Perjanjian Pemegang Saham Dan Dampaknya Terhadap Pemangku Kepentingan lainnya Di Perusahaan

<p>Secara umum, di dunia terdapat dua sistem pengurusan perusahaan yang menonjol, yaitu sistem satu tingkat dan sistem dua tingkat, namun dalam kaitannya dengan hubungan sistem manajemen satu tingkat (one-tier) dan dua tingkat (two-tier), penerapan kedua sistem ini di semua negara hampir sama, yaitu adanya dua dewan – dewan komisaris dan dewan direksi pada sistem two-tier dan hanya satu dewan – dewan direksi pada sistem – one-tier. Dalam menjalankan aktivitas bisnis sehari-hari para pemegang saham perusahaan cenderung menjaga kepentingannya dalam hubungan antar pemegang saham. Meskipun hubungan antara pemegang saham telah diatur dalam berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan, dan juga diatur dalam anggaran dasar perusahaan, namun masih ada hal-hal penting yang perlu diatur secara<br />tersendiri, diluar peraturan dan pasal-pasal akta pendirian dan anggaran dasar perusahaan, antara lain klausul right of first refusal yang memaksa pemegang saham yang ingin menjual sahamnya untuk terlebih dahulu menawarkan sahamnya kepada pemegang saham lain; pengalihan terbatas saham yang melarang pemegang saham untuk menjual sahamnya tanpa persetujuan semua pemegang saham; opsi untuk memanggil atau menempatkan sahamnya kepada mitranya; penyediaan kendali yang membutuhkan persetujuan dengan suara bulat untuk keputusan besar; dan klasulnon-persaingan yang melarang pemegang saham untuk bersaing dengan perusahaan. Para pemegang saham biasanya mengatur hubungan khusus mereka secara terpisah dalam perjanjian pemegang saham. Makalah ini membahas beberapa hal penting<br />yang harus diperhatikan dalam penyusunan perjanjian pemegang saham dan dampaknya bagi pemangku kepentingan (stakeholder) lain di perusahaan. Penulis menemukan bahwa diperlukan adanya keterbukaan dalam penyusunan perjanjian pemegang saham agar tidak merugikan kepentingan pihak-pihak lain terutama stakeholder perusahaan lainnya.</p>

ON CONSTRUCT OF THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION IN RESPECT OF PARTICIPATORY INTEREST (SHARES)

The paper provides analysis of the legal nature and the mechanism for exercise of the right of pre-emption (right of first refusal) in respect of execution of a contract taking as an example of right of first refusal to purchase a stake in a non-public corporation, and also examines the boundaries of parties’ autonomy and freedom of contract in this area. The author comes to the conclusion that the key elements of the construction of the right of pre-emption are the transformation powers that belong to the right holder. The author also demonstrates that, notwithstanding their dominance in Russian law, the views, which suggest that exercise of the right of pre-emption leads to “transfer of rights and obligations of a purchaser” (the translative theory), should be rejected. These views must be replaced with the constitutive theory, according to which exercise of the right of pre-emption results in a new contract between the right holder and the seller (as a general rule, on the same terms that were agreed between the seller and the purchaser).

14. Estate Contracts, Options to Purchase, and Rights of Pre-Emption

This chapter addresses estate contracts, options to purchase, and rights of pre-emption. ‘Estate contracts’ is a generic term given to contracts relating to the intended transfer of estates in land, i.e. the freehold and leasehold estate. The consequence of an estate contract varies depending upon the kind of interest which it is intended will be created and the precise nature of the agreement reached between the parties. This can lead to some conceptual difficulties. Meanwhile, options to purchase and rights of pre-emption are two kinds of estate contract. Both involve an agreement between a freehold or leasehold proprietor and a potential purchaser in relation to that estate. An option to purchase entitles its holder to demand that the proprietor sell that estate to them, usually within a defined time period, for a pre-determined or determinable price. The right of pre-emption is, in effect, a right of first refusal. It does not allow its holder to force the proprietor of the estate in land to sell, but means that if that person does decide to sell, it must first be offered to the holder of the pre-emption right.

Konsekwencje naruszenia prawa pierwokupu lub prawa pierwszeństwa nabycia praw udziałowych

Determination of the legal consequences of transfer of shares performed with violation of the pre-emptive right or right of first refusal raises serious controversy in Polish jurisprudence and legal doctrine. This article concludes that if these kind of restrictions on transferability of shares are stipulated in the articles of association or statute of the company, their breach results in suspended ineffectiveness of such action against third parties. On the other hand, violation of the pre-emptive right or right of first refusal provided outside the company’s corporate act effects, in principle, in the inter partes consequences in the form of liability for damages. The complexity of the interpretation of relevant norms concerning the subject matter requires raising de lege ferenda postulate, the purpose of which is to facilitate the determination of the nature of pre-emptive right or right of first refusal on transfer of shares and the consequences of their infringement.

PRAWO PIERWOKUPU A SĄDOWY PODZIAŁ MAJĄTKU WSPÓLNEGO MAŁŻONKÓW

RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AND THE DIVISION OF JOINT MATRIMONIAL PROPERTYSummaryThe aim of this article is to answer the question whether a court ruling awarding a particular asset of the joint matrimonial property to one of the spouses automatically means the expiry of the right of first refusal. The author’s position is that neither the contractual nor the statutory right of first refusal is extinguished by a court ruling on the division of the spouses’ jointly held assets. A legal decision whereby a particular asset is awarded to one of the spouses does not mean the cessation of the right of first refusal. The court conducting the division of joint matrimonial assets does not rule on the spouse’ liabilities or debts. Hence spouses who share liabilities cannot apply to a court to have the right of first refusal revoked.