Ricerca
13 risultati
FILTRI ATTIVI
Sull’estensione al gruppo del diritto di informazione ed ispezione del socio di s.r.l.
Abstract: The article addresses, on the basis of some ambiguous decisions of Italian courts, the question whether and to what extension the scope of the information and inspection rights granted to the shareholder of limited liability companies (Italian s.r.l.) by art. 2476, paragraph 2, of the Italian Civil Code, also includes information and documentation concerning subsidiaries or, more generally, companies belonging to the same group. The author argues that the shareholder’s right of information and inspection includes information on the relationships of the s.r.l. with the controlled and the controlling companies, the information provided by the subsidiaries for the purpose of preparing the consolidated financial statements, the corporate documentation (e.g. minutes of shareholders’ resolutions) of the direct subsidiaries, the directives and guidelines given to the directors of the subsidiaries, the directives given to the s.r.l. by the company or entity exercising the management and coordination activity on it. In other words, the answer to the question posed is necessarily analytical and distinguishes case by case. A general solution, in the sense, for example, that the shareholder’s information and inspection right always prevails on the principle of legal separateness of the group companies, should rest on a specific provision of the law, which is currently missing in our legal system and which, if introduced, should also reasonably apply to the shareholder of a joint-stock company belonging to a group.
Sommario: 1. Il problema: esiste il diritto del socio di s.r.l. ad ottenere informazioni sulle società controllate? – 2. La commisurazione di tale ipotetico diritto all’ambito delle informazioni possedute dall’organo amministrativo ella controllante. – 3. La nozione di “affari sociali” della controllante include altresì i rapporti con la società controllata. – 4. Sul diritto del socio alla consultazione della documentazione societaria relativa alle società controllate. – 5. Sul diritto del socio ad ottenere informazioni sulla gestione delle società controllate. – 6. Le eccezioni opponibili al socio istante. – 7. Le possibili strategie del socio a fronte del rischio di atti di mala gestio nelle controllate. – 8. Sull’esistenza e sui limiti di un diritto d’informazione in senso ascendente in capo al socio di s.r.l. sottoposta a direzione e coordinamento. – 9. Riepilogo.
Keywords: Limited Liability Company — Groups of Companies — Shareholders’ Inspection Rights.
I diritti di controllo e di azione del socio di s.r.l.
Abstract: The article reports Prof. Bussoletti’s speech at the conference of the studies in honour of Gustavo Visentini on the quotaholder’s rights of information in limited liability companies. The article analyses in particular the contents, the subjective scope and the limits of the quotaholder’s rights to be informed by the directors on the conduct of social affairs and to consult, also through professionals he trusts, the company’s books and the documents related to the management and to extract copies of the same, in the light of the most significant doctrinal contributions and the most recent case law arrests, also in consideration of the evolution of its regulation. Finally, the article deals with the conditions under which quotaholders are entitled to take legal action to request the issuance of a precautionary act of removal of the directors pursuant to Article 2476, paragraph 3, of the Italian Civil Code, also taking into account the discipline of partnerships, in particular the revocation for just cause of the director provided for in the third paragraph of Article 2259 of the Italian Civil Code, the discipline of removal of the condominium administrator, and Articles 3 and 24 of the Constitution.
Sommario: 1. Società di persone e s.r.l. – 2. L’evoluzione della disciplina in tema di s.r.l. – 3. Ambito soggettivo e oggettivo del diritto di controllo. – 4. Copiabilità e delegabilità versus diritto alla riservatezza. – 5. La revoca cautelare degli amministratori come autonomo diritto di azione. --- * Riproduce, con l’aggiunta dei riferimenti essenziali, la relazione tenuta al convegno di studi in onore di Gustavo Visentini.
Keywords: Quotaholder — Limited Liability Company — Rights of Information — Social Affairs — Rights of Consultation — Company’s Books — Removal — Directors.
