Publication: Minorias obstruccionistas y acuerdos negativos
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2022-02
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
El presente trabajo estudia en profundidad el comportamiento obstruccionista que pueden llevar a cabo los socios minoritarios que conforman una sociedad. Concretamente, se estudian los supuestos en los que este minoritario movido por una actitud espuria y, por ende, contraria al interés social, impide con su voto aprobar una determinada propuesta que resulta vital para el desarrollo normal, o incluso la supervivencia, de la sociedad. Partiendo del análisis de esta cuestión, se delimita que se entiende por “interés social”, tratando, en todo momento, de establecer un hilo conductor a lo largo del trabajo que nos permita advertir como esta conducta obstruccionista puede desembocar en el surgimiento de los denominados, por la doctrina y jurisprudencia, “acuerdos negativos”, o lo que es lo mismo, propuestas de acuerdo que no han conseguido su aprobación en junta general y que, por ende, no han podido ser adoptadas.
Asimismo, analizamos en el trabajo que se entiende por “acuerdo negativo” y cuál es la forma utilizada por nuestro ordenamiento para hacer frente a aquellos que hayan sido adoptados a través de una conducta obstruccionista del socio y en detrimento de las exigencias de la buena fe en las relaciones societarias. De igual forma, se plantea si, verdaderamente, es correcto utilizar el mecanismo que nos otorga en el artículo 204.1 la Ley de Sociedades de Capital, relativo a la impugnación de acuerdos y si, una vez impugnado el acuerdo negativo, cabe la posibilidad de que un juez revierta, mediante resolución judicial, la situación que genera la falta de adopción del mismo. Finalmente, se analizarán las posibles consecuencias que puede tener para el socio obstruccionista, frustrar la adopción de un acuerdo social vital para la sociedad.
This paper entails an in-depth study about the obstructionist behaviour that can be displayed by minority shareholders from a company. Specifically, it analyses the cases in which these minority shareholders who, motivated by a spurious attitude and, therefore, against company's interests, use their votes to prevent the approval of a certain proposal that is vital for the normal development - or even the survival - of the company. Regarding this matter, the term "corporate interest" is defined, trying to maintain coherence throughout the work in order to allow us to comprehend how this obstructionist conduct can lead to the emergence of what doctrine and jurisprudence call "negative resolutions", or, in other words, proposed resolutions that have not been approved at the general meeting and which, therefore, have not been able to be adopted. Furthermore, it is also elucidated what is meant by a "negative resolution" and how our legal system deals with resolutions that have been adopted through obstructionist conduct by shareholders and to the detriment of good faith requirements in corporate relations. Likewise, the question arises as to whether it is really correct to use the mechanism provided in the article 204.1 of the Capital Companies Act, relating to the challenge of resolutions, and if, once the negative resolution has been contested, it is actually possible for a judge to reverse, through a judicial resolution, the situation generated by the failure to adopt said resolution. Finally, the possible consequences for the obstructing shareholder frustrating the adoption of a vital corporate resolution for the company will be analysed.
This paper entails an in-depth study about the obstructionist behaviour that can be displayed by minority shareholders from a company. Specifically, it analyses the cases in which these minority shareholders who, motivated by a spurious attitude and, therefore, against company's interests, use their votes to prevent the approval of a certain proposal that is vital for the normal development - or even the survival - of the company. Regarding this matter, the term "corporate interest" is defined, trying to maintain coherence throughout the work in order to allow us to comprehend how this obstructionist conduct can lead to the emergence of what doctrine and jurisprudence call "negative resolutions", or, in other words, proposed resolutions that have not been approved at the general meeting and which, therefore, have not been able to be adopted. Furthermore, it is also elucidated what is meant by a "negative resolution" and how our legal system deals with resolutions that have been adopted through obstructionist conduct by shareholders and to the detriment of good faith requirements in corporate relations. Likewise, the question arises as to whether it is really correct to use the mechanism provided in the article 204.1 of the Capital Companies Act, relating to the challenge of resolutions, and if, once the negative resolution has been contested, it is actually possible for a judge to reverse, through a judicial resolution, the situation generated by the failure to adopt said resolution. Finally, the possible consequences for the obstructing shareholder frustrating the adoption of a vital corporate resolution for the company will be analysed.