Italia – Durata della società a responsabilità limitata e recesso del socio

6 Dicembre 2017

  • Italia
  • Agenzia
  • Diritto societario

Bisogna prendere atto che il classico aforisma societas delinquere non potest è stato recentemente smentito da diverse legislazioni che hanno introdotto alcuni casi di responsabilità penale delle persone giuridiche.

Senza entrare nell’analisi dei previgenti regimi legislativi, incentriamo questo articolo sul territorio spagnolo, soffermandoci sulla riforma del Codice Penale realizzata dalla Ley Orgánica 1/2015, ottimo  esempio di imputazione della responsabilità penale alle persone giuridiche. Le fonti essenziali da prendere in considerazione sono: (i) la norma per eccellenza , ossia l’art. 31 bis del Codice Penale spagnolo; (ii) i criteri stabiliti nella Circolare nº 1/2016 della Fiscalía General del Estado; (iii) alcune sentenze rilevanti, come le n° 154 e 221 del 2016 del Tribunal Supremo.

Considerato quanto precede, focalizzeremo l’attenzione sulle più rilevanti misure societarie di prevenzione, che hanno lo scopo di annullare o quantomeno minimizzare il rischio che, in seguito alla commissione di un reato da parte di un dirigente e/o lavoratore,  la responsabilità penale possa essere imputata a una persona giuridica

Dal punto di vista soggettivo, l’articolo 31 bis del Codice Penale spagnolo stabilisce che la persona giuridica è responsabile dei reati commessi da parte dei suoi rappresentanti legali o dei membri dell’organo dell’amministrazione, così come da parte di quelle persone che sono sottoposte all’autorità di questi soggetti.

A tal proposito, è importante sottolineare che il secondo comma del medesimo articolo libera la persona giuridica dalla responsabilità penale se ha adempiuto ai seguenti obblighi:

  1. L’organo dell’amministrazione ha adottato ed eseguito modelli di organizzazione, gestione, vigilanza e controllo, al fine di prevenire la commissione di reati o ridurne in maniera significativa il rischio.
  2. La persona giuridica ha applicato i meccanismi necessari di supervisione del funzionamento del modello di prevenzione, senza omissioni o inottemperanze alle funzioni di vigilanza e controllo.

Gli strumenti di prevenzione sono il frutto di uno studio dettagliato dell’impresa e delle sue esigenze specifiche. Così, affinché le misure di compliace non restino semplici strumenti astratti, è molto importante che esista un solido legame tra queste e la cultura organizzativa dell’impresa. In altre parole, le imprese devono applicare le misure adatte alla sua stessa organizzazione.

Affinché il programma di compliance abbia esito, allora, dev’essere personalizzato e adattato all’impresa in questione, e deve includere sia i meccanismi che permettono all’impresa di prevenire le pratiche non desiderate, che gli strumenti necessari per individuare le pratiche di corruzione e rispondere tempestivamente.

La Fiscalía General del Estado – attraverso una Circolare – ha fornito un’interpretazione autentica dell’articolo 31 bis del Codice Penale, precisando che quest’ultimo non istituisce una responsabilità diretta per le persone giuridiche, ma afferma che le persone giuridiche possono essere responsabili dei reati commessi dalle persone fisiche.

Esiste, quindi, l’assoluta necessità che le persone giuridiche adottino una serie di decisioni che, seppur minime, evidenzino la sincera vocazione e volontà di prevenire e ostacolare, ove possibile, la commissione di reati da parte di qualunque lavoratore da cui possa derivare una “responsabilità penale”. È in questo ambito che ottiene una speciale rilevanza la nomina di un “compliance officer”, che dovrà disporre di un’indipendenza sufficiente per garantire l’efficacia della responsabilità che assume.

Le sentenze del Tribunal Supremo menzionate in precedenza testimoniano come sarà necessario un po’ di tempo affinché i tribunali si pronuncino in senso conforme e configurino dei criteri uniformi che possano facilitare l’adozione delle misure da parte delle società. Al riguardo dobbiamo sottolineare che 7 dei 15 Magistrati del “Pleno” sentenza 154/2016 hanno espresso un voto difforme nel momento di fissare i requisiti esigibili per imputare o meno la responsabilità penale alle persone giuridiche. A titolo d’esempio, una delle decisioni su cui i Magistrati si sono divisi ha riguardato l’onere probatorio dei requisiti che liberano dalla responsabilità penale elencati dall’art. 31 bis: spetta all’accusa dimostrarne l’inesistenza o spetta all’impresa dimostrare di aver utilizzato gli strumenti adeguati e efficaci per prevenire i reati?

Nel dubbio normativo e giurisprudenziale, a nostro parere l’unica conclusione chiara e uniforme che si può dedurre da quanto detto finora è la seguente. È di vitale importanza che l’organo dell’amministrazione delle imprese che realizzano attività particolarmente esposte al rischio di reati determini i criteri di compliance della migliore portata possibile.

Otre a questi criteri bisognerebbe inoltre stabilire misure di condotta, codici etici e di buona condotta e un procedimento di controllo che rendano l’impresa adempiente rispetto agli obblighi previsti dalla legge. Ciò tutelerebbe dirigenti e organi di amministrazione rispetto a eventuali irregolarità e violazioni penali realizzate dai lavoratori.

Lo scorso 7 novembre, con la massima n. 170, la Commissione Società del Consiglio Notarile di Milano ha esaminato due fattispecie di aumento di capitale molto discusse negli ultimi anni: si tratta degli aumenti di capitale con earn out e con bonus share.

L’esito dell’esame della Commissione Società è stato positivo nei confronti di questi meccanismi innovativi. È stata, infatti, confermata la legittimità di delibere di aumenti di capitale con conferimento d’azienda in cui si concordava l’emissione di un ulteriore numero di azioni, sospensivamente condizionata al verificarsi di determinate condizioni generalmente relative al raggiungimento di obiettivi economici, prestabiliti negozialmente, da parte della società dell’azienda conferita.

La seconda ipotesi oggetto di analisi della Commissione Società riguarda aumenti di capitale in cui è premiata la “fedeltà” di chi compra il pacchetto azionario e non lo rivende per un certo periodo di tempo, concordato negozialmente. Al realizzarsi della condizione sospensiva temporale la società dovrà assegnare ulteriori azioni, a titolo di “bonus”, a chi abbia mantenuto il pacchetto azionario acquistato in sede di aumento di capitale.

Queste novità sono certamente strumenti interessanti che arricchiscono il panorama offerto agli operatori del mercato e che meritano di essere prese in considerazione in sede di negoziazione di nuovi investimenti, ma è necessario non distogliere l’attenzione dal rispetto delle regole di diritto societario poste a tutela e garanzia della corretta formazione del capitale sociale.

Nelle S.p.a. con azioni con valore nominale e nelle S.r.l. è necessario assicurarsi che in sede di delibera del secondo aumento di capitale – ovvero quello in cui vengono emesse le azioni earn out e quelle bonus – vi siano adeguate riserve a copertura del capitale.

Il notaio, dunque, nel caso di aumento del capitale con earn out, è tenuto a verificare che nella redazione della relazione giurata ai sensi degli articoli 2343 o 2343-ter c.c., l’esperto attesti che il valore dei beni conferiti sia almeno pari al valore complessivo dell’aumento di capitale, incluso il valore delle azioni emesse al verificarsi della condizione sospensiva intrinseca nelle azioni earn out.

Le società devono dunque “far quadrare i conti” e questo rende più elaborato il processo di introduzione dei meccanismi in esame.

Bonus shares e azioni earn out sono di più semplice utilizzo nelle società con azioni senza valore nominale: in tali società, infatti, non sarà necessario procedere con ulteriori aumenti di capitale, essendo possibile emettere nuove azioni con la riduzione della parità contabile delle azioni già emesse.

Siamo di fronte a nuovi strumenti di indiscusso interesse per investitori e professionisti che saranno sicuramente oggetto di ulteriore studio e di un sempre maggiore utilizzo nella realtà economica.

L’autore di questo articolo è Giovannella Condò.

Limited Liability Company (LLC) is the most popular company form in Poland and is often chosen by foreign investors to access the Polish market for several reasons, such as: low initial share capital; limited liability; flexibility and simplicity in management; no social security contributions, etc.

When foreign investors buy minority shares in an existing LLC it is always a good idea to reflect the main points of the agreements between the parties in the corporate documents. In this brief post I will list seven common problems connected with the protection of minority shareholders, offering some possible solutions.

Problem 1: Polish law provides for a very basic protection for the minority shareholders.

Solution: if you want to have a strong position you should draft properly the Article of Association and preferably conclude also a side Shareholders’ Agreement.

Problem 2: Polish law provides no requirement related to the quorum of the Shareholders’ Meeting. In other words, if the Shareholders’ Meeting is properly convened, it may deliberate and adopt valid resolutions regardless of the numbers of shareholders present.

