Category: *In English

Het intern reglement in het WVV: ingrijpende wijzigingen, maar niet voor de CV

Een post door gastbloggers Evariest Callens en Louis De Meulemeester (UGent)

Vennootschappen draaien in essentie om samenwerking. De spelregels van deze samenwerking tussen de verschillende aandeelhouders worden in principe in de statuten vastgelegd en kunnen slechts met bijzondere meerderheid worden gewijzigd. Toch zijn het niet enkel de statuten waarin afspraken worden gemaakt omtrent de rechten van aandeelhouders en de werking van de vennootschap. In de praktijk wordt voor dezelfde doeleinden bijvoorbeeld frequent gebruik gemaakt van een intern reglement (soms ook wel ‘huishoudelijk reglement’ of ‘reglement van inwendige orde’ genoemd). Met de introductie van het Wetboek van vennootschappen en verenigingen (WVV) heeft de wetgever het gebruik van het intern reglement aan een aantal beperkende voorwaarden onderworpen. Deze voorwaarden zijn opgenomen in boek 2 WVV en gelden dus in principe voor alle rechtspersonen geregeld in het WVV. Voor wat betreft de coöperatieve vennootschap voorziet het WVV evenwel in een, voor de praktijk niet onbelangrijke, afwijkende regeling. Continue reading “Het intern reglement in het WVV: ingrijpende wijzigingen, maar niet voor de CV”

Redeneringen ‘a contrario’ in het WVV

Editoriaal in TRV/RPS, 2020, p. 3 e.v.

Wikipedia, zoals bekend een autoriteit op vlak van juridisch redeneren, stelt over de redenering a contrario:

“Vooral onder juristen zijn a contrario redeneringen populair. Als er een wettelijke regel is “indien A, dan B” (implicatie), dan kan daar de conclusie uit worden getrokken: “indien niet A, dan niet B”. Maar een dergelijke gevolgtrekking in deze vorm is onjuist, hoewel de conclusie (dat niet B) wel juist kan zijn. Slechts als eerstgenoemde regel luidde:(1) “alléén indien A, dan B” (replicatie) , of (2) “Als en slechts als A, dan B” (equivalentie) is deze omkering toelaatbaar volgens de wetten van de logica. Bij een beroep op een argumentatie a contrario moet dus altijd een lampje gaan branden.”

Ook in het ondernemingsrecht zijn a contrario redeneringen verdacht (zie ook Koen Geens over  “vermoeiende a contrarioconclusies” in zijn boekbespreking van Asser-Maeijer 5-V, TPR 1998, 1149).

De a contrario redenering leidt conclusies af uit het stilzwijgen van de wetgever: “als een rechtgevolg wordt vastgeknoopt aan A, en er niets gezegd wordt over B, dan zal de wetgever wel gewenst hebben hebben dat het rechtsgevolg niet geldt voor B.”

Dat miskent dat de wetgever meestal slechts een beperkte focus heeft bij het opstellen van een tekst. Als in de Wet betreffende Olifanten staat dat olifanten vier poten moeten hebben, dan kan daar niets over giraffen worden uit afgeleid. Dat was gewoon niet de focus van de wetgever op dat ogenblik.

De zaak wordt anders indien er een Wetboek betreffende Alle Dieren wordt geschreven. Indien het hoofdstuk voor de olifant bepaalt dat de olifant twee grote oren en korte dikke nek moet hebben, komt men wel in de verleiding gevolgen te trekken uit de afwezigheid van gelijkaardige regels in het hoofdstuk over de giraffen. De focus van een codificatie is net systematisch na te denken over wat gelijk moet zijn en verschillen tussen de verschillende behandelde figuren.

In een editoriaal in het laatste nummer van het TRV/RPS (“Wat zegt de wetgever als hij zwijgt?”) geef ik enkele voorbeelden van hoe ook in het WVV a contrario redeneringen niet altijd opgaan: Continue reading “Redeneringen ‘a contrario’ in het WVV”

The new Code of Companies and Associations of Belgium through the eyes of its neighbours

Symposium in Leuven, Belgium, March 20th 2020

The Belgian Centre for Company law organizes on March 20th 2020 (14h00-18h00) at the law faculty of KU Leuven (Belgium) a symposium on the recent Belgian company law reform with four distinguished academics from The Netherlands, France, Germany and Luxembourg. The following topics will be discussed: Continue reading “The new Code of Companies and Associations of Belgium through the eyes of its neighbours”

De Hoge Raad over bestuursaansprakelijkheid bij selectieve betalingen bij ondernemingen in moeilijkheden

