封闭式公司股东退出:英德比较分析

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Corporate Law Studies Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/14735970.2021.2012883
Alan K. Koh
{"title":"封闭式公司股东退出:英德比较分析","authors":"Alan K. Koh","doi":"10.1080/14735970.2021.2012883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are important to most economies, but the laws of close corporation entities used by SMEs are underrepresented in comparative corporate law scholarship. This Article critically analyses ‘withdrawal’ regimes in Germany's GmbH (Austritt aus wichtigem Grund) and the UK's private company limited by shares (unfair prejudice remedy) that respond to shareholder conflicts in close corporations. Comparative analysis reveals how the two jurisdictions differ in treatment of ‘non-fault’ scenarios and their underlying visions of shareholder protection. Potential reform of the UK's withdrawal regime based on German and Singapore law is also explored.","PeriodicalId":44517,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Corporate Law Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":"197 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shareholder withdrawal in close corporations: an Anglo-German comparative analysis\",\"authors\":\"Alan K. Koh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14735970.2021.2012883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are important to most economies, but the laws of close corporation entities used by SMEs are underrepresented in comparative corporate law scholarship. This Article critically analyses ‘withdrawal’ regimes in Germany's GmbH (Austritt aus wichtigem Grund) and the UK's private company limited by shares (unfair prejudice remedy) that respond to shareholder conflicts in close corporations. Comparative analysis reveals how the two jurisdictions differ in treatment of ‘non-fault’ scenarios and their underlying visions of shareholder protection. Potential reform of the UK's withdrawal regime based on German and Singapore law is also explored.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Corporate Law Studies\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"197 - 228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Corporate Law Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14735970.2021.2012883\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Corporate Law Studies","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14735970.2021.2012883","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

中小企业(SMEs)对大多数经济体都很重要,但中小企业使用的密切公司实体的法律在比较公司法学术中代表性不足。本文批判性地分析了德国有限责任公司(奥地利股份有限公司)和英国私人股份有限公司(不公平偏见救济)应对封闭式公司股东冲突的“退出”制度。比较分析揭示了两个司法管辖区在处理“无过错”情景及其对股东保护的潜在愿景方面的差异。本文还探讨了基于德国和新加坡法律对英国脱欧制度进行改革的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Shareholder withdrawal in close corporations: an Anglo-German comparative analysis
ABSTRACT Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are important to most economies, but the laws of close corporation entities used by SMEs are underrepresented in comparative corporate law scholarship. This Article critically analyses ‘withdrawal’ regimes in Germany's GmbH (Austritt aus wichtigem Grund) and the UK's private company limited by shares (unfair prejudice remedy) that respond to shareholder conflicts in close corporations. Comparative analysis reveals how the two jurisdictions differ in treatment of ‘non-fault’ scenarios and their underlying visions of shareholder protection. Potential reform of the UK's withdrawal regime based on German and Singapore law is also explored.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
The extension of vicarious liability in corporate groups Investor personhood: the case against paternalism and welfarism in corporate law Separate legal personality – an explanation and a defence Directors’ positive duty to act in the interests of the entity: shareholders’ interests bounded by corporate purpose Private credit: a renaissance in corporate finance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1