A proposito di “interessi primordiali” dei soci e “gestione esclusiva” degli amministratori
Abstract: In Italian company law there are at present two trends that at first glance seem to be opposed: in case-law a tendency which, for the purpose of increasing the protection of the members, seek to identify competences additional to the provisions of law; in legislation a tendency which, for the purpose of making the directors accountable for the failure of the company, asserts their exclusive managerial competence. It must therefore be asked not only whether these trends are really able of pursuing the aims they propose, but also how the technical terms necessary for their application should be defined: between them, first of all, the notion of management of the company. In this respect the article proposes to carry out the investigation through an analysis of the regulatory data, not as usual of the business practice, with the possibility in this way to identify different meanings for the different types of company.
Keywords: Shareholders’ Rights — Directors’ Powers — Management of the Firm — Types of Companies.
La gestione dell’impresa organizzata in forma societaria.
Abstract: A recent change to the Italian Civil Code has extended to all companies a regulation, previously applied only to joint stock companies, which reserves the management of an enterprise to its executive officers; the work underlines the necessity to distinguish between management of the enterprise and administering the company; only the first, consisting of the creation of the operating functions and in the planning of the related strategies, is entrusted exclusively to the executives; the second, that indicates the productive exploitation of the company’s assets, instead, can be carried out by other corporate bodies.
Sommario: 1. Premessa. – 2. La nuova disciplina della gestione dell’impresa. – 3. Gestione dell’impresa e amministrazione della società. – 4. Le modalità di esercizio della gestione dell’impresa. – 5. Gestione dell’impresa e disciplina societaria. – 6. Conclusioni.
Keywords: Management of the Enterprise — Organizational Structures — Companies — Executive Officers — Exclusive Entrustment.
Interessi primordiali degli azionisti e competenze implicite dell’assemblea
Abstract: The Article tackles the issue of the matters on which the general meeting shall decide, even if such a matter is not expressly listed by the law or the by-laws of the company. The issue involves the so called basic interests of shareholders (interêt primordial, in French) such as the sale of the core business of the firm, the decision to turn an operating company into a holding company, or that concerning the decision not to recapitalize the sole subsidiary of a holding company and lose control over it. The A. share the opinion of a recent decision of the District court of Rome, declaring that in such cases the shareholders have a right of full disclosure and decisions must be taken by the general meeting, not by directors, as such decisions exceed their powers. The A. justify their expressed opinion with reference to the wide international debate, mostly developed in Germany, confirming that all decisions involving basic interest of shareholders shall be discussed and approved by the general meeting.
Sommario: 1. Rapporto tra organo gestorio e assemblea: un excursus. – 2. Una recente decisione giudiziaria. – 3. Sui limiti all’autonomia privata in materia di autorizzazioni assembleari. – 4. Competenze implicite e regole di responsabilità: insufficienza della tutela risarcitoria.
Keywords: Basic Interest of Shareholders — Matters on which the General Meeting Decides — Directors’ Powers.
Sommario: Cassazione 21 giugno 2016 n. 12816 Associazione in partecipazione. Natura del contratto. Contratto sinallagmatico e non associativo. Implicazioni. Associazione in partecipazione. Diritto dell’associato alla restituzione dell’apporto. Necessità della previapresentazione e approvazione del rendiconto. Insussistenza. Tribunale di Nola 4 maggio 2017Prova dell’esistenza del contratto. Necessità della prova scritta. Insussistenza. Associazione in partecipazione. Diritto dell’associato alla restituzione dell’apporto. Necessità della previa presentazione e approvazione del rendiconto. Insussistenza.
Variazioni e puntualizzazioni in tema di recesso dell’azionista
Sommario: Società di capitali. Società per azioni. Diritto di recesso in caso di modifica dei diritti di partecipazione ai sensi dell’art. 2437, primo comma, lett. g) c.c. Modifica dello statuto in relazione alla misura degli utili oggetto di accantonamento obbligatorio a riserva straordinaria. Idoneità della modifica a integrare il presupposto del recesso. Sussistenza.
