Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company
Einde inhoudsopgave
Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company (IVOR nr. 72) 2010/2.3.3:2.3.3 Second Company Law Directive
Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company (IVOR nr. 72) 2010/2.3.3
2.3.3 Second Company Law Directive
Documentgegevens:
mr. dr. P.P. de Vries, datum 03-05-2010
- Datum
03-05-2010
- Auteur
mr. dr. P.P. de Vries
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS410770:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Toon alle voetnoten
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Artt. 39a and 39b Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 77/91/EEC, as regards the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, Brussels 29 October 2004.
Commission Working Document, Detailed explanation (by article) of Proposal amending Directive 77/91/EEC, p. 9. See: De Vries (2004b), p. 47-48.
DG Interral Market & Services (2005), p. 10, see Q.9.
Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.
The Commission of the European Communities followed the recommendation of the Winter Committee to introduce squeeze-out rights and sell-out rights in the context of listed companies. In September 2004, this Commission proposed an amendment of the Second Company Law Directive. This proposed directive included a squeeze-out right and an appraisal right, comparable to the squeeze-out right and appraisal right under the Thirteenth Company Law Directive. These rights would apply outside the context of a takeover bid, but are restricted to listed companies.1 With the introduction of the appraisal right, the balance between the squeeze-out right and the appraisal right was recognized. The appraisal right was motivated as the quid pro quo, as something for something, i.e. to balance the squeeze-out right conferred on the majority shareholder.2
Nevertheless, the provisions regarding the squeeze-out right and sell-out right were abolished in the subsequent text of the proposed amendment of the Second Company Law Directive. It was argued that, during the negotiations about the proposed directive, it appeared that the provisions did not fit the simplification objective of the proposed directive.3