Company Delistings From the Zagreb Stock Exchange and the Need to Change Delisting Rules

U radu se analizira regulatorni okvir za povlačenje vrijednosnih papira s uređenog tržišta u hrvatskom pravu, upućujući na otvorena pitanja u primjeni zakonskih odredaba. Autorice su provele istraživanje o postupcima povlačenja dionica sa Zagrebačke burze za referentni period od ulaska Republike Hrvatske u Europsku uniju (1. srpnja 2013. godine) do 31. prosinca 2017. godine. Iznose se rezultati istraživanja, koji se klasificiraju prema korporativnoj akciji koja je prethodila donošenju odluke o povlačenju dionica s uređenoga tržišta. Zaključuje se da do povlačenja dionica s uređenoga tržišta najčešće dolazi nakon provođenja postupka preuzimanja, pri čemu prethodno može doći do istiskivanja manjinskih dioničara iz društva. Daljnje korporativne akcije koje su prethodile odluci o delistingu su provođenje stečajnog postupka, kao i statusne promjene pripajanja ili preoblikovanja u društvo s ograničenom odgovornošću. Ujedno se upućuje na novi trend u regulatornom uređenju delistinga u njemačkom pravu, koji se u bitnome razlikuje od hrvatskih rješenja.The article analyses the regulatory framework for delisting in Croatian law, pointing out the open issues in its application. The authors conducted research into the delisting procedures on the Zagreb Stock Exchange in the period from 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2017. The article presents the results of the research, classified according to the corporate action that preceded the decision to withdraw shares from the regulated market. The authors conclude that delisting usually comes after the takeover process, whereby a squeeze-out of minority shareholders may occur. Other corporate actions that preceded the decision on delisting were the implementation of bankruptcy proceedings, mergers and acquisitions of companies, or transformation into a limited liability company. Furthermore, the article points to a new trend in the regulation of delisting in German law, which contains significant differences compared to the Croatian solutions

LA SOLLECITAZIONE DELLE DELEGHE DI VOTO NELL’ASSEMBLEA GENERALE QUALE MODALITÀ DI INFLUENZA SULLA ATTIVITÀ DECISIONALE NELLA SOCIETÀ – QUESTIONI APERTE

U radu se obrađuje organizirano prikupljanje punomoći za glasovanje na glavnoj skupštini, ukazujući na otvorena pitanja u njegovoj primjeni. Budući da Direktiva o pravima dioničara u uvrštenim društvima ne uređuje izričito ovaj institut, države članice EU-a zauzele su različita stajališta u pogledu njegova uređenja. S jedne strane su države članice koje nisu izričito uredile organizirano prikupljanje punomoći za glasovanje na glavnoj skupštini, dok su s druge strane države članice koje posebnim odredbama uređuju ovaj institut. Međutim, i unutar te skupine država članica uočavaju se različiti pristupi u uređenju pojedinih pitanja. Valja istaknuti da se u državama članicama EU-a u kojima nije izričito uređeno organizirano prikupljanje punomoći za glasovanje na glavnoj skupštini, sve više postavlja pitanje potrebe njegova regulatornog uređenja. Stoga se zaključno daju prijedlozi rješenja za hrvatsko pravo.In the article the author analyzes the proxy solicitation as a method for acquiring voting control in a company pointing out to the open issues in its application. Since the Shareholders’ Rights Directive does not explicitly regulate the proxy solicitation, it is left to the discretion of each EU Member State legislator. There are two groups of Member States in regards to this matter – Member States that do not regulate the proxy solicitation process and those that have adopted specifi c provisions regulating proxy solicitation. However, it should be noted that, even within the second group of Member States, approaches to regulating specifi c issues in the proxy solicitation adopted by the national legislators vary. Furthermore, Member States without specifi c provisions are now questioning the actual necessity for their implementation. In the conclusion, the author proposes solutions to be adopted in Croatian law in this respect.Das Thema dieser Arbeit ist die organisierte Sammlung von Vertretungen für die Ausübung von Stimmrechten in der Hauptversammlung. Offene Fragen der Anwendung dieser Regelung werden dabei besonders unter die Lupe genommen. Da dieses Rechtsinstitut nicht durch die Richtlinie über die Ausübung bestimmter Rechte von Aktionären in börsennotierten Gesellschaften geregelt ist, haben die Mitgliedstaaten verschiedene Wege in seiner Regulierung eingeschlagen. Während einige Mitgliedstaaten die Sammlung von Stimmrechtsvertretung an der Hauptversammlung nicht ausdrücklich regeln, haben andere Sonderverordnungen dazu verabschiedet. Bei den letzteren Mitgliedstaaten sind allerdings unterschiedliche Regulierungsansätze in Bezug auf spezifi sche Aspekten zu beobachten. Es ist zu betonen, dass die Notwendigkeit einer Regulierung der Sammlung von Stimmrechtsvertretungen an der Hauptversammlung immer mehr in den Vordrgrund tritt. Schlussfolgernd werden dazu entsprechende Lösungen für das kroatische Recht vorgelegt.Nel lavoro si tratta della sollecitazione delle deleghe di voto nell’assemblea generale, rilevando le questioni aperte concernenti l’utilizzo di tale pratica. Posto che la Direttiva sui diritti degli azionisti nelle società quotate non regola espressamente tale istituto, gli Stati membri dell’UE hanno preso posizioni diverse con riguardo alla sua disciplina. Da un lato, vi sono Stati membri che non hanno regolato esplicitamente la sollecitazione delle deleghe di voto nell’assemblea generale; mentre, dall’altra parte, vi sono Stati membri che mediante disposizioni particolari regolano tale istituto. Tuttavia, anche all’interno di codesto gruppo di Stati membri si notano diversi approcci nella regolamentazione di singole questioni. Va evidenziato che negli Stati membri dell’UE, dove la sollecitazione delle deleghe di voti nell’assemblea generale non trova disciplina espressa, sempre più spesso emerge l’esigenza di disciplinare giuridicamente tale aspetto. Pertanto, in chiusura, si danno dei suggerimenti per le soluzioni da adottarsi nel nostro diritto interno