Solution: if you want the Shareholders’ Meeting to be valid only if a certain quorum is present, this should be included in the Articles of Association.

Problem 3: Polish law provides that the Shareholders’ Meeting resolutions are generally adopted with a simple majority (50% +1). Only some strategic matters it requires a qualified majority of 2/3 or 3/4. Thus the shareholder who owns at least 50% of shares dominates the company.

There may be two solutions to this situation.

Solution A: if the minority shareholder wishes to have a true influence on the company’s life, he should introduce a qualified majority for the validity of all Shareholders’ Meeting resolutions or of some of them (e.g. related to contracts of a significant value, to employment, to investments etc.).

Solution B: the minority shareholder may also negotiate that his/her shares will enjoy preference of votes. For example, each share may entitle to 2 votes. In such a way, his/her quota will have more influence. 

Problem 4: According to Polish law, the Management Board Members are appointed by a resolution of the Shareholders’ Meeting, so usually the majority shareholder decides who will manage the company.

Solution: if the minority shareholder wishes to be sure that he will have real influence of the company’s activity, he may negotiate a clause of the Article of Association giving him a personal right to nominate and revoke one (or more) members of the Management Board.

Problem 5: Under Polish law the transfer of shares in an LLC is free, so the minority shareholder risks that the majority shareholder sells all his/her shares to a third party.

Solution: minority shareholder shall negotiate restrictions to the sale of shares. Restrictions may be of different kind, covering specific shareholders needs, such as: request the consent of the company for the sale (with possible recourse to ordinary jurisdiction); right of first refusal, etc.

One last tip: it is recommendable to conclude the shareholder’s agreement in a written form with signatures certified by a public notary. It is particularly important if this agreement contains clauses such as put option, call option, priority right, as written form is necessary to enforce the transfer of shares before the court. The lifetime of the shareholders’ agreement should be at least as long as the shareholders own the shares in the company. It may, however, extend beyond the moment when a shareholder leaves the company, e.g. with regard to the non-competition clause or confidentiality clause.

Located between Central and Southeast Europe, Croatia is often considered a “small country for great vacation”, with its amazing Adriatic see beaches overlooking Mediterranean Sea. Ok, this is definitively true, but Croatia is also an interesting market for starting and developing a lucrative business. Its favorable location (Slovenia, Hungary, Austria and Italy are just short drive away from Zagreb, and Munich is only 5 hours by car away) and its legal framework, fully harmonized with the Community acquis after the entry into the European Union (July, 1st, 2013) make Croatia an attractive “beach” not only for tourists, but for foreign investors too!

In this post we will try to explain in a nutshell how to establish a Limited Liability Company (in Croatian: društvo sa ograničenom odgovornošću), the easiest and most common way to do business in Croatia.

The most common form of company in Croatia

Croatian company law allows foreign investors to establish businesses in Croatia under the same conditions as Croatian citizens, and generally the Limited Liability is the company form most chosen due to its simplicity and flexibility, which make it attractive for almost all types of businesses.

Limited Liability Company needs to be established with an initial capital of at least 20.000,00 kn (approx. 2.700,00 EUR). The members of the company establish their relationship through a partnership agreement, or, if there is only one founder, through a foundation statement. This is the first step to set up the company.

Company name

The company – according to Croatian law – operates and participates in legal transactions only with its company name, which must be in Croatian language and in Latin alphabet. Some foreign words can be used only if: (i) they constitute the name of the member of the company; (ii) its trademark is protected in Croatia; (iii) those words are common in Croatian language (for example: “trade”, “consulting”, “investment”…); (iv) there is no corresponding word in Croatian language; (v) or it is about Latin language. This means that English words can be inserted in the company name only if they are common in Croatian language. Other limitations regarding the name are exclusiveness (in one Court Register there can be only one company with the same name) and clarity (the name shall not create confusion about: the corporate purpose, the corporate identity or the relations with other companies). Lastly, it is not allowed to use denomination of countries, international organizations and personal names.

The necessary documentation

Hereinafter the list of documents required to set-up a Limited Liability Company:

  • articles of association, which can be signed through a power of attorney;
  • photocopy of the shareholders passport;
  • specimen signatures of legal representatives;
  • some additional documents required by the registration office (e.g.: acceptance of office).

Please note that businesses in Croatia are officially classified on the base of the corporate purpose, which needs to be explicit in the article of association.

Registration

The last step before the company can begin its commercial activity is the inclusion in the Register of Companies, kept by the competent Commercial Court.

It is finally good to specify that all the activity necessary for the establishment of a company in Croatia must be carried out with the help of a public notary and, after the registration, all limited liability companies in Croatia must submit annual financial statements regarding their commercial activity and all their transactions.

Like in other jurisdictions, in Cyprus the term ‘joint venture’ connotes business arrangements that involve the pooling of resources, knowledge and experiences of the participants for the purposes of accomplishing or implementing a specific task, whether this is a particular project or business activity. There is no specific statute governing joint ventures yet in practice such arrangements take one of the following structures.

  1. Corporate Joint Venture

The cooperation materialises through the setting up of a legal entity separate from its participants with constitutional documents governing its operation and the relations between the participants and the entity in addition to the statutory provisions of the Cyprus Company Law, Cap 113. A shareholders’ agreement is typically executed operating in parallel. It is possible that further agreements such as licences for use of intellectual property etc. will be signed. This vehicle might be more appropriate where it is expected that the joint venture will need to enter into contractual arrangements with third parties due to the limited liability benefits. The termination is usually addressed in a shareholders’ agreement which specifies events of termination e.g. change of control, insolvency of a participant, attainment of objective etc. as well as the relevant processes e.g. sale of shares among participants, liquidation etc.

Taxation of income occurs at the level of the company. Participants are not taxed on dividends in Cyprus if they are not tax residents or if they are companies. If the company is to be taxed in Cyprus, the management and control will need to be exercised in Cyprus. Any assets, including intellectual property created by the company, become property of the new entity. The setting up of the company might be subject to notification to the competent competition authority under merger control rules. Corporate joint ventures are commonly used by international clients aiming to benefit from the network of double tax treaties maintained by Cyprus. They are also a vehicle often employed to enter the Cyprus market with the assistance of a local participant.

Advantages:

  • Limited liability; liability of participants limited to capital.
  • Participants control the company through the power of appointment of the board of directors.
  • The company is governed by the Cyprus Companies Law, Cap. 113, a statute based on English company law rules, which gives more legal certainty and familiarity for participants as well as the counterparties. The relationship is not purely contractual.
  • Tax optimisation possibilities given the low rate of corporate taxation applicable in Cyprus (at the rate of 12.5%). The numerous double tax treaties maintained by Cyprus may be exploited.

Disadvantages:

  • Less flexibility compared to the other structures due to the applicable legal framework both in terms of operation and compliance.
  • Governance and control questions might need to be addressed e.g. to deal with deadlocks.
  • Restrictions and or conditions for the transfer of shares are typically adopted.
  • Both the corporate profit and the dividends returned to participants might, under certain circumstances, be subject to taxation e.g. where participants are natural persons residing in Cyprus.

  1. Partnership Joint Venture

The relationship is governed by the relevant statute which specifies the liability of each partner depending on whether the partnership would be a general or limited partnership. In the first case, each partner has unlimited liability with the other partners for all debts and liabilities of the partnership. In the second case, only the general partner has unlimited liability; limited partners are only liable for the capital they agreed to invest but should not participate in the running of the business. The relevant statute imposes default and overriding rules governing the arrangement e.g. in relation to the termination or profit sharing. The termination of the partnership will typically be governed by the partnership agreement, but the statute also provides for specified circumstances which would apply unless the parties agree otherwise. Business assets and intellectual property contributed by each party become the property of the partnership (except if agreed otherwise) and should be exploited in accordance with the partnership agreement for the purposes of the partnership.

Partnerships are tax transparent, accordingly, taxation occurs at the level of the participants and profits and losses accrue to them. Partnerships might be subject to competition law rules prohibiting the restriction of competition. Further, the creation of a partnership might be subject to notification to the competent competition authority under merger control rules. Partnership joint ventures are regularly used for economic activities of professionals. They have also been used as a vehicle in the context of tenders (public or other).

Advantages:

  • Relatively fewer formalities apply than in the case of corporate joint ventures.
  • Registration requirements exist but no requirement for disclosure of the actual partnership agreement i.e. the constitutional document.
  • Although the partnership has no legal personality, it may sue and be sued in its own name and may trade under its name.
  • Apportionment of profits and losses on the basis of discretion.
  • Attribution of profits to the partners; not to the partnership.
  • Independent tax planning possibilities for each participant as regards losses incurred and profits earned. Wide options may be available due to the extensive network of double tax treaties maintained by Cyprus.

Disadvantages:

  • Significant powers to unlimited partners. Given the powers of partners to bind the partnership, decision-making process needs to be addressed carefully.
  • Liability comes with involvement in the management/control. Unlimited liability of general partners towards third parties. Solutions alleviating the effect of this may be possible.
  • Tax transparency may not be beneficial where the partners are natural persons as they might be taxed at higher rates. Yet with appropriate structuring this may be avoided.

  1. Contractual joint ventures

The basis of the cooperation of the participants is solely a contractual agreement between them. It is expected that such agreement will include detailed provisions regulating the rights and liabilities of the parties towards each other, the distinct role and input of each, their contributions, their share in the income generated etc. No separate legal personality is created. Business assets and intellectual property remain the property of the participant who contributed or developed them (unless of course the parties agree otherwise).

Profits and losses accrue to the participants and taxation is also incurred at the level of the participants. Such arrangements might be subject to competition law rules prohibiting the restriction of competition. Contractual joint ventures are commonly used in the context of tenders (public or other).

Advantages:

  • Governed solely by contact law thus greater flexibility as to the operation and termination. Contract law in Cyprus is based on common law principles.
  • No registration requirements.
  • Minimal formalities compared to the other possible structures.
  • No joint liability; liability towards third parties limited to own acts or omissions of each participant.
  • Independent tax planning possibilities for each participant as regards losses incurred and profits earned.

Disadvantages:

  • Lack of legal personality might cause difficulties in establishing commercial or contractual relationships with third parties.
  • Need for detailed regulation of all aspects of the cooperation in the agreement due to the lack of legal framework for the relationship; careful and skilful planning is required.
  • Depending on the facts and provisions adopted, risk of classification of the relationship as a partnership by a court with the consequence of joint liability.

  1. European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG)

A vehicle established and governed predominantly by European law (Council Regulation 2137/85) instead of national law. Specific purposes for EEIGs apply i.e. to facilitate or develop the economic activities of the members to enable them to improve their own results. In that context the activities of EEIGs must be related to the economic activities of the members but not replace them. The purpose is not to make profits for the EEIG itself. EEIGs are governed by a contract between their members and Council Regulation 2137/85. They have capacity, in their own name, to have rights and obligations of all kinds, to contract or accomplish other legal acts as well as to sue or be sued. There is unlimited joint liability of the participants for the debts and liabilities of the EEIG but the exclusion or restriction of liability of one or more members for a particular debt or liability is possible if it is specifically agreed between the third party and the EEIG. EEIGs enjoy tax transparency. Profits or losses are taxable at the hands of the participants.

Advantages:

  • Established under European law; EEGIs might be ideal for alliances of firms in different member states of the European Union for joint promotion of activities.
  • Relatively fewer formalities apply than in the case of corporate joint ventures though there are registration requirements.
  • Tax transparency.

Disadvantages:

  • Managers bind EEIGs as regards third parties, even if their acts do not fall within the objects (unless the third party had knowledge).
  • Unlimited liability of participants.
  • More limited scope for use due to the statutory purposes dictated.

Which option is the most appropriate and or efficient in terms of structuring in a particular case depends on the facts at hand and the actual needs of the participants. The different factors need to be carefully examined with the help of experts so that the most suitable solution is adopted.

Come per tutti i contratti di durata, anche per le società a responsabilità limitata (s.r.l.) la legge italiana prevede la possibilità per il socio di recedere.

L’articolo 2473 del codice civile riconosce al socio il diritto di recedere, oltre che nei casi espressamente previsti nell’atto costitutivo, anche quando lo stesso non abbia consentito al cambiamento dell’oggetto sociale o del tipo di società, alla sua fusione o scissione, alla revoca dello stato di liquidazione, al trasferimento della sede all’estero, alla eliminazione di una o più cause di recesso previste dall’atto costitutivo e al compimento di operazioni che comportano una sostanziale modificazione dell’oggetto sociale determinato nell’atto costitutivo o dei diritti particolari attribuiti al socio ai sensi dell’art. 2468 c.c.

In aggiunta alle ipotesi sopra elencate, il diritto di recesso può essere altresì esercitato quando:

  • l’atto costitutivo preveda l’intrasferibilità della quota o subordini il suo trasferimento al mero gradimento degli organi sociali (art. 2469 codice civile);
  • sia deliberato l’aumento di capitale sociale con emissione di nuove quote in favore di terzi (art. 2481 bis codice civile);
  • vengano introdotte, siano soppresse o modificate in maniera importante eventuali clausole compromissorie contenute nell’atto costitutivo (art. 36 D.Lg. 5/2003);
  • la società capogruppo sia stata condannata ai sensi dell’art. 2497 quater codice civile.

Oltre alle ipotesi appena elencate, resta comunque sempre valida la regola generale, cristallizzata nella disposizione contenuta nel secondo comma dell’art. 2473 del codice civile, per cui il socio può sempre recedere, dando un preavviso di 180 giorni (o più, se diversamente disposto dall’atto costitutivo), quando la società sia stabilita a tempo indeterminato.

A lungo si è discusso, e tuttora si continua a discutere, della possibilità per il socio di ricorrere a tale ipotesi di recesso ad nutum quando la società abbia un termine ben determinato, ma comunque eccedente la normale durata della vita umana.

Sulla questione la giurisprudenza non ha mancato di sottolineare come una durata della società superiore a quella media della vita umana non possa che comportare l’applicazione della disciplina prevista per le società contratte a tempo indeterminato.

La Cassazione, con la pronuncia n. 9662 del 22 aprile 2013, ha, in particolare, riconosciuto l’assimilabilità di una società costituita con durata fino al 2100 ad una società con durata illimitata, precisando che, in presenza di un termine fissato in epoca così lontana nel tempo, tanto da superare la prospettiva di vita della persona fisica e di operatività di un soggetto collettivo, debbano trovare spazio le ragioni che hanno portato il legislatore, che ha sempre guardato con sfavore ai vincoli perpetui, a prevedere il recesso ad nutum per le società contratte a tempo indeterminato.

La previsione di un termine di durata del soggetto collettivo ha, secondo i giudici di legittimità, la funzione di stabilire se l’aspettativa di vita dell’ente sia congrua rispetto al progetto che con esso si intende perseguire.

La mancata previsione di un termine di durata viene, perciò, ricollegata all’intrinseca perpetuità del progetto imprenditoriale o, in alternativa, alla difficoltà di stabilire a priori il tempo necessario per giungere al conseguimento dell’oggetto sociale.

Ne consegue, pertanto, che fissare un termine per la durata della società in un momento eccessivamente lontano nel tempo, potrebbe impedire di ricostruire quale sia stata l’effettiva volontà delle parti del contratto sociale nella scelta tra società contratta a tempo determinato e società contratta a tempo indeterminato.

Non potrebbe, quindi, escludersi che l’indicazione di una durata spropositata rispetto alla vita dei soci o rispetto all’oggetto sociale che s’intende perseguire abbia, in realtà, un intento elusivo degli effetti che si produrrebbero con una dichiarazione esplicita di durata indeterminata, che potrebbe essere corretto solo con un intervento interpretativo che garantisca al socio le tutele previste dall’ordinamento con riferimento alle società con durata illimitata.

La linea portata avanti dalla Cassazione è stata di recente seguita anche dalla giurisprudenza di merito.        

In particolare, le sezioni specializzate in materia di impresa del Tribunale di Roma (sentenza del 22 ottobre 2015) e del Tribunale di Torino (pronuncia del 5 maggio 2017), hanno riconosciuto il diritto di recesso con preavviso con riferimento a società con termine al 2100, considerando una simile durata sostanzialmente illimitata.

Nello specifico, il collegio piemontese ha fatto interamente proprie le argomentazioni della Corte di Cassazione, applicando il principio secondo cui devono considerarsi costituite a tempo indeterminato, non solo le s.r.l. con durata eccedente la normale vita umana, ma anche le s.r.l. che siano costituite per un termine particolarmente lungo, tale per cui debba ritenersi superato l’orizzonte temporale ragionevolmente ricollegabile al raggiungimento dello scopo della società.

L’orientamento giurisprudenziale che va, quindi, affermandosi impone agli operatori del diritto di prestare particolare attenzione all’elemento della durata temporale delle società a responsabilità limitata, onde evitare un’applicazione più ampia e generalizzata, rispetto a quanto desiderato, delle tutele riconosciute ai soci di s.r.l. contratte a tempo indeterminato.

L’autore di questo articolo è Giovanni Izzo.

Directive (EU) 2017/1132 “relating to certain aspects of company law”, entered into force on July 20, 2017, lays the foundations for a fully harmonized European company law. The European Parliament and the Council intend to create the conditions to effectively promote the fulfillment of the freedom of establishment and of the freedom to conduct business as set out by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Charter of Nice. This process of consolidation has started in 2012 by the Action Plan, which was the fruit of the public consultation on the European company law and corporate governance aiming at “a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies”.

