Article 31 Limits on the compulsory disclosure of accounting documents
The compulsory disclosure provided for by Article 30(1)(g) shall be limited to the accounting documents of the company as drawn up, audited and disclosed pursuant to the law of the Member State by which the company is governed in accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 30 ) and Directive 2013/34/EU.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The EU economy needs healthy and flourishing companies which can easily operate in the Single Market. Such companies play a crucial role in promoting economic growth, creating jobs and attracting investment in the European Union. They help to deliver greater economic as well as social value for society at large. To achieve this end, companies need to operate in a legal and administrative environment which is both conducive to growth and adapted to face the new economic and social challenges of a globalised and digital world, while pursuing also other legitimate public interests such as the protection of employees, creditors and minority shareholders and providing authorities with all necessary safeguards to combat fraud or abuse. It is with this objective that the Commission is putting forward this proposal, to gether with the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 1 as regards the use of digital tools and processes in company law - a comprehensive set of measures for fair, enabling and modern compa ny law rules in the EU. The freedom of establishment plays a crucial role in the development of the Single Market as it allows corporate entities to pursue economic activities in other Member States on a stable basis. In order to foster the cross-border mobility of companies in the EU, it is essential to take into account their needs and characteristics. There are around 24 million companies in the EU, out of which approximately 80% are limited liability companies. Around 98-99% of limited liability companies are SMEs. However, in practice the exercise of the freedom of establishment by companies remains difficult. One of the reasons for these difficulties is that company law is not sufficiently adapted to cross-border mobility in the EU: it does not offer companies optimal conditions in terms of a clear, predictable and suitable legal framework which could lead to enhanced economic activity, in particular for SMEs as recognised by the 2015 Single Market Strategy 2 . Corporate restructurings and transformations such as cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions, are part of companies' life-cycle and represent a natural way for companies to grow, adapt to a changing environment and explore opportunities in new markets. At the same time, they also entail consequences for companies' stakeholders, in particular for employees, creditors and shareholders. Therefore, it is essential that the protection of stakeholders keeps pace with the ever-growing trans-nationalisation of the corporate world. However, today the legal uncertainty, partial inadequacy and also the lack of rules governing certain cross-border operations of companies means that there is no clear framework to ensure effective protection of these stakeholders. In this situation, the protection offered to stakeholders may therefore be ineffective or insufficient. The cross-border operations of companies can also be facilitated by a legal environment that creates trust in the Single Market by providing for safeguards against abuse. Therefore, it is important to unleash the potential of the Single Market by breaking down barriers to cross-border trade, facilitating access to markets, increasing confidence and stimulating competition while offering effective and proportionate protection to stakeholders. The objective of this proposal is two-fold: provide specific and comprehensive procedures for cross-border conversions, divisions and mergers to foster cross-border mobility in the EU while, at the same time, offering company stakeholders adequate protection in order to safeguard the fairness of the Single Market. Such action forms part of creating a deeper and fairer Single Market, which is one of the priorities of the current Commission. Cross-border conversions A cross-border conversion offers an efficient solution for companies that wish to move to another Member State without losing their legal personality or having to re-negotiate their business contracts. A conversion is particularly attractive for small companies that do not have enough financial resour ces to search for expensive legal advice and conduct a cross-border merger. 3 This reasoning applies in particular to cross-border conversions against the background of the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice of the E uropean Union (ECJ) has considered that the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU entails the right, for companies established in a Member State, to transfer their seat to another Member State through a cross-border conversion without losin g their legal personality. 4 In particular in its recent judgement Polbud 5 the ECJ confirmed the right of companies to carry out cross-border conversions on the basis of the freedom of establishment. The ECJ held that the freedom of establishment is applic able when the registered office alone, without the real head office, is transferred from one Member State to another if the Member State of new incorporation accepts the registration of a company even without the exercise of an economic activity there: in that case Article 49 TFEU does not require such an economic activity as a precondition for its applicability. 