Een post door gastblogger Prof. Dr. Steef Bartman (Professor of Corporate Group Liability, Universiteit Maastricht)

Bestuurders van ondernemingen in moeilijkheden staan vaak voor lastige betalingsdilemma’s. Betaling van de huur voor bedrijfsruimte maakt dat de maandelijkse aflossing van het bankkrediet erbij inschiet. Bij een omgekeerde behandeling dreigt de verhuurder zijn persoonlijke borgstelling in te roepen. Krijgt de leverancier niet betaald, dan stokt de productie en wordt een reorganisatie lastig uitvoerbaar. De grens tussen goed ondernemerschap en onbehoorlijk bestuur is in de praktijk vliesdun. Biedt het recht de bestuurder een helder richtsnoer? Continue reading “De Hoge Raad over bestuursaansprakelijkheid bij selectieve betalingen bij ondernemingen in moeilijkheden”

Towards harmonisation of bank insolvency laws

The harmonisation of insolvency rules for European banks was recently put on the table by Germany’s finance minister Olaf Scholz, together with other measures (such as a European deposit insurance scheme) destined to advance the banking union (see his position paper on the goals of the banking union).  According to Minister Scholz:

The lack of harmonisation in this area complicates the resolution of banks with cross-border operations. This becomes particularly problematic when banks and creditors are better placed in proceedings under national insolvency legislation than they would be with a resolution in accordance with the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive. When this happens, national insolvency legislation undercuts the provisions that are tailored to fit the specific set of interests at play when a bank is wound down.

What is more, the SRB also needs to take into account 19 different national insolvency regimes when performing a resolution due to the no-creditor-worse-off principle, which stipulates that no creditor may incur greater losses as a result of a resolution than they would have in national insolvency proceedings. This is complex, increases legal and compensation risks and results in groups of creditors receiving different treatment despite being fundamentally the same.

For this reason, we need a single European set of laws on bank insolvency.

Coincidentally (or not), a study on the differences between bank insolvency laws and on their potential harmonisation was recently published (the report and the executive summary can be found here). The abstract from the executive summary reads as follows:

 The resolution framework set out under Directive 2014/59/EU (‘BRRD’) provides EU Member States with comprehensive and harmonised arrangements to deal with failing banks at a national level, and is complemented in the euro area by the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) that sets out a euro-area-wide resolution framework. But under EU law, unlike in the United States, resolution does not function as a standalone substitute for national insolvency proceedings. This study identifies the national insolvency procedures applicable to banks and analyses key differences between them, notably concerning the circumstances according to which the application of reorganisation or winding-up procedures is triggered, the ranking of liabilities, and the available tools to manage bank crises. By highlighting the differences that can be found in the legislative regimes applicable at national level and determining how these national insolvency regimes differ from the resolution regime as set out in the BRRD and SRMR, the study assesses the potential disadvantages that result from the lack of harmonisation of these bank insolvency regimes. Taking these disadvantages into account, policy options are outlined to address these divergences. The feasibility, benefits, obstacles and impact of these options are discussed. In terms of future revision of the current framework, more clarity and predictability of the applicable regime should be sought, particularly for medium-sized banks, with a holistic approach to reform that also takes into account related policies such as those on state aid control and deposit insurance.

 

 

Party Autonomy and Third-Party Protection in Insolvency Law

Papers from the INSOL Europe Academic Forum Annual Conference Athens, Greece, 3-4 October 2018

69356918_2596135720425106_922483357986586624_n - kopie (002)From 24 to 29 September 2019, the Inaugural YANIL Conference at 10 Years, the INSOL Europe Academic Forum and the INSOL Europe Annual Congress took place in Copenhagen, Denmark. The main topic of these conferences was the recently adopted European Restructuring Directive (what else?).

We will not try to summarise these discussions (a full report by Myriam Mailly, Jennifer Gant and Paul Omar will appear in the next edition of Eurofenix). We will try, however, to draw attention to the conference proceedings booklet of the Academic Forum 2018 which took place in Athens, Greece and which was published during this year’s conference. The topic of last year’s conference was “Party Autonomy and Third-Party Protection in Insolvency Law”, hence the title of this booklet. Continue reading “Party Autonomy and Third-Party Protection in Insolvency Law”

The Code of Capital – Video of the book presentation at KU Leuven

At the invitation of Corporate Finance Lab, Professor Katharina Pistor (Columbia Law School) presented her book The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality at the KU Leuven in Brussels on November the 4th 2019. You can find the video’s of the introduction by Professor Dirk Heremans, the lecture by Professor Katharina Pistor and Belgian responses by Professor Ludo Cornelis, Professor Koen Geens and Professor Joeri Vananroye on YouTube.