The Directive operates in two directions: on one hand, it aims at streamlining the existing legislations consolidating – and repealing – six previous Directives on European company law:

– Directive n. 82/891/EEC concerning the division of public limited liability companies;

– Directive n. 89/666/EEC concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State;

– Directive n. 2005/56/EC on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies;

– Directive n. 2009/101/EC on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent,

– Directive n. 2011/35/EU concerning mergers of public limited liability companies and

– Directive n. 2012/30/EU on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the incorporation of limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their share capital.

The Annex IV includes a correlation table linking the articles of the consolidated Directives with the new one.

New rules are directed in particular to coordinate safeguards and guarantees that must be provided – as well as the information that must be disclosed – to shareholders and third parties in order to the make them equivalent throughout the Union. As matter of fact, the recitals of the Directive emphasise the need for specific harmonised safeguards to be in place, especially with respect to limited liability companies, notably because of their frequent cross-border business and their predominant feature in the economy of the Member States, more dynamic over last decades.

To date, due to the lack of a uniform discipline, there are indeed 28 different national company laws, which address domestic companies as well as foreign entities operating in another Member State to the detriment – indirectly of course – of freedom of establishment for companies, which, according to art. 54.1 of the TFEU, are to “be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States”.

The Directive consists of 168 articles, four Annexes and three titles that encompass different themes: from the incorporation of public limited liability companies, to companies’ representation, companies registers, branches of companies based in a Member State although govern by the law of another, capital requirements and even mergers (domestic and cross-border) or divisions of companies.

In more detail, the main innovations introduced by the Directive concern:

The incorporation of public limited companies, where the articles of incorporation and the articles of association shall be drawn up and certified in due legal form in all Member States whose laws do not provide for pre-emptive administrative or judicial control at the time the company is actually incorporated.

The implementation of a central companies register – resulting from the interconnection of the existing national registers – that enables users to access from a single web portal.

Capital requirements for public limited liability companies, which shall be not less than euro 25,000.00.  The Commission will regularly examine the economic and monetary trends and, as the case may be, revise this requirement accordingly with a view to devoting this type of company to medium-sized/large undertakings.

Acts of the organs of the company, which shall be binding regardless of the validity of the appointment of the person serving in the organ itself and despite the fact that the acts actually carried out exceed the company’s corporate scope (on this issue, Member States may provide otherwise: for example providing that he company shall not be bound where such acts are outside the objects of the company, if it proves that the third party knew that the act was exceeding those objects or could not in view of the circumstances have been unaware of it, bearing in mind that the pre-emptive disclosure of this information will not suffice as it will always be necessary an assessment on case by case basis.

Disclosure requirements concerning branches of companies set up in another Member State’s territory. These branches will be subject to disclose information to the national register (which, in the meantime, will have become interconnected Europe-wide) in order to offer the public reliable and certain corporate information and data. In particular branches shall disclose information relating to the activity they carry out; the name and legal form of the company and the name of the branch, whenever they differ with one another; the relevant accounting documents along with the identity of the subjects authorized to represent the company in legal proceedings and deal with third parties (it will also be necessary to specify whether they have to operate jointly or not). Likewise, it will be necessary to disclose the information regarding the bankruptcy/winding-up procedures the company may go through along with the identity and the powers of the receiver or, in any case, the person in charge of the winding-up procedure/bankruptcy procedure.

Mergers and companies divisions that will have to be carried out taking into account the safeguards provided by the Directive 2001/23/EC to protect the workers of the companies involved. In this case, the Directive provides a discipline that, similarly to the companies’ incorporation procedure, requires that the document regulating the merger (deeds, contracts depending on the national rules on this matter) shall be drawn up and certified in due legal form whenever the laws of the Member State do not proved for judicial or administrative pre-emptive supervision as to the lawfulness of the whole operation. The same rule shall apply in the event the national laws required that the merger project is approved by the general shareholders meeting of the company.

In the end, if the Directive will have a partial impact on the development a uniform European company law, it is worth noticing that this consolidation project has excluded the harmonization of several further EU Directives concerning the Company Law. As far as the Italian Law it can be said as it is almost entirely compliant already with the Directive excluding those rule on capital requirement (in Italy nowadays the minimum share capital of società per azioni is fixed in 50 thousand euro) and the implementation of the European companies register and the company’s representation rules.. As it does not introduce any new provision, there is no date for the Member States to transpose it at a national level, however, the Annex III remarks the time limit to incorporate the abolished Directives into the domestic legal systems.

As clearly set forth by the Directive “this Directive is not aimed at establishing any centralised registers database storing substantive information about companies. At the stage of implementation of the system of interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers (‘the system of interconnection of registers’), only the set of data necessary for the correct functioning of the platform should be defined”. Surely, the leading aim of the Directive is to improve the certainty of the disclosure and the cross-border access to company and its brunches information, this purpose is very challenging considering the national system of the company registers which are quite fragmented at a local level.

The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

The limited liability company (“Limitada”) is the most common form of corporate organization in Brazil, being largely adopted in view of advantages. A Limitada must have at least two partners (quotaholders), natural persons or legal entities that do not need to be Brazilian or Brazilian residents.

As a consequence of such requirement, many companies adopting the limited liability form would have a second partner holding as little as one quota simply to comply with the legal requirement. In many cases, the second partner would have no interference in the business but undertakes a liability that is not under his/her/its control.

Also, the need of the second partner would imply in extra costs with documentation and bureaucratic measures, not to mention extra accounting requirements when such second partner is a legal entity.

In 2011 a new legislation was passed modifying the Brazilian Civil Code and included a new corporate form, the Limited Liability Individual Company, known as EIRELI. However, the EIRELI could not be incorporated with a legal entity as its holder, but would only be applicable to natural persons, whether Brazilians or Brazilian residents.

Finally, in May 2017, the Brazilian Civil Code was modified once again in order to allow legal entities, whether domiciled in Brazil or not, to be the sole holders of an EIRELI. However, a holder of an EIRELI can only hold a single company incorporated as an EIRELI.

A Limitada or an EIRELI are advantageous as they (i) are subject to fewer disclosure requirements as opposed to a corporation; (ii) have a simpler and less expensive organization; and (iii) corporate decisions can be taken easier and quicker.

This Article intends to present the basic organization of a Limitada and of an EIRELI, as follows:

Partners, Quotas and Capital

A Limitada must have at least two partners, natural persons or legal entities that do not need to be Brazilian or Brazilian residents. An EIRELI may have only one holder, natural person or legal entity that do not need to be Brazilian or Brazilian resident.

Each of the foreign partners or the holder, in case of EIRELI, shall name a legal representative, who lives in Brazil, with minimum powers to accept service of process and for representation before the Federal Revenue for obtaining a taxpayer number (for controlling purposes only).

There is no minimum quota capital requirement for most cases, unless a permanent visa is required or if an import license is needed (the amount of the company’s capital influences the authorized amounts for imports and exports). The Brazilian company may be financed either by the direct investment (capital) or by loans to be granted by the partners. In case of loans, thin-capitalization rules apply.

The ownership of the Limitada quotas or of the EIRELI is reflected in the company’s Articles of Association, since no certificates to that effect are issued.

The quotas of a Limitada can only be transferred by a specific amendment to the Articles of Association and must be subscribed at the time the company is established. The EIRELI’s capital may or may not be divided into quotas.

The company’s capital does not have to be paid up upon incorporation; it may be paid up within a certain period of time (i.e., two years), in Brazilian currency or goods.

Company’s name, objectives and address

The Limitada’s name has to include some words that indicate what the company’s objectives are. The names should be followed by the objectives (if more than one just the main objective) and by the specific area of the market. The EIRELI does not have to follow those requirements.

The company objectives and address must be included in the Articles of Association.

Administration

The administration structure of the Limitada and of the EIRELI must be determined in the Articles Association. In addition, in the Articles of Association, or in a separate document for the Limitada, at least one administrator (general manager) has to be nominated. The partners of the Limitada or the holder of the EIRELI are(is) free to appoint one or several of them to administer the company, as well as third parties.

The administrator has to be a Brazilian resident, meaning either a Brazilian or an expatriate bearing a permanent visa.

Partners Resolutions

Most of the partners’ resolutions in a Limitada may be taken by majority of the capital or by any higher quorum agreed upon by the partners.

Resolutions of the partners altering the Articles of Association or deciding on acquisition, merger, dissolution, and cessation of the liquidation status must be taken by three quarters of the company’s capital. A few other resolutions as the election of the administrators when the capital is not fully paid up must be taken by the totality of the company’s capital.

As the EIRELI has one single holder, all decisions are taken by the holder.

Liability of Partners and of Holder

The liability of the partners of the Limitada and of the EIRELI’s holder is limited to their respective participations in the company’s capital, except when the company’s capital is not fully paid-up. In this case, the partners are liable, with their personal assets, for the total amount of the company’s capital. Please note that in certain cases of disregard of the corporate veil, activities against the law and acts performed without proper authority, the partners or the holder may be unlimitedly responsible, especially in tax, labor and environment areas. In case of non-payment of taxes the administrator may be held co-responsible.