6 The ECJ also recalled that, in the absence of harmonisation, Member States are competent to decide the connecting factor of a company to its nati onal order and thus apply their own incorporation requirements to incoming companies. 7 The ECJ further recalled its previous jurisprudence whereby the fact that either the registered office or real head office of a company was established in accordance wit h the legislation of a Member State for the purpose of enjoying the benefit of more favourable legislation does not, in itself, constitute abuse. In Polbud , it was ruled that a national rule which imposes the winding-up prerequisite of cross-border transfe r of a company is an unjustified and disproportionate restriction and thus unlawful. 8 The Polbud judgement clarified the context for cross-border conversions. But the ECJ, being a judiciary organ, may not create any procedure for making such conversions possible or set out the related substantive conditions. In the absence of EU harmonisation on cross-border conversions, national legislation may still set out rules for the procedure to be followed and for the protection of minority shareholders, creditors or workers or for the fight against tax-related or other abuses in case of cross-border company conversion. However, it is necessary to assess case-by-case whether such rules comply with EU law and, in particular, with the right of establishment. This leads to an unsatisfactory situation in terms of legal certainty, which negatively affects companies, stakeholders and Member States. Currently, companies wishing to move their registered offices cross-border need to rely on Member States' laws. Such laws, where they exist, are often incompatible or difficult to combine with each other. Moreover, more than half of the Member States do not provide any specific rules allowing for cross-border conversions. SMEs are in particular negatively impacted since often they lack resources to perform cross-border procedures through costly and complicated alternative methods. This also means that the protection of stakeholders such as employees, creditors or minority shareholders is often ineffective or insufficient due to the lack of, overlapping or contradictory rules. As regards employee protection, in the absence of harmonised safeguards for employee participation rights, companies might use a cross-border conversion and the lack of relevant safeguards for employee participation rights, when moving to another Member State, to lower the level of participation or abandon it. Furthermore, the absence of harmonised rules may also lead to increased use of letterbox companies for fraudulent purposes, allowing for instance, in most serious cases, organised crime organisations to hide and obscure the beneficial ownership of companies to launder proceeds of crime. Therefore, the EU legislator needs to step in and provide for rules on cross-border conversion with adequate and proporti onate safeguards for employees, creditors and shareholders to create a dynamic and fair Single Market. The European Parliament 9 has already made calls for it. In particular, it is important that w orkers or their representatives are involved in the procedur e , in line with the 8 th principle of the Pillar of European Social Rights: notably, they should be informed and consulted in good time on matters relevant to them in the context of companies' cross-border conversions . The mobility of companies must go hand in hand with the protection of national social and labour law prerogatives. In light of the foregoing considerations, the main objectives of the harmonised rules for cross-border conversions are two-fold: - enabling companies, particularly micro and small, to convert cross-border in an orderly, efficient and effective manner; - protecting the most affected stakeholders such as employees, creditors and shareholders in a suitable and proportionate manner. The proposal would enable companies to convert cross-border by changing their legal form of one Member State into a similar legal form of another Member State. This should ensure that companies keep their legal personality throughout the process without the need to dissolve or liquidate in the departure Member State, and form a new entity in the destination Member State. The objective is to provide a specific, structured and multi-layered procedure for cross-border conversions which ensures a scrutiny of the legality of the cross-border conversion firstly by the competent authority of the departure Member State and secondly by the destination Member State in the light of all relevant facts and information. A crucial element of the procedure is that it would prevent a cross-border conversion where it is determined that it constitutes an abuse, namely in cases where it constitutes an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. The first step in the procedure would be the preparation of the draft terms of the cross-border conversion and two targeted reports addressed to shareholders and employees on the implications that the cross-border conversion will have. In addition, medium size and large companies would need to apply to the competent authority for the appointment of an independent expert examining the accuracy of the draft terms and reports prepared by the company. The written report of the independent expert would also provide the factual basis for the assessment to be carried out by the competent authority as regards inter alia the risk of an abuse referred to above. The report of the expert which will be disclosed cannot contain any confidential information provided by the company. The draft terms and reports would be made publicly available and could be commented upon by the affected stakeholders. Thereafter, the company is to take a decision at the general meeting on whether to pursue the cross-border conversion. That decision, together with the relevant information and documents, would then be submitted to the competent national authority of the Member State of departure which is responsible to decide whether to issue a pre-conversion certificate or not. The scrutiny conducted by that authority would consist of two possible phases: during the first phase, which is limited to one month, the competent authority would examine whether the cross-border conversion is lawful. The authority would determine if all conditions for the cross-border conversion laid down in the Directive and in national law are fulfilled, including whether the company is solvent, the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the conversion at a general meeting and employees, minority shareholders and creditors are protected within the remit prescribed by the Directive. During this phase, the authority would also determine whether there is an artificial arrangement. If at the end of the 1-month period laid down for the first phase of investigation the authority has no objections, it would issue a pre-conversion certificate. If at the end of 1 month it is certain that the cross-border conversion is unlawful, it would refuse to grant a pre-conversion certificate. Alternatively, if at the end of the 1-month period it has serious concerns that the conversion may be unlawful, it would inform the company that it will carry out an in-depth examination as regards the existence of abuse as referred to above. The in-depth examination must be concluded and a final decision must be taken within two months. If after such scrutiny, the pre-conversion certificate is issued, it would be transmitted without delay to the competent authority of the Member State of destination. Then, the Member State of destination would carry out a scrutiny as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by the law of the destination Member State. The competent authority of the destination Member State shall ensure that the converted company complies with provisions of its national law on the incorporation of companies (for example, whether the company has a real seat in its territory) and, where appropriate, that arrangements for employee participation have been determined lawfully. Once the legality check has been carried out, a company would be registered in the register of a Member State of destination and de-registered in the register of a Member State of departure. The conversion shall then become legally effective. All contacts between the registers should be done via the system of interconnection of business registers (BRIS). Cross-border mergers A company may also wish to exercise their freedom of establishment and thereafter benefit from the opportunities offered by the Single Market by carrying out a cross-border merger. Companies may merge cross-border for various reasons including group reorganisations, cutting organisational costs as well as business-oriented considerations in order to enjoy greater returns to scale, consolidated branding, or other synergies between different business activities. The introduction of the Cross-Border Merger Directive 10 laid down a harmonised procedure at EU level for limited liability companies. It led to a substantial increase in cross-border merger activity in the EU and EEA. The number o f cross-border mergers rose by 173% between 2008 and 2012, which indicates that the procedure set up by the Directive substantially enhanced cross-border activity. Stakeholders (such as law firms, business registers and trade unions) interviewed for the 20 13 study on the application of the Directive welcomed the new procedures, the procedural simplification and reported lower costs and shorter timeframes thanks to the harmonised framework. However, despite the overall positive assessment, the evaluation 11 of the functioning of the Cross-Border Merger Directive identified certain problems which impede the full effectiveness and efficiency of the existing rules. The 2015 Single Market Strategy 12 mentioned uncertainties over company law as one of the obstacle s that SMEs complain about in the Single Market and announced that the Commission would " examine the need to update the existing rules on cross-border mergers and the possibility to complement them with rules as regards cross-border divisions". The European Parliament stressed the positive effects of the Directive which has facilitated cross-border mergers between limited liability companies in the European Union and reduced the associated costs and administrative procedures 13 . However, the Europe an Parliament also noted the necessity to revise it in order to improve its functioning 14 . The main identified obstacles concern the lack of harmonisation of substantive rules in particular for creditor protection and minority shareholder protection as well as the lack of fast track (i.e. simplified procedures for less "complex" mergers). In addition, it was observed that the cross-border merger procedure does not sufficiently integrate digital tools and processes (e.g. as regards submitting the documents to public authorities or sharing those between them). It has also been criticised that employees are not sufficiently informed about the details and implications of a cross-border merger. These inefficiencies were confirmed by stakeholders throughout the consultation process. Concerning the protection of creditors