Nouvelles diverses | Page 2

Belle synthèse et réflexion que partage Jospeh Liptrap sur la mise en place d’un modèle d’entreprise sociale à l’échelle européenne : « European Parliament Recommends Creating EU-Wide Social Entreprise Legal Status -A Misstep? ». Ce texte est disponible sur l’Oxford Business Law Blog.

Extrait :

Compared with previous vertical attempts to bore through Member States’ “armour of sovereignty” by introducing supranational organisational forms, the Parliament’s suggested solution represents a cautious departure in approach. Exacerbated by the implications of Brexit, this may stem from a climate of general hostility to new initiatives in areas where there have been calls for redistributing matters dealt with by the EU back to Member States. Similar to the Societas Unius Personae directive following the failure of the European private company project, the proposal would take the shape of a directive introducing partially harmonised rules. It would only concentrate on the “core” elements of social enterprises, leaving other aspects of regulation to the national law of each Member State. The legal status would be voluntarily conferrable on any private law entity. To be eligible, an interested firm would be required to include within its articles of association certain express provisions:

1. it must have a social purpose;
2. it must engage in a socially useful activity (e.g. work integration to combat labour market exclusion);
3. it must be subject to at least a partial constraint on profit distribution and have specific rules on the allocation of profits, with some profits made reinvested to achieve its social purpose;
4. its governance model must democratically involve stakeholders affected by its activities; and
5. it must incur extra reporting obligations.

The “European Social Enterprise” (ESE) legal status would be valid and recognised in all Member States, also extending to a certification label for social enterprises’ products.

À la prochaine…

Le 7 mars 2019, ecoDa a pris position sur le devoir de loyauté des administrateurs : « ecoDa’s position paper on Directors Duties »

Extrait :

ecoDa supports the fundamental concept of Corporate purpose. However the European Commission should propose policy principles and refrains from trying to standardize directors’ duties among Member States and sectors. ecoDa believes that soft law through Corporate Governance codes is more suitable to adapt to an evolving context.

Acknowledging that shareholders define the company’s purpose does not mean neither that the interests of other stakeholders should not be taken into account by the directors when fulfilling their duties towards the company. On the contrary, there is no doubt that boards are taking such interests into account to an extent deemed consistent with the company’s purpose. Basically, there is a sound business case for more social and environmental involvement. Understanding consumers’ expectations and employees’ aspiration is becoming a prerequisite to become more innovative, to attract the right talents and to ensure sustainability in the long run. It is obvious that companies cannot be run in a sustainable manner if boards ignore the context in which they operate.

Therefore, the European Commission should refrain from trying to harmonize the fundamental concept of corporate interest and directors’ duties due to the very important legal differences across Europe and the different contexts across sectors. No law should hold directors accountable to several “principals”, arguably with often mutually contradictory interests. The board can solely be accountable to the company for the discharge of its duty to promote the purpose of the company. If the criteria for liability are not clearly defined, the boards will be liable to nobody for nothing or to everybody for anything. “Being liable to everybody means being liable to nobody”. Legal certainty is the basis of a competitive economic environment.

À la prochaine…

L’EMCA (un groupe d’experts de haut niveau en droit des sociétés) vient de rendre publique sur le site SSRN son modèle de droit des sociétés par actions à l’échelle européenne : « European Model Company Act (EMCA) ». Ce document d’harmonisation est très intéressant et propose des solutions pertinentes, tout en proposant un bilan de la position des différents États sur leur droit des sociétés.

While harmonization or convergence of European Company Law can be achieved by a toolbox of measures, until now the tools have been confined largely to Regulations, Directives, Recommendations and Corporate Governance Codes. It is submitted that there is a need to provide new measures to develop future European company law and that a European Model Act (EMCA) would be a useful tool for European integration in this area. The objective of the EMCA project thus is to establish, on a solid scientific foundation, a new way forward in European company law inspired by the US Model Business Corporation Act (MBCA).

The EMCA is designed as a free-standing general company statute that can be enacted by Member States either substantially in its entirety or by the adoption of selected provisions.

This approach differs from previous European company law initiatives, as it is a general settlement of the debate on which of the two regulatory approaches is superior – regulatory competition or harmonization. The EMCA offers the Member States a harmonized company law, but leaves it to each Member State to decide whether it will offer its businesses the advantages given by harmonization. The major benefit from an integrated company law framework is that it establishes similar conditions for company shareholders and third parties all over the EU, thus facilitating cross-border investment and trading by ensuring shareholder rights and rebuilding investor confidence. The EMCA is not a mandatory harmonization instrument, as Member States are not bound to follow the Model Act. Thus the EMCA can promote regulatory competition, but can also act as a tool for a harmonization of, and convergence between, Member States’ company laws.

At the same time the EMCA allows for special local considerations and for experimentation with new or different ideas, as Member States are free to opt out of parts of the Model Act in order to implement national company law innovations.

The EMCA can be regarded as a tool for better regulation in the EU since it provides a coherent, dynamic and responsive European legislative framework. Member States can benefit from using the Model Act as a company law paradigm, as it will be a modern competitive Companies Act. Moreover, the project allows the EU Commission the opportunity to take part in, or to support, a continuous modernization of the Model Act, without forcing legislation on the Member States.

The EMCA may be viewed as a dynamic piece of legislation capable of being continuously developed in response to the changing environment and market conditions that modern businesses face. The EMCA may thus overcome some of the criticism of traditional inflexible law-making, as it will offer a more informal and organic convergence of European company law.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le groupe européen d’experts en droit des sociétés vient de faire une proposition pour un droit des groupes : « A proposal for reforming group law in the European Union – Comparative observations on the way forward, October 2016 ».

The legal regime applicable to groups of companies in the European Union has been discussed for many years. National legislations have been adopted in a certain number of member states, and new initiatives are being considered by the European Commission and in academic writing. The central issues in groups of companies is the relationship between the controlling shareholder, often the parent company and the subsidiaries, and the potential for abuse to the detriment of the latter’s minority shareholders and creditors. Several answers have been formulated, going from a duty of the parent to indemnify the subsidiary for the charges imposed by the parent, to the acceptance of these charges provided they result in some benefit to the subsidiary and provided they do not endanger the subsidiary’s solvency. In a third approach, these issues may be solved by other common company law, e.g.  on the basis of the unfair prejudice provisions.  With respect to shareholder and creditor protection, a comparative analysis concludes that there is no need for additional regulatory safeguards. The present approaches indicate that group relations are often characterised by conflicts of interest. Therefore, it is proposed to develop a standard for dealing with these, especially under the form of Related Party Transactions.   The specific conditions for dealing with intragroup related party transactions are submitted for further discussion.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

La Commission européenne vient de publier un document sur le financement participatif qui fait l’état des lieux des initiatives nationales : « COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
– Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union » (SWD(2016) 154 final).

Voici la conclusion de ce document :

This report demonstrates that crowdfunding remains relatively small in the EU but is developing rapidly. It has the potential to be a key source of financing for SMEs over the long term.

Crowdfunding is one of many technological innovations that have the potential to transform the financial system. Therefore, crowdfunding warrants consideration as part of our broader approach to FinTech and the digitalisation of financial services, which is being looked at further in the Green Paper on Retail Financial Services.

As demonstrated in this report, to promote the growth of crowdfunding and appropriately protect investors, EU Member States have put in place a range of measures to regulate crowdfunding – either using the EU legislative framework where appropriate or via national regimes. These national frameworks are broadly consistent in terms of the objectives and outcomes they seek to achieve, but are tailored to local markets and domestic regulatory approaches.

Given the predominantly local nature of crowdfunding, there is no strong case for EU level policy intervention at this juncture. Crowdfunding is still relatively small and needs space to innovate and develop. Given the dynamism of crowdfunding and the potential for future cross border expansion, it will be important to monitor the development of the sector and the effectiveness, and degree of convergence of, national regulatory frameworks.

The Commission Services will therefore maintain regular dialogue, through twice yearly meetings, with the European Supervisory Authorities, Member States, and the crowdfunding sector to promote convergence, sharing of best practice and keep developments under review. We will assess the development of cross-border business and consider in particular the investor protection aspects. This will ensure the Commission is able to respond in a timely manner if further steps to support convergence of regulatory approaches are needed, both to promote the development of the sector and to ensure appropriate investor protection.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian