Suchergebnisse

This paper explores takeover bids in Europe in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. The search for a balance between maintaining the open market as a European achievement and the protection of national security and public order is not a new phenomenon. This search is not easy with the future FDI Regulation and will raise additional questions.The FDI Regulation became very concrete thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic: At the beginning of the crisis, the Commission presented a Communication setting out guidelines for FDI to be applied prior to the regulation.

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.

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.