Suchergebnisse

Initially, corporate law was dominated by a general principle of equality. Consequently, discrimination between partners was admitted only exceptionally. This situation, however, evolved under the combined effect of two phenomena. On the one hand, doctrine and jurisprudence have long admitted that equality between partners has only a relative scope. This one must be assessed "in concreto" and does not oppose unequal treatment between partners justified by the defense of the social interest or the existence of differences of situations. On the other hand, the legislator has gradually introduced into the law of companies many mechanisms having an inegalitarian function. This was the case with the old share classes, namely the priority shares, those with priority dividend without voting rights, investment certificates or voting certificates. The same is true of preferred stocks and special advantages. All these devices have the vocation of breaking the equality between partners, by providing to some of them, privileges not shared by others. However, the law largely allows, or allowed their institutionalization. In view of these observations, it became legitimate to question the existence of a right to discriminate between partners.Therefore, the ambition of this study is to demonstrate that inequality between partners enjoys general validity in companies. Clearly to construct a definition, to determine its legal foundations, the possibilities and limits, and the procedure for its creation and its disappearance, these were the elements that needed to be reflected in law in order to allow practitioners to approach discrimination between partners with more serenity. ; Initialement, le droit des sociétés était dominé par un principe général d'égalité. Par conséquent, la discrimination entre associés n'était admise que de façon exceptionnelle. Cette situation a, toutefois, évolué sous l'effet conjugué de deux phénomènes. D'une part, doctrine et jurisprudence s'accordent depuis longtemps à admettre que l'égalité entre ...

Initially, corporate law was dominated by a general principle of equality. Consequently, discrimination between partners was admitted only exceptionally. This situation, however, evolved under the combined effect of two phenomena. On the one hand, doctrine and jurisprudence have long admitted that equality between partners has only a relative scope. This one must be assessed "in concreto" and does not oppose unequal treatment between partners justified by the defense of the social interest or the existence of differences of situations. On the other hand, the legislator has gradually introduced into the law of companies many mechanisms having an inegalitarian function. This was the case with the old share classes, namely the priority shares, those with priority dividend without voting rights, investment certificates or voting certificates. The same is true of preferred stocks and special advantages. All these devices have the vocation of breaking the equality between partners, by providing to some of them, privileges not shared by others. However, the law largely allows, or allowed their institutionalization. In view of these observations, it became legitimate to question the existence of a right to discriminate between partners.Therefore, the ambition of this study is to demonstrate that inequality between partners enjoys general validity in companies. Clearly to construct a definition, to determine its legal foundations, the possibilities and limits, and the procedure for its creation and its disappearance, these were the elements that needed to be reflected in law in order to allow practitioners to approach discrimination between partners with more serenity. ; Initialement, le droit des sociétés était dominé par un principe général d'égalité. Par conséquent, la discrimination entre associés n'était admise que de façon exceptionnelle. Cette situation a, toutefois, évolué sous l'effet conjugué de deux phénomènes. D'une part, doctrine et jurisprudence s'accordent depuis longtemps à admettre que l'égalité entre associés n'a qu'une portée relative. Celle-ci doit s'apprécier in concreto et ne s'oppose pas aux traitements inégalitaires entre associés justifiés par la défense de l'intérêt social ou l'existence de différences de situations. D'autre part, le législateur a progressivement introduit dans le droit des sociétés de nombreux mécanismes ayant une fonction inégalitaire. Il en était ainsi des anciennes catégories d'actions, en l'occurrence les actions de priorité, celles à dividende prioritaire sans droit de vote, des certificats d'investissement ou de vote. Il en est de même des actions de préférence et des avantages particuliers. Tous ces dispositifs ont pour vocation de rompre l'égalité entre associés, en procurant à certains, des privilèges non partagés par les autres. Pourtant, la loi permet, ou permettait, largement leur instauration. Au regard de ces observations, il était devenu légitime de s'interroger sur l'existence d'un droit de discriminer entre les associés.L'ambition de cette étude est de démontrer que l'inégalité entre associés bénéficie d'une validité générale dans les sociétés. En clair, construire une définition, déterminer ses fondements juridiques, les possibilités et les limites ainsi que la procédure de sa création et de sa disparition, tels sont les éléments qui devaient être apportés à la réflexion juridique afin de permettre aux praticiens d'aborder la discrimination entre associés avec plus de sérénité.