Normes d’encadrement | Page 4

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…

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, la sénatrice Élisabeth Warren vient d’introduire un projet de loi très ambitieux (!) : le S.3348 – Accountable Capitalism Act.

Plusieurs points saillants ressortent de ce projet :

• La création d’un Office of United States Corporations.
• La possibilité de s’enregistrer auprès de cet organisme fédéral (alors que jusqu’à maintenant, rappelons-le, l’enregistrement se faisait auprès des États et notamment celui du Delaware).
• Les salariés représenteraient 40 % du CA.
• L’entreprise devrait poursuivre une mission sociétale.
• La redéfintion des devoirs des administrateurs et hauts-dirigeants.

Pour en savoir plus, lire cet article ici du The Guardian.

Extrait du projet de loi

SEC. 5. Responsibilities of United States corporations.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) GENERAL PUBLIC BENEFIT.—The term “general public benefit” means a material positive impact on society resulting from the business and operations of a United States corporation, when taken as a whole. (…)

(1) IN GENERAL.—The charter of a large entity that is filed with the Office shall state that the entity is a United States corporation.

(2) CORPORATE PURPOSES.—A United States corporation shall have the purpose of creating a general public benefit, which shall be—

(A) identified in the charter of the United States corporation; and

(B) in addition to the purpose of the United States corporation under the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable.

(c) Standard of conduct for directors and officers.—

(c) Standard of conduct for directors and officers.—

(1) CONSIDERATION OF INTERESTS.—In discharging the duties of their respective positions, and in considering the best interests of a United States corporation, the board of directors, committees of the board of directors, and individual directors of a United States corporation—

(A) shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the United States corporation in a manner that—

(i) seeks to create a general public benefit; and

(ii) balances the pecuniary interests of the shareholders of the United States corporation with the best interests of persons that are materially affected by the conduct of the United States corporation; and

(B) in carrying out subparagraph (A)—

(i) shall consider the effects of any action or inaction on—

(I) the shareholders of the United States corporation;

(II) the employees and workforce of—

(aa) the United States corporation;

(bb) the subsidiaries of the United States corporation; and

(cc) the suppliers of the United States corporation;

(III) the interests of customers and subsidiaries of the United States corporation as beneficiaries of the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(IV) community and societal factors, including those of each community in which offices or facilities of the United States corporation, subsidiaries of the United States corporation, or suppliers of the United States corporation are located;

(V) the local and global environment;

(VI) the short-term and long-term interests of the United States corporation, including—

(aa) benefits that may accrue to the United States corporation from the long-term plans of the United States corporation; and

(bb) the possibility that those interests may be best served by the continued independence of the United States corporation; and

(VII) the ability of the United States corporation to accomplish the general public benefit purpose of the United States corporation;

(ii) may consider—

(I) other pertinent factors; or

(II) the interests of any other group that are identified in the articles of incorporation in the State in which the United States corporation is incorporated, if applicable; and

(iii) shall not be required to give priority to a particular interest or factor described in clause (i) or (ii) over any other interest or factor.

(2) STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR OFFICERS.—Each officer of a United States corporation shall balance and consider the interests and factors described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) in the manner described in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) if—

(A) the officer has discretion to act with respect to a matter; and

(B) it reasonably appears to the officer that the matter may have a material effect on the creation by the United States corporation of a general public benefit identified in the charter of the United States corporation.

(3) EXONERATION FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY.—Except as provided in the charter of a United States corporation, neither a director nor an officer of a United States corporation may be held personally liable for monetary damages for—

(A) any action or inaction in the course of performing the duties of a director under paragraph (1) or an officer under paragraph (2), as applicable, if the director or officer was not interested with respect to the action or inaction; or

(B) the failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit. (…)

(d) Right of action.—

(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF CORPORATION.—A United States corporation shall not be liable for monetary damages under this section for any failure of the United States corporation to pursue or create a general public benefit.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

En voilà une nouvelle ! Selon Me Sarah Fitzpatrick de Miller Thomson LLP, la Colombie-Britannique a déposé un projet de loi visant à introduire une Benefit corporation dans la province de la Colombie-Britannique : « B.C. Considers Benefit Corporations » (27 juin 2018).

British Columbia may become the first province in Canada to pass legislation that provides for the creation of « benefit corporations. » Benefit corporations are different from the typical for-profit business corporation in that they must be mandated to conduct business for the purpose of creating a general public benefit. They must also adhere to a certain level of accountability and transparency.  Benefit corporations started as a « B Corp » certification issued by B Lab, a non-profit headquartered in Pennsylvania. B Lab then prepared model legislation for U.S. States to adopt, officially authorizing corporations to conduct business for a public benefit purpose and allowing directors to act in the best interest of the public.  Currently, 33 U.S. States and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that officially authorizes benefit corporations.

Bill M 216 proposes to amend the B.C. Business Corporations Act (the « Act ») to create benefit companies. The bill is a private members’ bill, which passed second reading on May 17, 2018. As it has passed both first and second reading (which is rare), it is expected that Bill M 216 will receive enough support to pass third reading and be enacted into law.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Dans le numéro d’avril 2018 de TÉLÉMARQUE (volume 23, numéro 4), Me Marc Guénette propose une synthèse fort utile de la compagnie à contribution communautaire de la Colombie-Britannique (ici).

Ces entreprises existent depuis peu et ont vu le jour en Colombie-Britannique. Elles sont inexistantes au Québec.

Les compagnies à contribution communautaire ont en commun l’adoption d’un modèle d’entreprise commerciale favorisant le changement social et non l’atteinte du profit à tout prix. Pour compenser ce rendement pécuniaire « moindre » pour les investisseurs et pour maintenir leur intérêt, les autorités gouvernementales ont adopté des mesures réglementaires pour appuyer ces sociétés dans l’atteinte de leurs buts visant la collectivité.

Voici un très court aperçu des dispositions pertinentes de la loi de la Colombie-Britannique sur les CCC :

• Une contribution communautaire est définie comme une contribution qui est bénéfique à la société en général ou à un groupe de personnes qui est supérieur au nombre de personnes liées à la CCC tel que défini dans la loi et inclut des fins liées à la santé, la société, l’environnement, la culture, l’éducation et autres services semblables.
• Une société est une CCC si dans ses statuts, elle inscrit le libellé suivant
  • « Cette société est une compagnie à contribution communautaire et à cet effet a des fins bénéfiques pour la société. Cette société est restreinte par la loi dans sa capacité à payer des dividendes et à partager le reliquat de ses biens lors de sa dissolution. »

Le montant du dividende qu’elle peut verser ne peut dépasser 40 % des profits réalisés durant son année financière. Elle ne peut vendre ses actifs ou transférer des sommes d’argent sauf si cela se fait à la juste valeur marchande, à une entité qualifiée telle que définie dans la loi et celle-ci doit poursuivre les fins de la CCC qui a procédé audit transfert. Elle est également assujettie à certaines restrictions quant aux rachats d’actions.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, l’association Entreprises pour les droits de l’Homme (EDH) et B&L Evolution ont publié, au mois d’avril, la première étude sur les plans de vigilance des groupes français, afin d‘analyser la manière dont ils ont répondu à cette nouvelle obligation, les pratiques des entreprises pour ce premier exercice, et tirer des recommandations pour les années à venir.

Extrait :

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian