| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:Pravna analiza prepovedane finančne asistence : magistrsko delo
Authors:ID Kreitner, Luka (Author)
ID Prostor, Jerneja (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf MAG_Kreitner_Luka_2024.pdf (1,40 MB)
MD5: DC0C682CCED18D25F1B8348A9D9F2C1A
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Master's thesis/paper
Typology:2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Prepovedana finančna asistenca je institut korporacijskega prava, katerega začetki segajo vse v drugo polovico 19. stoletja. Prvič je bila uzakonjena v britanskem pravu, kot odgovor na špekulativne prevzeme gospodarskih družb v obdobju po koncu prve svetovne vojne. Sledila je huda gospodarska kriza, ki je imela za posledico veliko število propadlih podjetij. Izkazalo se je, da lahko finančna asistenca privede do najhujših zlorab in izkrivljanj trga. Na pobudo Združenega kraljestva je prepoved finančne asistence uzakonila tudi Evropska skupnost leta 1976 v t.i. drugi kapitalski direktivi. Evropsko pravo je skozi sprejem nove zakonodaje dalo možnost državam članicam za omilitev prepovedi finančne asistence. Republika Slovenija te možnosti ni izkoristila in je finančno asistenco kot tako v slovenskem pravnem redu popolnoma prepovedala. V pravni teoriji in sodni praksi prihaja do razhajanj v stališčih, kakšen je namen instituta prepovedi finančne asistence. Konkretneje ali gre za varovalko, ki preprečuje zaobid pravil o pridobivanju lastnih delnic s strani družbe ali gre za povsem samostojen institut v korporacijskem pravu in bi ga kot takega morali obravnavati. V novejši literaturi in sodnih odločbah lahko zasledimo, da prevladuje slednje stališče. V korporacijskem pravu velja splošno načelo, da delniška družba praviloma ne more biti delničar lastne družbe. Slovenski zakonodajalec se je odločil, da kršitev določbe o prepovedi finančne asistence pomeni ničnost takšnih pravnih poslov. Določba je zastavljena zelo široko, tako da zajame prav vse posle, ki bi kakorkoli pomenili dajanje takšne finančne podpore, čemur pritrjuje tudi slovenska pravna teorija. V kolikor bi družba dala finančno asistenco v nasprotju z zakonom, ji ta priznava korporacijskopravni zahtevek, s katerim lahko družba od delničarja ali tretje osebe, kateremu je namenila finančno asistenco le-to zahteva nazaj. Korporacijskopravnemu zahtevku se priznava samostojna in posebna narava v korporacijskem pravu, kar pomeni, da je močnejši od vseh morebitnih zahtevkov, ki jih priznava obligacijsko pravo. V koncernskih povezavah družb veljajo zakonska pravila, za katere bi lahko sklepali, da lahko z njimi prepoved finančne asistence zaobidemo (npr. pravilo o t.i. »koncernskem privilegiju«). Slovenski zakonodajalec se je pri sprejemanju slovenskega zakona o gospodarskih družbah zgledoval po nemškem zakonu o gospodarskih družbah, kar pripelje do posledice, da sta si ureditvi dokaj podobni, ampak z nekaterimi velikimi razlikami. Medtem, ko nemško pravo dovoljuje finančno asistenco v pogodbenem koncernu, pa naša takšne možnosti ni predvidela. V slovenskem pravu ostaja finančna asistenca strogo prepovedana, kar pomeni, da prepovedi ne morejo zaobiti niti koncernske povezave družb.
Keywords:načelo ohranitve osnovnega kapitala, prepoved vračila vložka, vrnitev prepovedanih plačil, finančna asistenca, zaobidni posli, fiktivni posli, ničnost pravnega posla, koncernsko pravo, koncernski privilegij, korporacijski vrnitveni zahtevek, prevzemi, pridobivanje lastnih delnic, varstvo upnikov, delniška družba, družba z omejeno odgovornostjo
Place of publishing:Maribor
Place of performance:Maribor
Publisher:L. Kreitner
Year of publishing:2024
Number of pages:1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (60 str.))
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-87720 New window
UDC:334.72:347.72.033(043.3)
COBISS.SI-ID:193721091 New window
Publication date in DKUM:24.04.2024
Views:306
Downloads:97
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
Copy citation
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and Share


Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Licences

License:CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Link:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Description:The most restrictive Creative Commons license. This only allows people to download and share the work for no commercial gain and for no other purposes.
Licensing start date:25.03.2024

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Legal analysis of prohibited financial assistance
Abstract:Prohibited financial assistance is a concept in corporate law with origins dating back to the second half of the 19th century. It was initially codified in British law as a response to speculative takeovers of companies in the period following the end of World War I. The severe economic crisis that followed caused numerous companies to fail. Financial assistance was found to open doors to severe abuses and distortions of the shareholder’s market. In 1976, prompted by the United Kingdom, the prohibition of financial assistance was implemented by the European Communities and enshrined in the so-called Second Company Law Directive. Through the adoption and development of new European legislation, member states were given the option to ease the prohibition of financial assistance. The Republic of Slovenia chose not to exercise this option and completely prohibited financial assistance in its legal system. In legal theory and judicial practice, there are divergent views on the purpose of the prohibition of financial assistance, specifically whether it serves as a safeguard that prevents the circumvention of rules regarding the acquisition of own shares by the company or if it is an entirely independent legal rule in corporate law. Recent literature and court decisions tend to favour the latter. In corporate law, the general principle is that a joint-stock company cannot typically be a shareholder in its own company. The Slovenian legislator decided that a violation of the prohibition of financial assistance renders such legal transactions void. The provision is formulated very broadly, encompassing all transactions that in any way constitute forbidden financial support in the eyes of the law. Such a view is supported by Slovenian legal theory and legal scholars. If a company provides financial assistance by violating the law, it is entitled to a special corporate claim. This claim allows the company to claim back in full any financial assistance that was provided to the shareholder or other third party. The corporate claim has an independent and distinct nature in corporate law, meaning it is stronger than any other claims provided by the law of obligations. In group of companies (also known as “concern”), legal rules apply that might facilitate a way to circumvent the rule of the prohibition of financial assistance (e.g., the rule of the so-called “concern privilege”). When the Slovenian Companies Act was being drafted, the Slovenian legislator drew inspiration from the German Companies Act. This inevitably led to legal similarities but with some significant differences. While German law permits financial assistance within a contractual concern, Slovenian law, on the other hand, does not. In Slovenian law, financial assistance remains strictly prohibited, meaning that even concern relationships between companies cannot bypass the prohibition.
Keywords:principle of preservation of share capital, prohibition of return of investment, return of prohibited payments, financial assistance, circumvention transactions, fictitious transactions, nullity of legal transactions, law of concerns, concern privilege, corporate recovery claim, takeovers, acquisition of own shares, creditor protection, joint-stock company, limited liability company


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica