Shareholders’ Draft Resolutions in Estonian Company Law: An Example of Unreasonable Transposition of the Shareholder Rights Directive

Andres Vutt, Margit Vutt
{"title":"Shareholders’ Draft Resolutions in Estonian Company Law: An Example of Unreasonable Transposition of the Shareholder Rights Directive","authors":"Andres Vutt, Margit Vutt","doi":"10.12697/JI.2018.27.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the measures foreseen in the Shareholder Rights Directive for enhancement of the rights of shareholders is the regulation of draft resolutions. The article addresses the central question of whether the extent of the implementation of the requirements regulating draft resolutions and their disclosure in Estonian company law has been justified. Research was conducted to analyse whether the transposition of the rules on draft resolutions derived from the directive has contributed to the attainment of the objectives set out in the directive and in other European initiatives. The main conclusions presented in the article are that, as a result of the transposition of the Shareholder Rights Directive, Estonian small limited companies have a burdensome obligation to follow the formalised rules on draft resolutions and their disclosure, which, according to the directive, were initially meant only for listed companies. Although the Supreme Court of Estonia had an opportunity to interpret the respective regulations reasonably, it has chosen a rather formal approach instead and applied the law in quite possibly the most burdensome way for Estonian companies and contrary to the aims for the directive as the source of those regulations. The authors of the article take the stance that there is a need to change the rigid rules on draft resolutions that have been forced on Estonian small companies. The present mandatory rules on draft resolutions should be applicable to listed companies only. All other public limited companies should be given an opt-in option. As for private companies, the law should clearly set out the possibility of stipulating the appropriate rules in the articles of association of the company. ","PeriodicalId":171263,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal","volume":"198 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12697/JI.2018.27.07","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the measures foreseen in the Shareholder Rights Directive for enhancement of the rights of shareholders is the regulation of draft resolutions. The article addresses the central question of whether the extent of the implementation of the requirements regulating draft resolutions and their disclosure in Estonian company law has been justified. Research was conducted to analyse whether the transposition of the rules on draft resolutions derived from the directive has contributed to the attainment of the objectives set out in the directive and in other European initiatives. The main conclusions presented in the article are that, as a result of the transposition of the Shareholder Rights Directive, Estonian small limited companies have a burdensome obligation to follow the formalised rules on draft resolutions and their disclosure, which, according to the directive, were initially meant only for listed companies. Although the Supreme Court of Estonia had an opportunity to interpret the respective regulations reasonably, it has chosen a rather formal approach instead and applied the law in quite possibly the most burdensome way for Estonian companies and contrary to the aims for the directive as the source of those regulations. The authors of the article take the stance that there is a need to change the rigid rules on draft resolutions that have been forced on Estonian small companies. The present mandatory rules on draft resolutions should be applicable to listed companies only. All other public limited companies should be given an opt-in option. As for private companies, the law should clearly set out the possibility of stipulating the appropriate rules in the articles of association of the company. 
爱沙尼亚公司法中的股东决议草案:股东权利指令不合理转换的一个例子
《股东权利指示》所预见的增进股东权利的措施之一是对决议草案进行管制。该条处理的中心问题是,关于决议草案的规定及其在爱沙尼亚公司法中的披露的执行程度是否合理。进行了研究,以分析对源自该指令的决议草案的规则进行调换是否有助于实现该指令和其他欧洲倡议所规定的目标。本文提出的主要结论是,由于《股东权利指令》的转换,爱沙尼亚小型有限公司有一项繁重的义务,必须遵守关于决议草案及其披露的正式规则,根据该指令,这些规则最初仅适用于上市公司。虽然爱沙尼亚最高法院有机会合理地解释有关条例,但它却选择了一种相当正式的办法,并以很可能对爱沙尼亚公司最繁重的方式适用法律,这与作为这些条例来源的指令的目的背道而驰。该条作者的立场是,有必要改变强加给爱沙尼亚小公司的关于决议草案的严格规则。目前有关决议草案的强制性规则应只适用于上市公司。所有其他公众有限公司都应享有选择加入的权利。至于私人公司,法律应清楚列明在公司章程中订定适当规则的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信