Suchergebnisse

Minority protection is an important, though difficult, issue in company law, and a subtle balance must be struck between the legitimate interests of the majority and minority shareholder(s). The rules on minority protection in the context of the Cross-border Mergers Directive, which was recently adopted and should have been transposed into Member States' national law towards the end of 2007, are examined in this paper. The authors analyse how minority shareholders are protected within the scope of this Directive and how some of the Member States (such as Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands) have transposed or will transpose some of these protective provisions. The different levels of minority protection (information rights, consultation rights, rights to challenge majority decisions and other specific rights) are considered, as well as which types of shareholders can benefit from such protection, and why they should be afforded protection. With respect to the last question, the authors conclude that the change in corporate law encountered especially by the shareholders of the disappearing company seems to be the major rationale underlying the European legislator's decision to introduce minority protection (but not oblige Member States to do so). The authors submit that this reflects too narrow a vision on the need for minority protection because it ignores the fact that the change of the corporate form as a consequence of a merger is in itself sufficient rationale for protecting minority shareholders. It remains somewhat of a mystery as to why the European legislator, while confirming that a cross-border merger should be subject to the same rules as a national merger, has created one possible and very vague exception to that rule.

Minority protection is an important, though difficult, issue in company law, and a subtle balance must be struck between the legitimate interests of the majority and minority shareholder(s). The rules on minority protection in the context of the Cross-border Mergers Directive, which was recently adopted and should have been transposed into Member States' national law towards the end of 2007, are examined in this paper. The authors analyse how minority shareholders are protected within the scope of this Directive and how some of the Member States (such as Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands) have transposed or will transpose some of these protective provisions. The different levels of minority protection (information rights, consultation rights, rights to challenge majority decisions and other specific rights) are considered, as well as which types of shareholders can benefit from such protection, and why they should be afforded protection. With respect to the last question, the authors conclude that the change in corporate law encountered especially by the shareholders of the disappearing company seems to be the major rationale underlying the European legislator's decision to introduce minority protection (but not oblige Member States to do so). The authors submit that this reflects too narrow a vision on the need for minority protection because it ignores the fact that the change of the corporate form as a consequence of a merger is in itself sufficient rationale for protecting minority shareholders. It remains somewhat of a mystery as to why the European legislator, while confirming that a cross-border merger should be subject to the same rules as a national merger, has created one possible and very vague exception to that rule.

The harmonisation of company law has always been on the agenda of the European Union. Besides the protection of third parties affected by business transactions, the founders had two other objectives: first, promoting freedom of establishment, and second, preventing the abuse of such freedom. In fact, the fear of the Netherlands becoming the 'Delaware of Europe'' (in terms of competition among Member States) seemed real, until, ironically, at the beginning of the 21st century, it was the privilege of the Dutch (and the Danish) state to fail in making the abuse argument before the European Court

A man for all seasons" wordt hij bij herhaling genoemd in het "Feestschrift" dat een schare goede vrienden en kennissen hem naar aanleiding van zijn emeritaat aanbiedt.00Met meer dan honderddertig zijn ze, de collega's, confraters, zielsverwanten en sympathisanten die eraan hielden Koen Geens lof te betuigen door het schrijven van een puntige bijdrage in zijn "Feestschrift". Ieder vanuit zijn invalshoek en specialisme, met als grootste gemene deler het vennootschaps- en verenigingsrecht en daaraan belendende rechtsdomeinen. Bekeken vanuit de academische wereld, het universum van balie en adviespraktijk, en de maatschappelijke ordening met de politieke arena in het middelpunt. Domeinen waar Koen Geens zijn stempel onuitwisbaar heeft gedrukt en nog steeds drukt.00Van veel markten is hij thuis. Begenadigd lesgever en spreker. Bevlogen academicus. Zakenadvocaat. Grondlegger en bezieler van een bekend Belgisch advocatenkantoor. Voorzitter. Politicus. Kamerlid. Minister. Eerst van Financiën, dan van Justitie. Familieman. Vriend.00Naast de meer dan honderddertig rechtsgeleerde bijdragen, schetst het "Feestschrift" het indrukwekkende palmares van professor emeritus Koen Geens, en geeft het een al even indrukwekkend overzicht van al wat hij decennialang bijeen geschreven heeft in tal van juridische vakbladen en boeken.