law will have to undergo significant changes in upcoming years due to the process of accession of Serbia to the European Union and the fulfilment of the conditions contained in chapter 6 of the accession negotiations pertaining to company law.

scholarly journals Will the sup be an Effective Legal Form for smes as Well as for Subsidiaries within the European Union?

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-287
Author(s):  
Hylda Boschma ◽  
Hanny Schutte-Veenstra
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Legal Forms ◽  
Common Label

In 2014, the Commission published a proposal for a Directive that introduces a single- member private limited liability company, under a common label: Societas Unius Personae (sup), into the national legislation of the eu-Member States. In this publication it is examined what kind of legal forms of capital companies already exist in the eu-Member States and whether the sup is a welcome addition. The proposed legal form of the sup is analysed in order to answer the question whether the sup is an appropriate legal form for smes and subsidiaries. Furthermore attention is paid to issues which generally arise when the European legislator attempts to introduce a new legal enterprise-form, such as the sup. The authors conclude that there are no irreconcilable differences between the laws of the eu-Member States that might hinder the introduction of the sup. Also the European principles of subsidiarity and proportionality will not constitute an obstacle.

scholarly journals CROSS–BORDER MERGERS – THE CONCEPT AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION INTO THE LEGAL ORDER OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC CEZHRANIČNÉ ZLÚČENIE ALEBO SPLYNUTIE

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-60
Author(s):  
Jarmila Lazíková ◽  
Lucia Belková ◽  
Zuzana Ilková ◽  
Jana Ďurkovičová
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Central Administration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Registered Office

Abstract Cross-border mergers are regulated by the Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on crossborder mergers of limited liability companies. This article deals with the issue of cross-border mergers of limited liability companies within the internal market of the European Union, more precisely it analyzes the question of the concept of a cross-border merger under the European Union law and its implementation into the national legal order of the Slovak Republic. The legal definition of a cross-border merger under the European Union law comprises three key conditions that must be met cumulatively: cross-border merger is applicable only for a business company formed in accordance with the law of an EU Member State, having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, and at the same time business company must be in an eligible legal form and a cross-border element must be given.

Partners in a Limited Liability Company Will Be Jointly Liable If It Is Not Registered in the Commercial Register and the Words "Limited Liability" Are Not Added To Its Name in Business Dealings

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-366
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Abu Dhabi ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Commercial Company ◽  
A Company

AbstractThe Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation held that a company and the partners therein will be jointly liable even if the company was a limited liability company, if the partners or the manager of the company failed to register the company with the Commercial Register as a limited liability company and publish a Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company according to the Commercial Company Law. The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation further held that if the company failed to declare the legal status of a limited liability company and to print the words "limited liability company" on its letterheads, and its office name plate, the partners therein will be jointly liable as a partnership.

scholarly journals The European Union as mistake - realizations of European unity

conexus ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 196-211
Author(s):  
Malcolm MacLaren
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Iterative Process ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
European Unity ◽  
Long Line ◽  
Legal Forms ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) is the latest in a long line of failed attempts at European unity. Motivated by adverse experience, its founders proscribed a political and legal form for ‘Europe’, and their followers have sought to impose order and to effect integration. As predictable as the attempt has been the failure (attested by the frequent, complex, unresolved crises). It is not merely that the circumstances, conditions, and concerns have markedly changed (and continue to change) over time; it is more that ‘Europe’ cannot be successfully subjected to such schemes. Considered constructively, the experience of the EU offers insights into the process of constituting a polity. The first and last is the insight that unification is an iterative process, not an outcome; an ‘ever closer union’ is not an end state (literally or figuratively). These lie partly in the inescapably contextual nature of attempts at unifying Europe, each attempt being contingent on the circumstances etc. prevailing. A common will to order and belief in societal malleability may be present at particular periods among particular European elites (be they driven by functionalism, megalomania, or otherwise). However, determinative is the reality that no such schemes are realizable. The political and legal forms that might be suitable to the challenge of constituting the polity exceed our cognitive grasp. ‘Europe’ is too untidy and too fissiparous to be ruled through deliberation. Invariably, the best-laid plans of European statesmen have gone, and will go, awry. In this essay, I consider the meaning of European unification, not so much according to the normative or empirical details of given attempts, as according to the epistemological magnitude of repeated failures. In the way of conclusion, I will pointedly not propose a way out of the contemporary crises etc. or an own project for European unity.