Etica e impresa bancaria: riflessioni critiche sull’art. 111-bis TUB
Abstract: In Italy, initiatives concerning ethical finance have significantly anticipated sector legislation due to the cooperative effort made by some Italian not-for-profit organizations, that in 1998 set up Banca Popolare Etica S.c.p.a., which has proposed itself as a banking institution whose activity is inspired by principles and values typical of “ethically oriented finance” since the beginning. --- Article 111-bis of the Consolidated Law on Banking, introduced at the end of 2016, now includes, among the subjects authorized to perform banking activities in Italy, the ethical and sustainable finance banking operators, defined on the basis of the compliance of their business to some principles, which are: transparency in granting loans, evaluation of borrowers according to internationally recognized ethical standards, adoption of a governance system with a strong democratic and participatory orientation and remuneration policies for top management characterized by a significant sobriety. Although on one hand article 111-bis is crucial since it allowed to lay the foundations for the imitation of the model of Banca Popolare Etica, and to avoid the abuse of commercially appealing terms such as “ethics” and “sustainability”, on the other hand, it has significant gaps related to the clarity of the criteria indicated therein and the lack of definition of this type of banking institutions. In the present article efforts have been made aimed at better understanding the new provisions, analysed even in the light of the European legislation on sustainable finance meanwhile adopted by the European Commission on March 8th, 2018, at the end of a long pathway, accomplished with the communication entitled “Action Plan on Sustainable Finance”. Through the EU legislation it has been tried to overcome some interpretative hurdles related to the identification of the internationally recognized ethical rating standards, as well as to the possibility of including natural persons among the subjects to be evaluated for the grant of funding, also for the purpose of avoiding the risk of identifying ethical finance with “ecological” finance, ignoring all the qualifying aspects of ethical and sustainable finance and, in perspective, also for the purpose of including a wider range of corporate actions in the banking sector (including, last but not least, that relating to the liability of all the actors participating in the management of the bank, broadly intended).
Sommario: 1. Introduzione. – 2. La nascita di Banca Etica. – 3. La veste giuridica di Banca Etica e la scelta della autoregolamentazione. – 4. Il “Manifesto sulla finanza etica e sostenibile” del 1998. – 5. L’art. 5 dello Statuto di Banca Etica. – 6. Come l’art. 5 dello Statuto si declina nella gestione dell’attività bancaria. – 7. L’introduzione dell’art. 111-bis del Testo Unico Bancario. – 8. [Segue]: l’analisi (critica) all’art. 111-bis. – 9. Il quadro normativo europeo in tema di finanza sostenibile. – 10. Come interpretare l’art. 111-bis TUB alla luce della normativa europea; Premessa: l’Action Plan come “Comunicazione”. – 11. [Segue]: Gli spunti interpretativi dell’Action Plan on Sustainable Finance. – 12. Conclusioni.
Keywords: Banks — Consolidated Law on Banking — Ethical Finance — Sustainable Finance — Banca Popolare Etica — Art. 111-bis of the Consolidated Law on Banking — Action Plan on Sustainable Finance.
Nullità di protezione e buona fede
Sommario: Mercato Finanziario. Servizi di investimenti. Nullità del contratto quadro per mancanza della forma scritta ex art. 23 TUF. Legittimazione dell’investitore a far valere selettivamente solo alcune operazioni di investimento eseguite a valere su tale contratto. Sussistenza. Tutela dell’intermediario contro il rischio di un abuso dell’uso selettivo della nullità. Configurabilità di un’eccezione di buona fede per paralizzare le richieste di restituzione alla luce dei risultati complessivi di tutti gli investimenti eseguiti in forza del contratto. Sussistenza. Limiti.
L’ambito applicativo delle richieste di comunicazione da parte della Consob
Sommario: Mercato Finanziario. Obblighi di comunicazione ex art. 114, comma quinto, TUF. Natura tassativa delle qualifiche soggettive indicate dalla norma. Sussistenza. Possibilità di imporre l’obbligo anche ove sia venuta meno l’esigenza di informazione tempestiva del pubblico. Esclusione. Mercato Finanziario. Obblighi di comunicazione ex art. 114, comma quinto, TUF. Informazioni relative a un trust. Soggetto obbligato. Individuazione nel solo trustee.
Finanziamenti “anomali” dei soci e riorganizzazione dell’impresa nel codice della crisi
Abstract: The overhaul of the Italian regulation of loans given by shareholders in times of crisis, carried out by the recent Insolvency Law (so called “Codice della crisi d’impresa e dell’insolvenza”) and which will come into force on 14 of August 2020, aims at preventing shareholders from attempting to forestall a liquidation of the company by extending a loan and thereby transferring onto the company’s creditors the risk of failure of the rescue. This paper purports to show the theoretical impact of the reform, while underscoring the conceptual inconsistencies deriving from the approach of the Italian legislator which is based on a “double track” of rules (partly originating from corporate law and partly allocated in insolvency law). The paper concludes with some remarks on the debated topic of shareholder loans within a group of companies.