Continue reading “The Code of Capital – Video of the book presentation at KU Leuven”

Next week: book presentation by Katharina Pistor in Brussels

The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality

The Code of Capital by Katharina Pistor has been creating a lot of buzz over the last months. As announced previously, Professor Pistor will present her book next Monday November 4 at 16h30 at the Brussels campus of KU Leuven. Please note that because of the high number of attendants the presentation has been moved to Auditorium 2215 (Stormstraat 2 / 2  rue d’Assaut,  1000 Brussels).

screen_shot_0A short overview of the book by Professor Pistor herself can be found here (ProMarket, the blog of the Stigler Center at the University of Chicago). See here for an interview with her (Völkerrechtsblog). In a review on Law and Political Economy, Professor Samuel Moyn (Yale) writes: Continue reading “Next week: book presentation by Katharina Pistor in Brussels”

Agency Theory in the 21st Century

Conference at Maastricht University, October 25th. 2019

The Institute for Corporate Governance and Innovation Policies (ICGI) and Institute for Transnational Legal Research (METRO) at Maastricht University will host next Friday an interdisciplinary conference on ‘AGENCY THEORY IN THE 21st CENTURY’ at the Faculty of Law in Maastricht with Damla Bos (Maastricht University), David Cabrelli and Ewa Kruszewska (The University of Edinburgh), Joeri Vananroye (KU Leuven), Jean-Philippe Robé (SciencesPo Law School), Constantijn van Aartsen (Maastricht University) an Mieke Olaerts (Maastricht University).

Agency theory – the economic analysis of relationships between agents and principals – is influential and has spread well beyond its economic roots into a variety of disciplines, including law, political science, sociology, corporate governance and finance. It is used by scholars to design efficient institutions, structure individual incentives, prevent corporate corruption and compare institutional arrangements. Reliance on agency theory in these areas has, unfortunately, not prevented corporate scandals and suboptimal rates of trust in business and other institutions. The overarching aim of this conference is to address these issues in an interdisciplinary and international setting.

Programme

10.00-10.30 Registration & coffee
10.30-10.50 Introduction – Damla Bos, LLM – Maastricht University
10.50-11.40 Prof. David Cabrelli and Dr. Ewa Kruszewska – The University of Edinburgh
“The Limits of Agency Theory”
11.40-12.30 Prof. Joeri Vananroye – KU Leuven
“The Blind Spots of Agency Theory in Corporate Finance Law”
12.30-13.20 Lunch Break in room B0.006
13.20-14.10 Dr. Jean-Philippe Robé – SciencesPo Law School“Being Done with Milton Friedman”
14.10-15.00 Constantijn van Aartsen, LLM – Maastricht University“Agency Theory in the 21st Century: Legitimate, Reductionist and Overapplied”
15.00-15.30 Coffee break
15.30-17.00 Roundtable discussion
17.00-17.30 Closing – Prof. Mieke Olaerts – Maastricht University

 

Who’s afraid of the WTO?

A post by guest blogger Marie Parys

In August 2019, the US national security advisor visited the UK bearing the news of a trade deal. Perhaps not as conspicuous as it was odd was his statement that a future US-UK free trade agreement could be done on a “sector-by-sector-basis”. WTO rules decree that legal free-trade agreements must cover “substantially all trade”. This renders sectoral trade liberalization impossible. Or does it? Despite Prime Minister Boris Johnson conceding that negotiating a UK-US free trade agreement will be a “tough old haggle”, he has stated that it is the “single biggest deal” the UK needs to do following Brexit. Would the UK and the US be willing to flaunt WTO rules to get to the golden goose of an albeit gradual free trade agreement? Are WTO rules binding and enforceable, and why do most Members follow recommendations of the WTO dispute settlement system? In other words: how sharp are the WTO’s teeth and why do they bite? Continue reading “Who’s afraid of the WTO?”

The Road Towards Good Bankruptcy Governance: A Comparative Law and Economics Perspective

Papers from the INSOL Europe Academic Forum Annual Conference Athens, Greece, 3-4 October 2018

In the recently issued conference proceedings booklet “Party-Autonomy and Third Party Protection in Insolvency Law”, I published a paper called “The Road Towards Good Bankruptcy Governance: A Comparative Law and Economics Perspective”. The paper seeks to start the discussion on the topic of good bankruptcy (or insolvency) governance and to inspire idealistic researchers to become involved in this discussion. Three key aspects of good bankruptcy governance were dealt with in this paper.