European company law in the making – The 2017/1132 directive

17 Ottobre 2017

  • Europa
  • Diritto societario

Bisogna prendere atto che il classico aforisma societas delinquere non potest è stato recentemente smentito da diverse legislazioni che hanno introdotto alcuni casi di responsabilità penale delle persone giuridiche.

Senza entrare nell’analisi dei previgenti regimi legislativi, incentriamo questo articolo sul territorio spagnolo, soffermandoci sulla riforma del Codice Penale realizzata dalla Ley Orgánica 1/2015, ottimo  esempio di imputazione della responsabilità penale alle persone giuridiche. Le fonti essenziali da prendere in considerazione sono: (i) la norma per eccellenza , ossia l’art. 31 bis del Codice Penale spagnolo; (ii) i criteri stabiliti nella Circolare nº 1/2016 della Fiscalía General del Estado; (iii) alcune sentenze rilevanti, come le n° 154 e 221 del 2016 del Tribunal Supremo.

Considerato quanto precede, focalizzeremo l’attenzione sulle più rilevanti misure societarie di prevenzione, che hanno lo scopo di annullare o quantomeno minimizzare il rischio che, in seguito alla commissione di un reato da parte di un dirigente e/o lavoratore,  la responsabilità penale possa essere imputata a una persona giuridica

Dal punto di vista soggettivo, l’articolo 31 bis del Codice Penale spagnolo stabilisce che la persona giuridica è responsabile dei reati commessi da parte dei suoi rappresentanti legali o dei membri dell’organo dell’amministrazione, così come da parte di quelle persone che sono sottoposte all’autorità di questi soggetti.

A tal proposito, è importante sottolineare che il secondo comma del medesimo articolo libera la persona giuridica dalla responsabilità penale se ha adempiuto ai seguenti obblighi:

  1. L’organo dell’amministrazione ha adottato ed eseguito modelli di organizzazione, gestione, vigilanza e controllo, al fine di prevenire la commissione di reati o ridurne in maniera significativa il rischio.
  2. La persona giuridica ha applicato i meccanismi necessari di supervisione del funzionamento del modello di prevenzione, senza omissioni o inottemperanze alle funzioni di vigilanza e controllo.

Gli strumenti di prevenzione sono il frutto di uno studio dettagliato dell’impresa e delle sue esigenze specifiche. Così, affinché le misure di compliace non restino semplici strumenti astratti, è molto importante che esista un solido legame tra queste e la cultura organizzativa dell’impresa. In altre parole, le imprese devono applicare le misure adatte alla sua stessa organizzazione.

Affinché il programma di compliance abbia esito, allora, dev’essere personalizzato e adattato all’impresa in questione, e deve includere sia i meccanismi che permettono all’impresa di prevenire le pratiche non desiderate, che gli strumenti necessari per individuare le pratiche di corruzione e rispondere tempestivamente.

La Fiscalía General del Estado – attraverso una Circolare – ha fornito un’interpretazione autentica dell’articolo 31 bis del Codice Penale, precisando che quest’ultimo non istituisce una responsabilità diretta per le persone giuridiche, ma afferma che le persone giuridiche possono essere responsabili dei reati commessi dalle persone fisiche.

Esiste, quindi, l’assoluta necessità che le persone giuridiche adottino una serie di decisioni che, seppur minime, evidenzino la sincera vocazione e volontà di prevenire e ostacolare, ove possibile, la commissione di reati da parte di qualunque lavoratore da cui possa derivare una “responsabilità penale”. È in questo ambito che ottiene una speciale rilevanza la nomina di un “compliance officer”, che dovrà disporre di un’indipendenza sufficiente per garantire l’efficacia della responsabilità che assume.

Le sentenze del Tribunal Supremo menzionate in precedenza testimoniano come sarà necessario un po’ di tempo affinché i tribunali si pronuncino in senso conforme e configurino dei criteri uniformi che possano facilitare l’adozione delle misure da parte delle società. Al riguardo dobbiamo sottolineare che 7 dei 15 Magistrati del “Pleno” sentenza 154/2016 hanno espresso un voto difforme nel momento di fissare i requisiti esigibili per imputare o meno la responsabilità penale alle persone giuridiche. A titolo d’esempio, una delle decisioni su cui i Magistrati si sono divisi ha riguardato l’onere probatorio dei requisiti che liberano dalla responsabilità penale elencati dall’art. 31 bis: spetta all’accusa dimostrarne l’inesistenza o spetta all’impresa dimostrare di aver utilizzato gli strumenti adeguati e efficaci per prevenire i reati?

Nel dubbio normativo e giurisprudenziale, a nostro parere l’unica conclusione chiara e uniforme che si può dedurre da quanto detto finora è la seguente. È di vitale importanza che l’organo dell’amministrazione delle imprese che realizzano attività particolarmente esposte al rischio di reati determini i criteri di compliance della migliore portata possibile.

Otre a questi criteri bisognerebbe inoltre stabilire misure di condotta, codici etici e di buona condotta e un procedimento di controllo che rendano l’impresa adempiente rispetto agli obblighi previsti dalla legge. Ciò tutelerebbe dirigenti e organi di amministrazione rispetto a eventuali irregolarità e violazioni penali realizzate dai lavoratori.

Lo scorso 7 novembre, con la massima n. 170, la Commissione Società del Consiglio Notarile di Milano ha esaminato due fattispecie di aumento di capitale molto discusse negli ultimi anni: si tratta degli aumenti di capitale con earn out e con bonus share.

L’esito dell’esame della Commissione Società è stato positivo nei confronti di questi meccanismi innovativi. È stata, infatti, confermata la legittimità di delibere di aumenti di capitale con conferimento d’azienda in cui si concordava l’emissione di un ulteriore numero di azioni, sospensivamente condizionata al verificarsi di determinate condizioni generalmente relative al raggiungimento di obiettivi economici, prestabiliti negozialmente, da parte della società dell’azienda conferita.

La seconda ipotesi oggetto di analisi della Commissione Società riguarda aumenti di capitale in cui è premiata la “fedeltà” di chi compra il pacchetto azionario e non lo rivende per un certo periodo di tempo, concordato negozialmente. Al realizzarsi della condizione sospensiva temporale la società dovrà assegnare ulteriori azioni, a titolo di “bonus”, a chi abbia mantenuto il pacchetto azionario acquistato in sede di aumento di capitale.

Queste novità sono certamente strumenti interessanti che arricchiscono il panorama offerto agli operatori del mercato e che meritano di essere prese in considerazione in sede di negoziazione di nuovi investimenti, ma è necessario non distogliere l’attenzione dal rispetto delle regole di diritto societario poste a tutela e garanzia della corretta formazione del capitale sociale.

Nelle S.p.a. con azioni con valore nominale e nelle S.r.l. è necessario assicurarsi che in sede di delibera del secondo aumento di capitale – ovvero quello in cui vengono emesse le azioni earn out e quelle bonus – vi siano adeguate riserve a copertura del capitale.

Il notaio, dunque, nel caso di aumento del capitale con earn out, è tenuto a verificare che nella redazione della relazione giurata ai sensi degli articoli 2343 o 2343-ter c.c., l’esperto attesti che il valore dei beni conferiti sia almeno pari al valore complessivo dell’aumento di capitale, incluso il valore delle azioni emesse al verificarsi della condizione sospensiva intrinseca nelle azioni earn out.

Le società devono dunque “far quadrare i conti” e questo rende più elaborato il processo di introduzione dei meccanismi in esame.

Bonus shares e azioni earn out sono di più semplice utilizzo nelle società con azioni senza valore nominale: in tali società, infatti, non sarà necessario procedere con ulteriori aumenti di capitale, essendo possibile emettere nuove azioni con la riduzione della parità contabile delle azioni già emesse.

Siamo di fronte a nuovi strumenti di indiscusso interesse per investitori e professionisti che saranno sicuramente oggetto di ulteriore studio e di un sempre maggiore utilizzo nella realtà economica.

L’autore di questo articolo è Giovannella Condò.

Limited Liability Company (LLC) is the most popular company form in Poland and is often chosen by foreign investors to access the Polish market for several reasons, such as: low initial share capital; limited liability; flexibility and simplicity in management; no social security contributions, etc.

When foreign investors buy minority shares in an existing LLC it is always a good idea to reflect the main points of the agreements between the parties in the corporate documents. In this brief post I will list seven common problems connected with the protection of minority shareholders, offering some possible solutions.

Problem 1: Polish law provides for a very basic protection for the minority shareholders.

Solution: if you want to have a strong position you should draft properly the Article of Association and preferably conclude also a side Shareholders’ Agreement.

Problem 2: Polish law provides no requirement related to the quorum of the Shareholders’ Meeting. In other words, if the Shareholders’ Meeting is properly convened, it may deliberate and adopt valid resolutions regardless of the numbers of shareholders present.

Solution: if you want the Shareholders’ Meeting to be valid only if a certain quorum is present, this should be included in the Articles of Association.