Sommario: 1. Premessa. – 2. I finanziamenti soci nel sistema originario. – 3. Il codice della crisi: i profili di continuità. – 4. (Segue): i profili di discontinuità. – 5. (Segue): i finanziamenti anomali endogruppo.
Keywords: Bankruptcy — Shareholder Loans — Subordination — Fraudulent Conveyance — Group of Companies.
Gli “strumenti d’allerta” tra early warning tools e preventive restructuring frameworks
Abstract: The essay aims to analyse the «alert mechanisms» regulated by the new “Codice della crisi d’impresa e dell’insolvenza” [Insolvency and Crisis Code]. Such regulation seems to neglect the main purpose pursued by European and Supranational Law, that consists to support SMEs «viable in financial difficulties». Indeed, SMEs have little managerial resources and less access to advisors and experts to address such difficulties. On the contrary, the Italian Regulator’s approach appears to be inquisitorial with respect to the entrepreneurs, equiparared as bankrupts, as well as to be focused on legal tools to detect the business insolvency “from the inside”. Such an approach is evident in the notion of «crisi d’impresa» provided by the Code as well as from the indicators of crisis which trigger the duty of the auditors to report such crisis to the OCRI. Actually, the Code focuses on a crisis comparable to a prospective insolvency. Accessory of this Heterogony of ends is also a bad translation of the insolvency directive Draft, now approved as Directive (EU) 2019/1023. As a consequence, the Code adopts a strict procedural approach about the notion of «strumenti d’allerta», quite different from the wider notion of «early warning tools» adopted by the English version of the Directive. The latter considers the «alert mechanisms» simply as a part of a wider range of the «early warning tools». Actually, the procedural approach and the linked notion of «crisi» mentioned above look more consistent with the «preventive restructuring frameworks» foreseen by the Directive, which are based on a more advanced crisis («likelihood of insolvency»). Nonetheless, to achieve an interpretation of the «alert mechanisms» consistent with the European Law, one can distinguish between, two steps: On one hand, a procedural step which is limited to the prospective insolvency which in turn triggers the duty to report to the OCRI; On the other hand, a non-procedural step, which is not based on a so advanced crisis and is focused on the organisational duties foreseen by Article 2086 c.c., the duty of assessment (Art. 14 c.c.i.) and finally the duty to internal reporting (a sort of “pre-allerta”). Such non-procedural step should be strictly consistent with the above mentioned «early warning tools».
Sommario: 1. Finalità originaria dell’allerta quale strumento di sostegno alle imprese «sane in difficoltà finanziaria». – 2. Nozione di “allerta” e obblighi connessi. – 2.1. Obblighi organizzativi, di verifica e di segnalazione. – 2.2. Scopo degli «strumenti di allerta». – 3. Natura giuridica dell’allerta: confusione e rischio di “falsi positivi”. – 3.1. Distinzione e confusione tra early warning tools e preventive restructuring frameworks. – 3.2. L’allerta non è (interamente) qualificabile come early warning tool. Possibile contrasto con il diritto U.E. – 3.3. “Procedura” di allerta nell’ambito dei preventive restructuring frameworks. – 3.3.1. I «fondati indizi» sono riferiti ad una crisi “avanzata”. – 3.3.2. La «sostenibilità degli oneri dell’indebitamento con i flussi di cassa che l’impresa è in grado di generare». – 3.3.3. Insolvenza “prospettica” o “imminente”. – 3.3.4. L’«adeguatezza dei mezzi propri rispetto a quelli di terzi». – 4. Significato di «inadeguata risposta» e di «misure ritenute necessarie». – 5. Altri «strumenti di allerta» come early warning tools. – 5.1. Limitata estensione della causa di esonero di responsabilità ex lege per i soggetti segnalanti nonché delle misure premiali. – 5.2. Obblighi di organizzazione e di verifica quali early warning tools. – 5.3. (segue) Bilanciamento di interessi tutelati dal Codice. – 5.4. (segue) La gestione conservativa “attenuata” dell’impresa sottoposta all’allerta. – 6. “Pre-allerta”, ossia obblighi di segnalazione preventiva, quale early warning tool. – 7. Esenzione dagli obblighi di segnalazione e di verifica per le società di dimensioni più modeste. – 8. Controlli meno costosi per le società di dimensioni più modeste. – 9. Evoluzione prossima.