Redefining the Freedom of Establishment under EU Law as the Freedom to Choose the Applicable Company Law: A Discussion after the Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2017 in Case C-106/16, Polbud

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Mucha ◽  
Krzysztof Oplustil
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Minority Shareholders ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
A Company

On 25 October 2017, the Court of Justice handed down a judgment in the Polbud case (C-106/16). This is the result of three preliminary questions raised by the Polish SC. The facts in the case concern the Polish private limited liability company which wanted to transfer its registered office to Luxembourg and to change its legal form. In general, the questions refer to two pertinent issues: first, if the national law providing for mandatory company’s liquidation in case of transferring the company’s seat abroad complies with the EU law, and second, if the so-called isolated cross-border conversion is covered by the freedom of establishment. With little doubt, the first question was answered in the negative. As to the second issue, the Court holds that it is not mandatory in the light of EU law for the company wishing to transfer its registered office and convert itself into a company governed by the law of another MS to establish an economic presence in that MS. It is likely that the Court of Justice’s findings will open another Pandora’s box with many unknown results, mainly concerning minority shareholders’ and creditors’ protection as well as further (un)desired liberalisation of the internal market.

scholarly journals THE EUROPEAN COMPANY (SOCIETAS EUROPAEA) ON RIND SIGHT

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liviana Andreea Niminet
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
European Company ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Societas Europaea ◽  
A Company

The article deals with the rind aspects of European Company (also known by its Latin name Societas Europaea or SE), a “type of public limited-liability company regulated under European Union law”. Although this form of company was proposed more than 40 years ago, it was only in 2001 when the Council issued Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company defining the European company (SE) as “a legal structure that permits a company to operate in different European Union (EU) countries under a single statute”, as determined by the law of the Union and common to all EU countries. Being a new legal form, the SE coexists with the corporate forms that already were in each Member Statebeing governed by both European Regulation and national law. As it follows we address the rules, classification, conditions for settling an SE, organization structures, tax harmonization, employee involvement in the SE, advantages and disadvantages of SEs, as well as the opportunity of SPEs.

MENGENAL DOKTRIN DAN PRINSIP PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL DALAM HUKUM PERUSAHAAN

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-399
Author(s):  
Sandra Dewi
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Business World ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
Piercing The Corporate Veil ◽  
Business Entities

Business entities in the business world are well-known that are already in the form of companies or those that are not yet companies. Based on its legal form, the company is divided into two, namely companies with legal status and those that are not legal entities. As an independent legal entity pursuant to Article 3 paragraph (1) the Limited Liability Company Law stipulates that the responsibility of PT shareholders is limited to the value of shares held in the company. Economically, the element of limited liability of the company's shareholders is an important factor as a motivating bait for the willingness of prospective investors to invest in the company. The formulation of the problem in this paper is: 1) how the piercing doctrine of the corporate veil in corporate law and 2) how to apply the principle of piercing the corporate veil in Indonesia. The type of writing used in this writing is a type of normative legal research. The doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in corporate law can be seen from: a) piercing the corporrate veil; b) the doctrine of fiduciary duty; c) self dealing transaction doctrine; d) doctrine corporate opportunity; e) doctrine businnes judgment rule; f) ultra vires and intra vires. Application of the Piercing Principles of the Corporate Veil in Indonesia: a) company shareholders; b) company founder; c) company directors; and d) commissioners of limited liability companies.

scholarly journals GmbH and UG (Mini-GmbH): Protection of creditors in German law