Problem 3: Polish law provides that the Shareholders’ Meeting resolutions are generally adopted with a simple majority (50% +1). Only some strategic matters it requires a qualified majority of 2/3 or 3/4. Thus the shareholder who owns at least 50% of shares dominates the company.

There may be two solutions to this situation.

Solution A: if the minority shareholder wishes to have a true influence on the company’s life, he should introduce a qualified majority for the validity of all Shareholders’ Meeting resolutions or of some of them (e.g. related to contracts of a significant value, to employment, to investments etc.).

Solution B: the minority shareholder may also negotiate that his/her shares will enjoy preference of votes. For example, each share may entitle to 2 votes. In such a way, his/her quota will have more influence. 

Problem 4: According to Polish law, the Management Board Members are appointed by a resolution of the Shareholders’ Meeting, so usually the majority shareholder decides who will manage the company.

Solution: if the minority shareholder wishes to be sure that he will have real influence of the company’s activity, he may negotiate a clause of the Article of Association giving him a personal right to nominate and revoke one (or more) members of the Management Board.

Problem 5: Under Polish law the transfer of shares in an LLC is free, so the minority shareholder risks that the majority shareholder sells all his/her shares to a third party.

Solution: minority shareholder shall negotiate restrictions to the sale of shares. Restrictions may be of different kind, covering specific shareholders needs, such as: request the consent of the company for the sale (with possible recourse to ordinary jurisdiction); right of first refusal, etc.

One last tip: it is recommendable to conclude the shareholder’s agreement in a written form with signatures certified by a public notary. It is particularly important if this agreement contains clauses such as put option, call option, priority right, as written form is necessary to enforce the transfer of shares before the court. The lifetime of the shareholders’ agreement should be at least as long as the shareholders own the shares in the company. It may, however, extend beyond the moment when a shareholder leaves the company, e.g. with regard to the non-competition clause or confidentiality clause.

Located between Central and Southeast Europe, Croatia is often considered a “small country for great vacation”, with its amazing Adriatic see beaches overlooking Mediterranean Sea. Ok, this is definitively true, but Croatia is also an interesting market for starting and developing a lucrative business. Its favorable location (Slovenia, Hungary, Austria and Italy are just short drive away from Zagreb, and Munich is only 5 hours by car away) and its legal framework, fully harmonized with the Community acquis after the entry into the European Union (July, 1st, 2013) make Croatia an attractive “beach” not only for tourists, but for foreign investors too!

In this post we will try to explain in a nutshell how to establish a Limited Liability Company (in Croatian: društvo sa ograničenom odgovornošću), the easiest and most common way to do business in Croatia.

The most common form of company in Croatia

Croatian company law allows foreign investors to establish businesses in Croatia under the same conditions as Croatian citizens, and generally the Limited Liability is the company form most chosen due to its simplicity and flexibility, which make it attractive for almost all types of businesses.

Limited Liability Company needs to be established with an initial capital of at least 20.000,00 kn (approx. 2.700,00 EUR). The members of the company establish their relationship through a partnership agreement, or, if there is only one founder, through a foundation statement. This is the first step to set up the company.

Company name

The company – according to Croatian law – operates and participates in legal transactions only with its company name, which must be in Croatian language and in Latin alphabet. Some foreign words can be used only if: (i) they constitute the name of the member of the company; (ii) its trademark is protected in Croatia; (iii) those words are common in Croatian language (for example: “trade”, “consulting”, “investment”…); (iv) there is no corresponding word in Croatian language; (v) or it is about Latin language. This means that English words can be inserted in the company name only if they are common in Croatian language. Other limitations regarding the name are exclusiveness (in one Court Register there can be only one company with the same name) and clarity (the name shall not create confusion about: the corporate purpose, the corporate identity or the relations with other companies). Lastly, it is not allowed to use denomination of countries, international organizations and personal names.

The necessary documentation

Hereinafter the list of documents required to set-up a Limited Liability Company:

  • articles of association, which can be signed through a power of attorney;
  • photocopy of the shareholders passport;
  • specimen signatures of legal representatives;
  • some additional documents required by the registration office (e.g.: acceptance of office).

Please note that businesses in Croatia are officially classified on the base of the corporate purpose, which needs to be explicit in the article of association.

Registration

The last step before the company can begin its commercial activity is the inclusion in the Register of Companies, kept by the competent Commercial Court.

It is finally good to specify that all the activity necessary for the establishment of a company in Croatia must be carried out with the help of a public notary and, after the registration, all limited liability companies in Croatia must submit annual financial statements regarding their commercial activity and all their transactions.

Like in other jurisdictions, in Cyprus the term ‘joint venture’ connotes business arrangements that involve the pooling of resources, knowledge and experiences of the participants for the purposes of accomplishing or implementing a specific task, whether this is a particular project or business activity. There is no specific statute governing joint ventures yet in practice such arrangements take one of the following structures.

  1. Corporate Joint Venture

The cooperation materialises through the setting up of a legal entity separate from its participants with constitutional documents governing its operation and the relations between the participants and the entity in addition to the statutory provisions of the Cyprus Company Law, Cap 113. A shareholders’ agreement is typically executed operating in parallel. It is possible that further agreements such as licences for use of intellectual property etc. will be signed. This vehicle might be more appropriate where it is expected that the joint venture will need to enter into contractual arrangements with third parties due to the limited liability benefits. The termination is usually addressed in a shareholders’ agreement which specifies events of termination e.g. change of control, insolvency of a participant, attainment of objective etc. as well as the relevant processes e.g. sale of shares among participants, liquidation etc.

Taxation of income occurs at the level of the company. Participants are not taxed on dividends in Cyprus if they are not tax residents or if they are companies. If the company is to be taxed in Cyprus, the management and control will need to be exercised in Cyprus. Any assets, including intellectual property created by the company, become property of the new entity. The setting up of the company might be subject to notification to the competent competition authority under merger control rules. Corporate joint ventures are commonly used by international clients aiming to benefit from the network of double tax treaties maintained by Cyprus. They are also a vehicle often employed to enter the Cyprus market with the assistance of a local participant.

Advantages:

  • Limited liability; liability of participants limited to capital.
  • Participants control the company through the power of appointment of the board of directors.
  • The company is governed by the Cyprus Companies Law, Cap. 113, a statute based on English company law rules, which gives more legal certainty and familiarity for participants as well as the counterparties. The relationship is not purely contractual.
  • Tax optimisation possibilities given the low rate of corporate taxation applicable in Cyprus (at the rate of 12.5%). The numerous double tax treaties maintained by Cyprus may be exploited.

Disadvantages:

  • Less flexibility compared to the other structures due to the applicable legal framework both in terms of operation and compliance.
  • Governance and control questions might need to be addressed e.g. to deal with deadlocks.
  • Restrictions and or conditions for the transfer of shares are typically adopted.
  • Both the corporate profit and the dividends returned to participants might, under certain circumstances, be subject to taxation e.g. where participants are natural persons residing in Cyprus.

  1. Partnership Joint Venture

The relationship is governed by the relevant statute which specifies the liability of each partner depending on whether the partnership would be a general or limited partnership. In the first case, each partner has unlimited liability with the other partners for all debts and liabilities of the partnership. In the second case, only the general partner has unlimited liability; limited partners are only liable for the capital they agreed to invest but should not participate in the running of the business. The relevant statute imposes default and overriding rules governing the arrangement e.g. in relation to the termination or profit sharing. The termination of the partnership will typically be governed by the partnership agreement, but the statute also provides for specified circumstances which would apply unless the parties agree otherwise. Business assets and intellectual property contributed by each party become the property of the partnership (except if agreed otherwise) and should be exploited in accordance with the partnership agreement for the purposes of the partnership.

Partnerships are tax transparent, accordingly, taxation occurs at the level of the participants and profits and losses accrue to them. Partnerships might be subject to competition law rules prohibiting the restriction of competition. Further, the creation of a partnership might be subject to notification to the competent competition authority under merger control rules. Partnership joint ventures are regularly used for economic activities of professionals. They have also been used as a vehicle in the context of tenders (public or other).

Advantages:

  • Relatively fewer formalities apply than in the case of corporate joint ventures.
  • Registration requirements exist but no requirement for disclosure of the actual partnership agreement i.e. the constitutional document.
  • Although the partnership has no legal personality, it may sue and be sued in its own name and may trade under its name.
  • Apportionment of profits and losses on the basis of discretion.
  • Attribution of profits to the partners; not to the partnership.
  • Independent tax planning possibilities for each participant as regards losses incurred and profits earned. Wide options may be available due to the extensive network of double tax treaties maintained by Cyprus.

Disadvantages:

  • Significant powers to unlimited partners. Given the powers of partners to bind the partnership, decision-making process needs to be addressed carefully.
  • Liability comes with involvement in the management/control. Unlimited liability of general partners towards third parties. Solutions alleviating the effect of this may be possible.
  • Tax transparency may not be beneficial where the partners are natural persons as they might be taxed at higher rates. Yet with appropriate structuring this may be avoided.

  1. Contractual joint ventures

The basis of the cooperation of the participants is solely a contractual agreement between them. It is expected that such agreement will include detailed provisions regulating the rights and liabilities of the parties towards each other, the distinct role and input of each, their contributions, their share in the income generated etc. No separate legal personality is created. Business assets and intellectual property remain the property of the participant who contributed or developed them (unless of course the parties agree otherwise).

Profits and losses accrue to the participants and taxation is also incurred at the level of the participants. Such arrangements might be subject to competition law rules prohibiting the restriction of competition. Contractual joint ventures are commonly used in the context of tenders (public or other).

Advantages:

  • Governed solely by contact law thus greater flexibility as to the operation and termination. Contract law in Cyprus is based on common law principles.
  • No registration requirements.
  • Minimal formalities compared to the other possible structures.
  • No joint liability; liability towards third parties limited to own acts or omissions of each participant.
  • Independent tax planning possibilities for each participant as regards losses incurred and profits earned.

Disadvantages:

  • Lack of legal personality might cause difficulties in establishing commercial or contractual relationships with third parties.
  • Need for detailed regulation of all aspects of the cooperation in the agreement due to the lack of legal framework for the relationship; careful and skilful planning is required.
  • Depending on the facts and provisions adopted, risk of classification of the relationship as a partnership by a court with the consequence of joint liability.

  1. European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG)

A vehicle established and governed predominantly by European law (Council Regulation 2137/85) instead of national law. Specific purposes for EEIGs apply i.e. to facilitate or develop the economic activities of the members to enable them to improve their own results. In that context the activities of EEIGs must be related to the economic activities of the members but not replace them. The purpose is not to make profits for the EEIG itself. EEIGs are governed by a contract between their members and Council Regulation 2137/85. They have capacity, in their own name, to have rights and obligations of all kinds, to contract or accomplish other legal acts as well as to sue or be sued. There is unlimited joint liability of the participants for the debts and liabilities of the EEIG but the exclusion or restriction of liability of one or more members for a particular debt or liability is possible if it is specifically agreed between the third party and the EEIG. EEIGs enjoy tax transparency. Profits or losses are taxable at the hands of the participants.

Advantages:

  • Established under European law; EEGIs might be ideal for alliances of firms in different member states of the European Union for joint promotion of activities.
  • Relatively fewer formalities apply than in the case of corporate joint ventures though there are registration requirements.
  • Tax transparency.

Disadvantages:

  • Managers bind EEIGs as regards third parties, even if their acts do not fall within the objects (unless the third party had knowledge).
  • Unlimited liability of participants.
  • More limited scope for use due to the statutory purposes dictated.

Which option is the most appropriate and or efficient in terms of structuring in a particular case depends on the facts at hand and the actual needs of the participants. The different factors need to be carefully examined with the help of experts so that the most suitable solution is adopted.

Come per tutti i contratti di durata, anche per le società a responsabilità limitata (s.r.l.) la legge italiana prevede la possibilità per il socio di recedere.

L’articolo 2473 del codice civile riconosce al socio il diritto di recedere, oltre che nei casi espressamente previsti nell’atto costitutivo, anche quando lo stesso non abbia consentito al cambiamento dell’oggetto sociale o del tipo di società, alla sua fusione o scissione, alla revoca dello stato di liquidazione, al trasferimento della sede all’estero, alla eliminazione di una o più cause di recesso previste dall’atto costitutivo e al compimento di operazioni che comportano una sostanziale modificazione dell’oggetto sociale determinato nell’atto costitutivo o dei diritti particolari attribuiti al socio ai sensi dell’art. 2468 c.c.

In aggiunta alle ipotesi sopra elencate, il diritto di recesso può essere altresì esercitato quando:

  • l’atto costitutivo preveda l’intrasferibilità della quota o subordini il suo trasferimento al mero gradimento degli organi sociali (art. 2469 codice civile);
  • sia deliberato l’aumento di capitale sociale con emissione di nuove quote in favore di terzi (art. 2481 bis codice civile);
  • vengano introdotte, siano soppresse o modificate in maniera importante eventuali clausole compromissorie contenute nell’atto costitutivo (art. 36 D.Lg. 5/2003);
  • la società capogruppo sia stata condannata ai sensi dell’art. 2497 quater codice civile.

Oltre alle ipotesi appena elencate, resta comunque sempre valida la regola generale, cristallizzata nella disposizione contenuta nel secondo comma dell’art. 2473 del codice civile, per cui il socio può sempre recedere, dando un preavviso di 180 giorni (o più, se diversamente disposto dall’atto costitutivo), quando la società sia stabilita a tempo indeterminato.

A lungo si è discusso, e tuttora si continua a discutere, della possibilità per il socio di ricorrere a tale ipotesi di recesso ad nutum quando la società abbia un termine ben determinato, ma comunque eccedente la normale durata della vita umana.

Sulla questione la giurisprudenza non ha mancato di sottolineare come una durata della società superiore a quella media della vita umana non possa che comportare l’applicazione della disciplina prevista per le società contratte a tempo indeterminato.

La Cassazione, con la pronuncia n. 9662 del 22 aprile 2013, ha, in particolare, riconosciuto l’assimilabilità di una società costituita con durata fino al 2100 ad una società con durata illimitata, precisando che, in presenza di un termine fissato in epoca così lontana nel tempo, tanto da superare la prospettiva di vita della persona fisica e di operatività di un soggetto collettivo, debbano trovare spazio le ragioni che hanno portato il legislatore, che ha sempre guardato con sfavore ai vincoli perpetui, a prevedere il recesso ad nutum per le società contratte a tempo indeterminato.

La previsione di un termine di durata del soggetto collettivo ha, secondo i giudici di legittimità, la funzione di stabilire se l’aspettativa di vita dell’ente sia congrua rispetto al progetto che con esso si intende perseguire.

La mancata previsione di un termine di durata viene, perciò, ricollegata all’intrinseca perpetuità del progetto imprenditoriale o, in alternativa, alla difficoltà di stabilire a priori il tempo necessario per giungere al conseguimento dell’oggetto sociale.

Ne consegue, pertanto, che fissare un termine per la durata della società in un momento eccessivamente lontano nel tempo, potrebbe impedire di ricostruire quale sia stata l’effettiva volontà delle parti del contratto sociale nella scelta tra società contratta a tempo determinato e società contratta a tempo indeterminato.

Non potrebbe, quindi, escludersi che l’indicazione di una durata spropositata rispetto alla vita dei soci o rispetto all’oggetto sociale che s’intende perseguire abbia, in realtà, un intento elusivo degli effetti che si produrrebbero con una dichiarazione esplicita di durata indeterminata, che potrebbe essere corretto solo con un intervento interpretativo che garantisca al socio le tutele previste dall’ordinamento con riferimento alle società con durata illimitata.

La linea portata avanti dalla Cassazione è stata di recente seguita anche dalla giurisprudenza di merito.        

In particolare, le sezioni specializzate in materia di impresa del Tribunale di Roma (sentenza del 22 ottobre 2015) e del Tribunale di Torino (pronuncia del 5 maggio 2017), hanno riconosciuto il diritto di recesso con preavviso con riferimento a società con termine al 2100, considerando una simile durata sostanzialmente illimitata.

Nello specifico, il collegio piemontese ha fatto interamente proprie le argomentazioni della Corte di Cassazione, applicando il principio secondo cui devono considerarsi costituite a tempo indeterminato, non solo le s.r.l. con durata eccedente la normale vita umana, ma anche le s.r.l. che siano costituite per un termine particolarmente lungo, tale per cui debba ritenersi superato l’orizzonte temporale ragionevolmente ricollegabile al raggiungimento dello scopo della società.

L’orientamento giurisprudenziale che va, quindi, affermandosi impone agli operatori del diritto di prestare particolare attenzione all’elemento della durata temporale delle società a responsabilità limitata, onde evitare un’applicazione più ampia e generalizzata, rispetto a quanto desiderato, delle tutele riconosciute ai soci di s.r.l. contratte a tempo indeterminato.

L’autore di questo articolo è Giovanni Izzo.

Directive (EU) 2017/1132 “relating to certain aspects of company law”, entered into force on July 20, 2017, lays the foundations for a fully harmonized European company law. The European Parliament and the Council intend to create the conditions to effectively promote the fulfillment of the freedom of establishment and of the freedom to conduct business as set out by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Charter of Nice. This process of consolidation has started in 2012 by the Action Plan, which was the fruit of the public consultation on the European company law and corporate governance aiming at “a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies”.

The Directive operates in two directions: on one hand, it aims at streamlining the existing legislations consolidating – and repealing – six previous Directives on European company law:

– Directive n. 82/891/EEC concerning the division of public limited liability companies;

– Directive n. 89/666/EEC concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State;

– Directive n. 2005/56/EC on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies;

– Directive n. 2009/101/EC on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent,

– Directive n. 2011/35/EU concerning mergers of public limited liability companies and

– Directive n. 2012/30/EU on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the incorporation of limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their share capital.