Keywords: Alert Mechanisms — Crisis — Insolvency — Enterprise — Crisis and Insolvency Code — Prospective Insolvency — Indicators of Crisis — Early Warning Tools — Preventive Restructuring Frameworks — Audit.
Abstract: The paper takes its cue from recent amendments to EU trademark law in order to scrutinize the issue of non-distinctive uses of another’s mark and of the limits on the exclusive right stemming from the needs for free use of signs or for protection of fundamental rights other than that of the trademark proprietor. The aim of the study, therefore, is to identify the perimeter of the exclusive right conferred by a trademark on its proprietor so as to understand whether the latter can claim protection against any non-authorized use of his mark, even should the function of such use not be the “typical” one of distinguishing goods and services. Doubts as to interpretation arise from the emergence of a CJEU approach which, on the one hand, introduces interference of third party use of a trademark with the protected functions thereof as a yardstick for assessing the unlawfulness of such use and, on the other, broadens and multiplies such functions. The recent amendments to EU trademark law seem to indicate a different future path to follow in assessing cases of non-distinctive use, reaffirming that use with a distinctive function is the foundation of the exclusive right conferred on the trademark proprietor and determines the extent thereof. Albeit not in a completely linear manner, the legislative decision not to award express and autonomous protection to the other functions of a trademark identified in recent years by the CJEU is confirmed, the need for assessment of infringement to be linked to use of the sign with a distinctive function being reaffirmed and the protection of trademarks against non-distinctive uses being maintained optional for the Member States.
Sommario: 1. Introduzione. La ricostruzione del problema. – 2. Le condizioni per la tutela dei diritti di marchio nei confronti dei terzi. Rilievi introduttivi. – 3. La nozione di uso del segno. – 4. Gli usi nondistintivi: esemplificazioni e correlati problemi giuridici. – 5. L’uso del marchio «in relazione a prodotti o servizi» quale limite all’applicazione contro gli usi non distintivi delle norme in tema di violazione dei diritti di marchio. – 6. La tutela del marchio contro gli usi non distintivi: la posizione della giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia. – 6 a) Dal caso BMW al caso Céline: l’uso del segno come marchio quale condizione essenziale per la contraffazione. – 6 b) Dal caso Arsenal ai casi Adwords: la teoria dell’esistenza di un pregiudizio alle funzioni del marchio indebitamente usato come condizione per la contraffazione. – 6 c) L’uso del segno da parte dell’inserzionista del servizio di keyword advertising. – 7. Valutazioni conclusive sull’evoluzione della posizione della Corte di Giustizia in merito agli usi non distintivi del marchio. Il recepimento dei principi della Corte da parte della giurisprudenza nazionale. – 8. Riflessi applicativi dei principi affermati dalla Corte di Giustizia sulle diverse ipotesi di tutela del marchio. – 9. L’incidenza degli interessi dei terzi sull’ambito di protezione del marchio. – 10. I correttivi “interni” alla disciplina sul marchio d’impresa a tutela degli interessi di terzi: il “giusto motivo”. – 11. Un bilancio sulla giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia sugli usi non distintivi del marchio altrui e l’ampiezza del diritto di esclusiva. – 12. La riforma della Direttiva e del Regolamento: l’incidenza sull’ambito di protezione del marchio.
Keywords: Trademark — Exclusive right — Trademark functions.
- <
- >
Gentile Utente,
per utilizzare questa funzionalità è necessario prima effettuare il login.
Non sei registrato? La registrazione richiede solamente un minuto!
Fai doppio click per rimuovere l’articolo dai preferiti
Aggiungi questo articolo ai preferiti
Aggiunto ai preferiti
Aggiungi ai preferiti
credito
crediti