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 134-148
Author(s):  
Jovana Joksović
Keyword(s):  
German Law ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Capital Maintenance ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
German Market ◽  
Share Capital ◽  
Law System ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Legal Forms ◽  
A Company

One of the most widespread forms of companies, not only in our, but also in other jurisdictions, are limited liability companies. This form gives clear advantages to its founders, but at the same time endangers the creditor's settlement. In this paper, the author lists and describes the ways of protecting the company's creditors in the German law, namely the creditors of GmbH and the newer UG (Mini-GmbH) with brief reviews of Serbian law and d.o.o. First of all, there is a possible liability of shareholders and directors of German companies in the very stage of establishment. Furthermore, payments to shareholders from the assets that are necessary to cover the share capital are prohibited. In addition to its legal minimum share capital of EUR 25.000, GmbH contains further institutes for adequate creditor protection, which makes it attractive not only to the founders, but also to its creditors. In 2008, with the Law on Modernization of the Rights of Limited Liability Companies and the Fight against Abuses (MoMiG), the German legal system introduced a new legal form of simplified GmbH (UG), which has the same nature with a few special characteristics. This is primarily the possibility of founding a company below the prescribed legal minimum of the share capital, namely 1 Euro. This legal form should be an alternative to the English "Limited", which was "flooding" the German market back then. This advantage brings certain restrictions, first of all in terms of capital maintenance rules. Due to the fact that d.o.o. has significant similarities with the general rules that apply to these legal forms of the German system, primarily due to similarities with UG in the form of a minimum share capital of 100 dinars, the characteristics and solutions of German law for the protection of creditors of this legal form will be analysed. At the end comes a brief review of the institute "piercing a corporate veil" in the German law system.

Effectiveness of clauses restricting equity transfer in articles of association of limited liability companies using fuzzy AHP: A data analysis of related cases in China from 2010 to 20191

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Peng Chen ◽  
Yingzhi Nie
Keyword(s):  
Fuzzy Ahp ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Past ◽  
Analytic Hierarchical Process ◽  
Closed Characteristics ◽  
A Company ◽  
External Equity

Based on the company cases published in China over the past ten years, both theoretical methods and Artificial intelligence technologies were applied to analysis cases data on the effectiveness of clauses restricting equity transfer in articles of association of limited liability companies (LLCs). With its unique characters based on shareholders and strong vitality, limited liability company (LLC), as the “evergreen tree” among the market players, is a company form adopted by many investors. Nevertheless, due to its prominent closed characteristics, equity transfer has become a bottleneck for the development of LLCs. According to this paper, it is necessary to distinguish between the effectiveness of clauses restricting internal and external equity transfer in articles of association of LLCs. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) is utilized for which involves process of analytic hierarchy modelled with utilizing theory of fuzzy logic. Moreover, instead of being confined to the existing legal norms, the judgment standard of clauses restricting equity transfer in articles of association of LLCs should be comprehensively measured by the golden rules, i.e. “fairness”, “autonomy” and “operability”.

Fixing, Adjusting, Regulating, Protecting Human Rights - The Shifting Uses of Regularisations in the European Union

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Kraler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Irregular Migrants ◽  
National Human ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Human Rights Based Approach ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAlmost all Member States in the European Union currently make use, or in the past have made use of some form of regularisation of irregular immigrants, although to greatly varying degrees, in different ways and as a rule only reluctantly. A distinct feature of recent regularisations has been the shift towards a humanitarian justification of regularisation measures. In this context, regularisation has become reframed as an issue of the protection of irregular migrants’ human rights. As a result, regularisation has to some extent also been turned from a political tool in managing migration into an issue of international, European and national human rights law. While a human rights framework indeed offers a powerful rationale and at times compelling reasons why states ought to afford a legal status to irregular migrants, I argue that a human rights based approach must always be complemented by pragmatic considerations, as a human rights based justification of regularisation alone will be insufficient to find adequate responses to the changing presence of irregular migrants in the EU, not all of which can invoke human rights based claims to residence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document