The Annex IV includes a correlation table linking the articles of the consolidated Directives with the new one.

New rules are directed in particular to coordinate safeguards and guarantees that must be provided – as well as the information that must be disclosed – to shareholders and third parties in order to the make them equivalent throughout the Union. As matter of fact, the recitals of the Directive emphasise the need for specific harmonised safeguards to be in place, especially with respect to limited liability companies, notably because of their frequent cross-border business and their predominant feature in the economy of the Member States, more dynamic over last decades.

To date, due to the lack of a uniform discipline, there are indeed 28 different national company laws, which address domestic companies as well as foreign entities operating in another Member State to the detriment – indirectly of course – of freedom of establishment for companies, which, according to art. 54.1 of the TFEU, are to “be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States”.

The Directive consists of 168 articles, four Annexes and three titles that encompass different themes: from the incorporation of public limited liability companies, to companies’ representation, companies registers, branches of companies based in a Member State although govern by the law of another, capital requirements and even mergers (domestic and cross-border) or divisions of companies.

In more detail, the main innovations introduced by the Directive concern:

The incorporation of public limited companies, where the articles of incorporation and the articles of association shall be drawn up and certified in due legal form in all Member States whose laws do not provide for pre-emptive administrative or judicial control at the time the company is actually incorporated.

The implementation of a central companies register – resulting from the interconnection of the existing national registers – that enables users to access from a single web portal.

Capital requirements for public limited liability companies, which shall be not less than euro 25,000.00.  The Commission will regularly examine the economic and monetary trends and, as the case may be, revise this requirement accordingly with a view to devoting this type of company to medium-sized/large undertakings.

Acts of the organs of the company, which shall be binding regardless of the validity of the appointment of the person serving in the organ itself and despite the fact that the acts actually carried out exceed the company’s corporate scope (on this issue, Member States may provide otherwise: for example providing that he company shall not be bound where such acts are outside the objects of the company, if it proves that the third party knew that the act was exceeding those objects or could not in view of the circumstances have been unaware of it, bearing in mind that the pre-emptive disclosure of this information will not suffice as it will always be necessary an assessment on case by case basis.

Disclosure requirements concerning branches of companies set up in another Member State’s territory. These branches will be subject to disclose information to the national register (which, in the meantime, will have become interconnected Europe-wide) in order to offer the public reliable and certain corporate information and data. In particular branches shall disclose information relating to the activity they carry out; the name and legal form of the company and the name of the branch, whenever they differ with one another; the relevant accounting documents along with the identity of the subjects authorized to represent the company in legal proceedings and deal with third parties (it will also be necessary to specify whether they have to operate jointly or not). Likewise, it will be necessary to disclose the information regarding the bankruptcy/winding-up procedures the company may go through along with the identity and the powers of the receiver or, in any case, the person in charge of the winding-up procedure/bankruptcy procedure.

Mergers and companies divisions that will have to be carried out taking into account the safeguards provided by the Directive 2001/23/EC to protect the workers of the companies involved. In this case, the Directive provides a discipline that, similarly to the companies’ incorporation procedure, requires that the document regulating the merger (deeds, contracts depending on the national rules on this matter) shall be drawn up and certified in due legal form whenever the laws of the Member State do not proved for judicial or administrative pre-emptive supervision as to the lawfulness of the whole operation. The same rule shall apply in the event the national laws required that the merger project is approved by the general shareholders meeting of the company.

In the end, if the Directive will have a partial impact on the development a uniform European company law, it is worth noticing that this consolidation project has excluded the harmonization of several further EU Directives concerning the Company Law. As far as the Italian Law it can be said as it is almost entirely compliant already with the Directive excluding those rule on capital requirement (in Italy nowadays the minimum share capital of società per azioni is fixed in 50 thousand euro) and the implementation of the European companies register and the company’s representation rules.. As it does not introduce any new provision, there is no date for the Member States to transpose it at a national level, however, the Annex III remarks the time limit to incorporate the abolished Directives into the domestic legal systems.

As clearly set forth by the Directive “this Directive is not aimed at establishing any centralised registers database storing substantive information about companies. At the stage of implementation of the system of interconnection of central, commercial and companies registers (‘the system of interconnection of registers’), only the set of data necessary for the correct functioning of the platform should be defined”. Surely, the leading aim of the Directive is to improve the certainty of the disclosure and the cross-border access to company and its brunches information, this purpose is very challenging considering the national system of the company registers which are quite fragmented at a local level.

The author of this post is Milena Prisco.

The limited liability company (“Limitada”) is the most common form of corporate organization in Brazil, being largely adopted in view of advantages. A Limitada must have at least two partners (quotaholders), natural persons or legal entities that do not need to be Brazilian or Brazilian residents.

As a consequence of such requirement, many companies adopting the limited liability form would have a second partner holding as little as one quota simply to comply with the legal requirement. In many cases, the second partner would have no interference in the business but undertakes a liability that is not under his/her/its control.

Also, the need of the second partner would imply in extra costs with documentation and bureaucratic measures, not to mention extra accounting requirements when such second partner is a legal entity.

In 2011 a new legislation was passed modifying the Brazilian Civil Code and included a new corporate form, the Limited Liability Individual Company, known as EIRELI. However, the EIRELI could not be incorporated with a legal entity as its holder, but would only be applicable to natural persons, whether Brazilians or Brazilian residents.

Finally, in May 2017, the Brazilian Civil Code was modified once again in order to allow legal entities, whether domiciled in Brazil or not, to be the sole holders of an EIRELI. However, a holder of an EIRELI can only hold a single company incorporated as an EIRELI.

A Limitada or an EIRELI are advantageous as they (i) are subject to fewer disclosure requirements as opposed to a corporation; (ii) have a simpler and less expensive organization; and (iii) corporate decisions can be taken easier and quicker.

This Article intends to present the basic organization of a Limitada and of an EIRELI, as follows:

Partners, Quotas and Capital

A Limitada must have at least two partners, natural persons or legal entities that do not need to be Brazilian or Brazilian residents. An EIRELI may have only one holder, natural person or legal entity that do not need to be Brazilian or Brazilian resident.

Each of the foreign partners or the holder, in case of EIRELI, shall name a legal representative, who lives in Brazil, with minimum powers to accept service of process and for representation before the Federal Revenue for obtaining a taxpayer number (for controlling purposes only).

There is no minimum quota capital requirement for most cases, unless a permanent visa is required or if an import license is needed (the amount of the company’s capital influences the authorized amounts for imports and exports). The Brazilian company may be financed either by the direct investment (capital) or by loans to be granted by the partners. In case of loans, thin-capitalization rules apply.

The ownership of the Limitada quotas or of the EIRELI is reflected in the company’s Articles of Association, since no certificates to that effect are issued.

The quotas of a Limitada can only be transferred by a specific amendment to the Articles of Association and must be subscribed at the time the company is established. The EIRELI’s capital may or may not be divided into quotas.

The company’s capital does not have to be paid up upon incorporation; it may be paid up within a certain period of time (i.e., two years), in Brazilian currency or goods.

Company’s name, objectives and address

The Limitada’s name has to include some words that indicate what the company’s objectives are. The names should be followed by the objectives (if more than one just the main objective) and by the specific area of the market. The EIRELI does not have to follow those requirements.

The company objectives and address must be included in the Articles of Association.

Administration

The administration structure of the Limitada and of the EIRELI must be determined in the Articles Association. In addition, in the Articles of Association, or in a separate document for the Limitada, at least one administrator (general manager) has to be nominated. The partners of the Limitada or the holder of the EIRELI are(is) free to appoint one or several of them to administer the company, as well as third parties.

The administrator has to be a Brazilian resident, meaning either a Brazilian or an expatriate bearing a permanent visa.

Partners Resolutions

Most of the partners’ resolutions in a Limitada may be taken by majority of the capital or by any higher quorum agreed upon by the partners.

Resolutions of the partners altering the Articles of Association or deciding on acquisition, merger, dissolution, and cessation of the liquidation status must be taken by three quarters of the company’s capital. A few other resolutions as the election of the administrators when the capital is not fully paid up must be taken by the totality of the company’s capital.

As the EIRELI has one single holder, all decisions are taken by the holder.

Liability of Partners and of Holder

The liability of the partners of the Limitada and of the EIRELI’s holder is limited to their respective participations in the company’s capital, except when the company’s capital is not fully paid-up. In this case, the partners are liable, with their personal assets, for the total amount of the company’s capital. Please note that in certain cases of disregard of the corporate veil, activities against the law and acts performed without proper authority, the partners or the holder may be unlimitedly responsible, especially in tax, labor and environment areas. In case of non-payment of taxes the administrator may be held co-responsible.