First, an attempt was made to define the concept of “good bankruptcy governance”. This was later narrowed down to the following question: “In whose interest should the management of a corporation or insolvency estate act?”. A short comparative analysis of the US, the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands did not provide a clear answer.

However, some room for common ground could be found by Continue reading “The Road Towards Good Bankruptcy Governance: A Comparative Law and Economics Perspective”

‘Sometimes you need to talk to a three year old so you can understand life again’

Third anniversary of Corporate Finance Lab

Corporate Finance Lab celebrates today its third anniversary with a legacy of more than 500 posts.  For what it is worth, the most-read posts of all-time are:

In English:

In Dutch: 
Continue reading “‘Sometimes you need to talk to a three year old so you can understand life again’”

Limits to Group Structures and Asset Partitioning in Insolvency

The 800-Pound Gorilla. Limits to Group Structures and Asset Partitioning in Insolvency, Preadviezen / Reports 2018

The website of the Netherlands Association for Comparative and International Insolvency Law (NACIIL) has published in open access the reports (“preadviezen”) on Limits to Group Structures and Asset Partitioning in Insolvency.

This book contains reports prepared by prof. R. Squire (US), prof. J. Vananroye, A. van Hoe and dr. G. Lindemans (Belgium), prof. F.M.J. Verstijlen and A. Karapetian (Netherlands) and A.L. Jonkers (Netherlands). From the introduction to reports by the NACIIL board:

“In insolvency procedures, administrators have to accept the estate as they find it. Furthermore, administrators are commonly appointed in the proceeding as to a specific legal entity and have to respect the separate legal personality. By means of limited liability and separate legal personality, groups can incorporate in ways where liabilities and assets are allocated in different legal entities. This creates room for opportunism, especially in relation to creditors.

The 2018 NACIIL annual reports focus on the theme ‘Limits to Group Structures and Asset Partitioning in Insolvency’. This theme encompasses two related topics at the intersection of corporate law and insolvency law: (1) the artificial subdivision of enterprises over different legal entities (asset partitioning) and (2) selective perforation by means of guarantees. Continue reading “Limits to Group Structures and Asset Partitioning in Insolvency”

The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality 

KU Leuven Campus Brussels | Monday 4 November 2019

9780691178974Professor Katharina Pistor (Columbia Law School) presents on Monday 4 November 2019 in Brussels her book The Code of Capital on how the law shapes the distribution of wealth.

This book develops i.a. the topics which Professor Pistor touched upon in her Heremans Lectures as Global Law Professor at the KU Leuven in 2016.

“This is a fascinating book that demonstrates how the rights of capital have been entrenched in the international legal system. The Code of Capital opens the way for a thoughtful discussion about the treaties on capital flows and privileges that need to be rewritten. A must-read.”

Thomas Piketty

Programme

16.30: Welcome by Professor Dirk Heremans (emeritus KU Leuven)

16.40: Lecture by Professor Katharina Pistor (Columbia Law School)

17.40: Belgian responses by

  • Professor Koen Geens (KU Leuven and Minister of Justice of Belgium)
  • Professor Ludo Cornelis (emeritus VUB)
  • Professor Joeri Vananroye (KU Leuven)

18.10: Q&A

18.30: End

Venue Continue reading “The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality “

Call for proposals: Corporate & Organizational Decision-Making

By: Business & Liability Research Network (Leiden University)

The Business & Liability Research Network (BLRN) – a partnership between the Company Law department and the Business Studies department of the Leiden Law School – is launching its call for proposals for a new book project on the topic of Corporate & Organizational Decision-Making.

The Business & Liability Research Network

BLRN focuses on innovative and multidisciplinary research in the areas of (i) Good Corporate Governance, (ii) Distress & Insolvency and (iii) Future Business Structures. It was launched in 2018 with an opening conference on “Business Resilience”, which proved to be the prelude to a successful first year.

The network offers the possibility to bring together different research areas (legal and business research) as well as practice and the academic world, leading to innovative perspectives on current issues.

BLRN Book Project

The topic of decision-making in corporations and organizations is receiving increased attention due to the impact of technological developments, discussions on corporate governance and practical examples of (inadequate) decision-making processes. In this project, BLRN aims to highlight corporate & organizational decision-making from a multidisciplinary perspective. From both a legal and business perspective, research will be conducted within the sphere of the three research areas of BLRN: (i) Good Corporate Governance, (ii) Distress & Insolvency and (iii) Future Business Structures. This includes, for example, the relationship between corporate governance and entrepreneurship, the way in which various actors should act during insolvency and the impact of technological developments on a company. Continue reading “Call for proposals: Corporate & Organizational Decision-Making”