NUOVO QUADRO REGOLAMENTARE PER LE OPERAZIONI CON PARTI CORRELATE

U radu se obrađuje novi regulatorni okvir za transakcije s povezanim osobama usvojen odredbama Direktive o pravima dioničara u uvrštenim društvima koji je prenesen u hrvatsko zakonodavstvo novelom Zakona o trgovačkim društvima iz 2019. godine. Zaštita društva i manjinskih dioničara propisuje se odredbama o davanju prethodne suglasnosti za transakcije s povezanim osobama te povećanjem zahtjeva transparentnosti transakcija s povezanim osobama. U radu se analiziraju usvojene odredbe i otvorena pitanja u njihovoj primjeni te uspoređuju s rješenjima usvojenima u njemačkom zakonodavstvu te prijedlogom izmjena i dopuna slovenskoga zakona.In the article author analyses the new regulatory framework for related party transactions adopted in the revised Shareholders\u27 Rights Directive (SRD II), which was transposed into Croatian law by the amendment of the Companies Act 2019. The protection of the company and minority shareholders is prescribed by the provisions of prior approval of related party transactions and increasing the transparency requirements of related party transactions. The paper analyses the adopted provisions and open issues in their implementation and compares them with the solutions adopted in German law and the proposed amendment to the Slovenian Companies Act.Im Beitrag bespricht man den neu en regulatorischen Rahmen für Transaktionen mit nahestehenden Personen in Bestimmungen der Aktionärrechterichtlinie, die in die kroatische Gesetzgebung durch Novelle des Gesetzes über Handelsgesellschaften 2019 transponiert wurde. Der Schutz der Gesellschaft und der Minderaktionäre sichert man durch Bestimmungen über vorherige Zustimmung für Transaktionen mit nahestehenden Personen und durch Erhöhung der Transparenzvoraussetzungen von Transaktionen mit nahestehenden Personen. Im Beitrag analysiert man die erlassenen Bestimmungen und offene Fragen bei deren Anwendung und vergleicht sie mit den Lösungen des deutschen Gesetzgebers sowie auch mit dem Vorschlag für Änderungen und Ergänzungen des slowenischen Gesetzes.Nel lavoro si esamina il nuovo quadro regolamentare per le operazioni con parti correlate adottato dalle disposizioni della Direttiva relativa all’esercizio di alcuni diritti degli azionisti di società quotate trasferito nella legislatura croata con l’emendamento della Legge sulle società commerciali nel 2019. La protezione delle società e degli azionisti di minoranza è prescritta dalle disposizioni sulla previa approvazione per le operazioni con parti correlate e dall’aumento del requisito di trasparenza nelle operazioni con parti correlate. Nel lavoro si analizzano le disposizioni adottate e le questioni aperte nell’applicazione di esse, comparandole con le soluzioni adottate nella legislatura tedesca e con la proposta per l’emendamento della legge slovena

Primjena trgovačkih običaja

Još od vremena nastanka lex mercatorie kao posebnog prava trgovaca istaknuta je važnost trgovačkih običaja u odvijanju trgovačkih transakcija. Njihova važnost kao autonomnog izvora trgovačkog prava, koja se etablirala kroz povijest, istaknuta je i u suvremenoj hijerarhiji pravnih vrela. U radu se uređuje pitanje primjene trgovačkih običaja u Republici Hrvatskoj, poredbenim pravnim sustavima kao i u okviru međunarodne kupoprodaje robe. Za jasnije shvaćanje njihove primjene potrebno ih je razlikovati od ostalih autonomnih izvora trgovačkoga prava koje se često uključuje u pojam trgovačkih običaja. Ujedno je nužno staviti trgovačke običaje u odnos s dispozitivnim zakonskim normama te odrediti prioritet u primjeni, osobito ukoliko se radi o trgovačkim običajima koji su contra legem. Međutim, za primjenu u praksi najnužnije je odgovoriti na pitanje njihova dokazivanja u sudskom postupku, odnosno primjenu načela iura novit curia kod trgovačkih običaja gdje je potrebno voditi računa i o pravilima parničnog postupka. Donošenjem novog Zakona o obveznim odnosima u Republici Hrvatskoj, čije se odredbe počinju primjenjivati od 1. siječnja 2006. godine, jasnije je uređena primjena trgovačkih običaja, čime su uklonjene nejasnoće koje su proizlazile iz Zakona o obveznim odnosima preuzetog u pozitivno zakonodavstvo Republike Hrvatske 1991. godine. Valja, međutim, naglasiti da donošenjem novog Zakona o obveznim odnosima nije u potpunosti dovršeno reguliranje trgovačkih običaja, već će biti potrebno de lege ferenda vršiti izmjene i u drugim zakonima od kojih se može istaknuti Zakon o Hrvatskoj gospodarskoj komori

POSITION OF WORKERS IN CORPORATE TAKEOVERS

Jedan od načina stjecanja glasačke kontrole nad dioničkim društvom je kroz provođenje korporativne akvizicije preuzimanja dioničkog društva. Stjecanjem glasačke kontrole većinski dioničar stječe mogućnost utjecati na donošenje ključnih odluka u društvu, čime može značajno utjecati na položaj ne samo manjinskih dioničara, već i znatno šireg kruga osoba. Nesporno je da provođenje ove korporativne akvizicije značajno utječe na položaj radnika, stoga se u radu analizira regulatorni okvir kojim je uređen položaj radnika u postupcima preuzimanja u europskom i hrvatskom zakonodavstvu. Analizirana rješenja uspoređuju se s rješenjima zauzetima u slovenskom i francuskom zakonodavstvu. Dok je slovensko zakonodavstvo usvojilo rješenja koja su vrlo slična hrvatskom, francuski je zakonodavac dao veća prava radnicima kako u postupku preuzimanja, tako i u postponudbenom periodu. U radu se iznose i rezultati provedenog istraživanja na hrvatskom tržištu kapitala o korištenju radnika pravima koja su im dana Zakonom o preuzimanju dioničkih društava. Zaključuje se da se radnici koriste navedenim pravima, međutim u nedovoljnoj mjeri.A takeover bid is one of the main methods of acquiring voting control in a listed company. By acquiring the voting control, the majority shareholder gains the power to influence or deter- mine corporate decisions, which can significantly affect not only the position of the sharehol- ders, but also the position of a much wider circle of stakeholders. It is not to be disputed that takeovers significantly affect workers’ positions; therefore the paper analyses the regulatory framework governing the position of workers in takeover procedures in European and Croa- tian law. The analysed solutions are compared with the solutions adopted in Slovenian and French law. While Slovenian legislation has adopted solutions that are very similar to Croa- tian, the French legislator has given greater rights to workers both in the takeover procedure and in the post-bid period. The paper also presents the results of a survey conducted on the Croatian capital market on the use of workers’ rights granted to them by the Croatian Takeo- ver Act. It is concluded that workers exercise these rights, but to an insufficient extent

Tackling Empty Voting in the EU: The Shareholders’ Rights Directive and the Revised Transparency Directive

The rise of the capital market creates new, less noticeable forms of holdings of shares. These holdings could be acquired with the aim of influencing a company’s decision-making process without the intention to hold shares for the long term. One of the forms is new vote buying which can appear either as empty voting or as hidden ownership. Empty voting refers to voting by a shareholder without the corresponding financial interest in the company involved. The reverse situation is hidden ownership whereby a party is not the shareholder but is entitled to exercise influence and eventually vote as if he/she were a shareholder. If a shareholder has an ownership interest in the company in which he/she votes, his/her voting would be aligned with the interests of the company. If a shareholder votes for a decision contrary to the company’s interest, it would affect his/her own economic interests because the shares could have been sold even before the shareholder’s meeting occurred. There are many techniques that lead to empty voting. Those most commonly used are: borrowing shares, using equity swaps or buying shares on a date close to the record date and then selling them again right after the record date has elapsed. As a result, a person casting their vote at the general meeting might not be the ‘actual’ shareholder. The admissibility of these votes and their effects have been discussed in well-known judicial cases. Having noticed a rise of abusive situations created by using empty voting techniques at the EU level, the revised Transparency Directive set out to deal with these issues. It entered into force on 26 November 2013 with the deadline for implementation set at 26 November 2015. However, since the Transparency Directive is a minimum harmonisation Directive, Member States have substantial liberty in its implementation which might lead to a divergent level of investor protection. Further, since the development of capital markets leads to the appearance of new forms of derivatives and other financial instruments which could create an ‘empty voting’ effect, EU Member States would be tempted to set rules that would, as far as possible, embrace all forms of empty voting in a so-called ‘catch all’ provision. This paper aims to examine how national legislators of the EU Member States have dealt with the issue of empty voting in light of the solutions provided in the Shareholders Rights Directive of 2007 and in the revised EU Transparency Directive of 2013

Tackling Empty Voting in the EU: The Shareholders’ Rights Directive and the Revised Transparency Directive

The rise of the capital market creates new, less noticeable forms of holdings of shares. These holdings could be acquired with the aim of influencing a company’s decision-making process without the intention to hold shares for the long term. One of the forms is new vote buying which can appear either as empty voting or as hidden ownership. Empty voting refers to voting by a shareholder without the corresponding financial interest in the company involved. The reverse situation is hidden ownership whereby a party is not the shareholder but is entitled to exercise influence and eventually vote as if he/she were a shareholder. If a shareholder has an ownership interest in the company in which he/she votes, his/her voting would be aligned with the interests of the company. If a shareholder votes for a decision contrary to the company’s interest, it would affect his/her own economic interests because the shares could have been sold even before the shareholder’s meeting occurred. There are many techniques that lead to empty voting. Those most commonly used are: borrowing shares, using equity swaps or buying shares on a date close to the record date and then selling them again right after the record date has elapsed. As a result, a person casting their vote at the general meeting might not be the ‘actual’ shareholder. The admissibility of these votes and their effects have been discussed in well-known judicial cases. Having noticed a rise of abusive situations created by using empty voting techniques at the EU level, the revised Transparency Directive set out to deal with these issues. It entered into force on 26 November 2013 with the deadline for implementation set at 26 November 2015. However, since the Transparency Directive is a minimum harmonisation Directive, Member States have substantial liberty in its implementation which might lead to a divergent level of investor protection. Further, since the development of capital markets leads to the appearance of new forms of derivatives and other financial instruments which could create an ‘empty voting’ effect, EU Member States would be tempted to set rules that would, as far as possible, embrace all forms of empty voting in a so-called ‘catch all’ provision. This paper aims to examine how national legislators of the EU Member States have dealt with the issue of empty voting in light of the solutions provided in the Shareholders Rights Directive of 2007 and in the revised EU Transparency Directive of 2013

LA SOLLECITAZIONE DELLE DELEGHE DI VOTO NELL’ASSEMBLEA GENERALE QUALE MODALITÀ DI INFLUENZA SULLA ATTIVITÀ DECISIONALE NELLA SOCIETÀ – QUESTIONI APERTE

U radu se obrađuje organizirano prikupljanje punomoći za glasovanje na glavnoj skupštini, ukazujući na otvorena pitanja u njegovoj primjeni. Budući da Direktiva o pravima dioničara u uvrštenim društvima ne uređuje izričito ovaj institut, države članice EU-a zauzele su različita stajališta u pogledu njegova uređenja. S jedne strane su države članice koje nisu izričito uredile organizirano prikupljanje punomoći za glasovanje na glavnoj skupštini, dok su s druge strane države članice koje posebnim odredbama uređuju ovaj institut. Međutim, i unutar te skupine država članica uočavaju se različiti pristupi u uređenju pojedinih pitanja. Valja istaknuti da se u državama članicama EU-a u kojima nije izričito uređeno organizirano prikupljanje punomoći za glasovanje na glavnoj skupštini, sve više postavlja pitanje potrebe njegova regulatornog uređenja. Stoga se zaključno daju prijedlozi rješenja za hrvatsko pravo.In the article the author analyzes the proxy solicitation as a method for acquiring voting control in a company pointing out to the open issues in its application. Since the Shareholders’ Rights Directive does not explicitly regulate the proxy solicitation, it is left to the discretion of each EU Member State legislator. There are two groups of Member States in regards to this matter – Member States that do not regulate the proxy solicitation process and those that have adopted specifi c provisions regulating proxy solicitation. However, it should be noted that, even within the second group of Member States, approaches to regulating specifi c issues in the proxy solicitation adopted by the national legislators vary. Furthermore, Member States without specifi c provisions are now questioning the actual necessity for their implementation. In the conclusion, the author proposes solutions to be adopted in Croatian law in this respect.Das Thema dieser Arbeit ist die organisierte Sammlung von Vertretungen für die Ausübung von Stimmrechten in der Hauptversammlung. Offene Fragen der Anwendung dieser Regelung werden dabei besonders unter die Lupe genommen. Da dieses Rechtsinstitut nicht durch die Richtlinie über die Ausübung bestimmter Rechte von Aktionären in börsennotierten Gesellschaften geregelt ist, haben die Mitgliedstaaten verschiedene Wege in seiner Regulierung eingeschlagen. Während einige Mitgliedstaaten die Sammlung von Stimmrechtsvertretung an der Hauptversammlung nicht ausdrücklich regeln, haben andere Sonderverordnungen dazu verabschiedet. Bei den letzteren Mitgliedstaaten sind allerdings unterschiedliche Regulierungsansätze in Bezug auf spezifi sche Aspekten zu beobachten. Es ist zu betonen, dass die Notwendigkeit einer Regulierung der Sammlung von Stimmrechtsvertretungen an der Hauptversammlung immer mehr in den Vordrgrund tritt. Schlussfolgernd werden dazu entsprechende Lösungen für das kroatische Recht vorgelegt.Nel lavoro si tratta della sollecitazione delle deleghe di voto nell’assemblea generale, rilevando le questioni aperte concernenti l’utilizzo di tale pratica. Posto che la Direttiva sui diritti degli azionisti nelle società quotate non regola espressamente tale istituto, gli Stati membri dell’UE hanno preso posizioni diverse con riguardo alla sua disciplina. Da un lato, vi sono Stati membri che non hanno regolato esplicitamente la sollecitazione delle deleghe di voto nell’assemblea generale; mentre, dall’altra parte, vi sono Stati membri che mediante disposizioni particolari regolano tale istituto. Tuttavia, anche all’interno di codesto gruppo di Stati membri si notano diversi approcci nella regolamentazione di singole questioni. Va evidenziato che negli Stati membri dell’UE, dove la sollecitazione delle deleghe di voti nell’assemblea generale non trova disciplina espressa, sempre più spesso emerge l’esigenza di disciplinare giuridicamente tale aspetto. Pertanto, in chiusura, si danno dei suggerimenti per le soluzioni da adottarsi nel nostro diritto interno

Company Delistings From the Zagreb Stock Exchange and the Need to Change Delisting Rules

U radu se analizira regulatorni okvir za povlačenje vrijednosnih papira s uređenog tržišta u hrvatskom pravu, upućujući na otvorena pitanja u primjeni zakonskih odredaba. Autorice su provele istraživanje o postupcima povlačenja dionica sa Zagrebačke burze za referentni period od ulaska Republike Hrvatske u Europsku uniju (1. srpnja 2013. godine) do 31. prosinca 2017. godine. Iznose se rezultati istraživanja, koji se klasificiraju prema korporativnoj akciji koja je prethodila donošenju odluke o povlačenju dionica s uređenoga tržišta. Zaključuje se da do povlačenja dionica s uređenoga tržišta najčešće dolazi nakon provođenja postupka preuzimanja, pri čemu prethodno može doći do istiskivanja manjinskih dioničara iz društva. Daljnje korporativne akcije koje su prethodile odluci o delistingu su provođenje stečajnog postupka, kao i statusne promjene pripajanja ili preoblikovanja u društvo s ograničenom odgovornošću. Ujedno se upućuje na novi trend u regulatornom uređenju delistinga u njemačkom pravu, koji se u bitnome razlikuje od hrvatskih rješenja.The article analyses the regulatory framework for delisting in Croatian law, pointing out the open issues in its application. The authors conducted research into the delisting procedures on the Zagreb Stock Exchange in the period from 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2017. The article presents the results of the research, classified according to the corporate action that preceded the decision to withdraw shares from the regulated market. The authors conclude that delisting usually comes after the takeover process, whereby a squeeze-out of minority shareholders may occur. Other corporate actions that preceded the decision on delisting were the implementation of bankruptcy proceedings, mergers and acquisitions of companies, or transformation into a limited liability company. Furthermore, the article points to a new trend in the regulation of delisting in German law, which contains significant differences compared to the Croatian solutions

Company Delistings From the Zagreb Stock Exchange and the Need to Change Delisting Rules

U radu se analizira regulatorni okvir za povlačenje vrijednosnih papira s uređenog tržišta u hrvatskom pravu, upućujući na otvorena pitanja u primjeni zakonskih odredaba. Autorice su provele istraživanje o postupcima povlačenja dionica sa Zagrebačke burze za referentni period od ulaska Republike Hrvatske u Europsku uniju (1. srpnja 2013. godine) do 31. prosinca 2017. godine. Iznose se rezultati istraživanja, koji se klasificiraju prema korporativnoj akciji koja je prethodila donošenju odluke o povlačenju dionica s uređenoga tržišta. Zaključuje se da do povlačenja dionica s uređenoga tržišta najčešće dolazi nakon provođenja postupka preuzimanja, pri čemu prethodno može doći do istiskivanja manjinskih dioničara iz društva. Daljnje korporativne akcije koje su prethodile odluci o delistingu su provođenje stečajnog postupka, kao i statusne promjene pripajanja ili preoblikovanja u društvo s ograničenom odgovornošću. Ujedno se upućuje na novi trend u regulatornom uređenju delistinga u njemačkom pravu, koji se u bitnome razlikuje od hrvatskih rješenja.The article analyses the regulatory framework for delisting in Croatian law, pointing out the open issues in its application. The authors conducted research into the delisting procedures on the Zagreb Stock Exchange in the period from 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2017. The article presents the results of the research, classified according to the corporate action that preceded the decision to withdraw shares from the regulated market. The authors conclude that delisting usually comes after the takeover process, whereby a squeeze-out of minority shareholders may occur. Other corporate actions that preceded the decision on delisting were the implementation of bankruptcy proceedings, mergers and acquisitions of companies, or transformation into a limited liability company. Furthermore, the article points to a new trend in the regulation of delisting in German law, which contains significant differences compared to the Croatian solutions