magistrska naloga
Marko Kosmač (Author), Marijan Kocbek (Mentor)

Abstract

V magistrski nalogi sem, po uvodni predstavitvi delnice, primerjal slovensko ureditev dopustnega pridobivanja lastnih delnic in njihovega umika ter prisilni umik delnic z odkupom in razveljavitvijo odkupljivih delnic v angleškem pravu. Ker področje lastnih in odkupljivih delnic ureja tudi evropska zakonodaja in ji v delu urejanja lastnih delnic naša domača zakonodaja sledi, sem v nalogi predstavil tudi osnovna izhodišča evropske ureditve lastnih in tudi odkupljivih delnic. Menim namreč, da ocena o tem, ali naše pravo pozna podoben korporacijskopravni institut, kot so odkupljive delnice v angleškem pravu, in ali je smiselno razmišljati o tem, da se navedena pravila vnesejo v naš pravni red, ni mogoča brez predstavitve osnovnih pravil lastnih in odkupljivih delnic po obravnavanih treh pravnih območjih. Na podlagi analize pravil slovenskega in angleškega ter evropskega prava sem prišel do zaključka, da se institut prisilnega umika delnic po našem pravu močno približa institutu odkupljivih delnic po angleškem. Ne glede na to pa ne moremo zaključiti, da sta ena in ista stvar. Če bi bilo namreč tako, potem evropska ureditev, ki jo bom v nalogi v izhodiščih predstavil, ne bi poznala in urejala obeh institutov, to je prisilnega umika delnic in tudi odkupljivih delnic. Kljub podobnosti ureditve prisilnega umika delnic po našem pravu in odkupljivih delnic po angleškem pa so med njima razlike, ki zmanjšujejo uporabnost pravnega instituta prisilnega umika delnic, če ga ocenjujemo z vidika uporabnosti odkupljivih delnic, kot jih pozna angleško pravo. Prepričan sem, da bi bila uvedba instituta povečanja osnovnega kapitala družbe z izdajo odkupljivih delnic v slovenskem pravu oziroma podrobnejša pravna ureditev prisilnega umika delnic po sedanji ureditvi dobrodošla. Zato je moj zaključek v magistrski nalogi ta, da glede na to, da so lahko odkupljive delnice za potencialne denarne vlagatelje bistveno bolj zanimive kot pa navadne neodkupljive in da dajejo imetniku drugače kot obveznice za čas njihove veljavnosti (trajanja) možnost sodelovanja na skupščini družbe in s tem pri njenem upravljanju, ne vidim posebne bojazni, da ne bi bile v praksi dobro sprejete. Dopuščam tudi sklep, da prisilni umik delnic, kot je zdaj predviden in urejen v ZGD-1, povsem zadostuje in da posebne ureditve odkupljivih delnic ne potrebujemo, vendar menim, da podobnosti med institutoma sicer obstajajo, a po pregledu in predstavitvi angleške ureditve odkupljivih delnic nikakor ne moremo izključiti možnosti za dograditev naše pravne ureditve. Ureditev prisilnega umika delnic v ZGD-1 namreč ni nujno zadostna, da bi lahko sklenili, da so odkupljive delnice pri nas pravno dopustne in v zakonu urejene. Če namreč želimo doseči bistveni namen odkupljivih delnic, torej da družba z »začasnim« povečanjem osnovnega kapitala angažira potrebna denarna sredstva z izdajo odkupljivih delnic in s sprejetjem tudi morebitnih novih delničarjev v svojo lastniško in posledično upravljavsko strukturo, potem je nomotehnična dodelava ZGD-1 nujna, saj bi razširila krog različnih možnosti izdaje tovrstnih delnic, ki bi bile za investitorje zadosti zanimive.

Keywords

odkupljiva delnica;lastne delnice;umik lastnih delnic;magistrsko delo;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [M. Kosmač]
UDC: 347.728.2(043.3)
COBISS: 5109035 Link will open in a new window
Views: 1349
Downloads: 178
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Redeemable Shares – A Withdrawal of Own Shares and the Compulsory Withdrawal of Shares according to Slovenian Law and in Comparison to The Cancellation of the Rredeemable Shares in the English Law
Secondary abstract: In my Master's Thesis, after the introduction to the presentation of the share, I have compared the Slovenian regulation of admissible acquisition of own shares and their withdrawal and the compulsory withdrawal of shares by redemption and the cancellation of the redeemable shares in the English law. Since the scope of the own shares and the redeemable shares is regulated also by the European legislation, which our legislation corresponds to, also the basic premises of the European regulation of the own shares and the redeemable shares have been represented in thesis. I consider, nevertheless, that the assessment on whether there is a corporative-legal institute regarding the redeemable shares in our law similar to the English law, and the assessment on whether it is reasonably to think about the transmission of such rules into our legal system, are not possible without the representation of the basic rules of the own shares and the redeemable shares under the indicated three legal areas. Based on the analysis of the regulations in the Slovenian law and the English law and the European law, I have concluded that the institute of the compulsory withdrawal of shares in Slovenian law approaches to the institute of the redeemable shares in English law. Regardless the already stated, we cannot conclude that those two institutes are the one and same thing. Otherwise the European legislation which fundamentals will be represented in thesis would not know nor would it regulate both of the institutes, which are the compulsory withdrawal of shares and the redeemable shares. Despite the similarity between the regulation of the compulsory withdrawal of shares in our law and the redeemable shares in English law there are differentials between the both of them which are reducing the usability of the legal institute of the compulsory withdrawal of shares, when it is assessed in terms of the usability of the redeemable shares according to the English law. However, I believe that the imposition of the institute of increasing in share capital of the company by issuing the redeemable share in the Slovenian law or the detailed regulation of the compulsory withdrawal of shares under the current legislation shall be preferred. Therefore, regardless to the fact that the redeemable shares may be more interesting for the potential financial investors than the ordinary non-redeemable shares, and regardless to the fact that they provide the opportunity to the holder to participate in the assembly and by this in its governance for the duration of their validity, unlike bonds, my conclusion in this thesis is that there is no specific concerns whether the redeemable shares would not be well accepted in practice. It is also possible to conclude that the compulsory withdrawal of shares as currently envisaged and regulated in the Companies Act (hereinafter: CA-1) may be sufficient and that the special regulation of redeemable shares may not be needed, although I believe that similarities between the both institutes exist. But after the examination and the representation of the English regulation of the redeemable shares we cannot exclude the possibilities for the upgrading of our legal system. Furthermore, the regulation of the compulsory withdrawal of shares in CA-1 is not necessarily sufficient, so we cannot conclude that the redeemable shares are legally admissible in our system and regulated in the law. If we want to achieve the essential purpose of the redeemable shares so that the company engage the necessary financial funds for ‘’temporary’’ increase in share capital by issuing the redeemable share and by the adoption of a potential new shareholders in its ownership and management structure, the nomotechnical finishing of the CA-1 shall be necessary, since this would spread round the various options of issuing of such shares that would be sufficiently attractive to investors.
Secondary keywords: redeemable share;own share;withdrawal of shares;
URN: URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 165 str.
ID: 9123520