and minority shareholders, the existing rules on cross-border mergers lay down minimum, mainly procedural rules and leave the substantive protection to national laws. Therefore, the differences between Member States laws persist. For example, the Directive only lays down that creditors shall be protected subject to national rules, without further specifications. Similarly, the Directive lays down some rules concerning shareholders in general (e.g. information via the draft merger terms, expert reports, voting during the general meetings) but leaves it to Member States to decide whether to introduce further protection for minority shareholders. As to the employee participation on board level, the existing rules set out a comprehensive framework. However, the rules do not require merging companies to provide any specific and comprehensive information about a cross-border merger to the employees. Currently, the situation of employees is only considered in a general manner in the management report addressed predominantly to shareholders. As to simplified procedures, the current rules offer limited possibilities. For example, the rules allow waiving an independent expert report if all shareholders agree and do not require an expert report or the approval by the general meeting in case of a merger between a parent company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. This proposal aims to address these shortcomings. It provides harmonised rules for protection of creditors and shareholders. The company would need to provide the envisaged protection of creditors and shareholders in the draft terms of the cross-border conversion. The creditors who would be dissatisfied with the protection offered, may apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards. Creditors of the merging companies should be presumed not to be prejudiced by a cross-border merger, if an independent expert assessed their situation and considered no prejudice or creditors were offered a right to payment, either against a third party guarantor, or against the company resulting from the merger. Member States may still apply their laws concerning the protection of payment of taxes or social security contributions, if such rules are different to the protection offered by this proposal. Shareholders who did not vote for the cross-border mergers or have no voting rights would have the right to exit the company (dispose of their shares) and receive the adequate compensation. Moreover, Member States should also ensure that shareholders of the merging companies who did not oppose the cross-border merger, but who considered that the proposed share-exchange ratio was inadequate may challenge that ratio set out in the common draft terms of the cross-border merger before a national court. In addition, the proposed rules ensure that employees will be duly informed about the implications of the planned cross-border merger on employees. The proposal also provides for use of digital tools and procedures throughout the cross-border merger procedure as well as for the exchange of the relevant information through the interconnection of business registers. Finally, where possible, the proposal introduces further possibilities for simplified procedures. Cross-border divisions A company may also wish to exercise their freedom of establishment by carrying out a cross-border division. In a similar manner to cross-border conversions and mergers, cross-border divisions offer a way for companies to chan ge or simplify their organisational structure, adapt to changing market conditions and realise new business opportunities in another Member State. This was confirmed by respondents to the 2015 consultation on cross-border mergers and division 15 . However, th e current situation concerning cross-border divisions across the EU Member States also provides a very fragmented picture. There is no harmonised legal framework for cross-border divisions of companies, although divisions also play an important role in the economic environment of Member States. The current EU legal framework provides rules only for cross-border mergers of companies, while cross-border divisions are subject to national rules if such rules exist. Today only less than half of the Member States have national rules on cross-border divisions of companies. In the absence of a reliable legal framework for cross-border divisions, companies have difficulties to access markets in other Member States and often need to find costly alternatives to direct procedures. Different national requirements make it difficult to structure the cross-border operations and render it more complex and costly. Even when Member States allow companies to divide cross-border, the relevant national provisions are often divergent or even incompatible. In a number of Member States carrying out a direct cross-border division is not possible. The legal uncertainty and lack or complexity of rules for cross-border mobility of companies also means that there is no clear framework to ensure effective protection of stakeholders. This may even lead to a situation whereby the freedom of establishment could be abused by some companies. Thus, it is crucial to create a legal framework that ensures a fair balance between the need to provide companies a favourable business environment in the EU and the need at the same time to protect legitimate interests of stakeholders. The 2015 Single Market Strategy 16 mentioned uncertainties over company law as one of the obstacles that SMEs complain about in the Single Market and announced that the Commission " examine the need to update the existing rules on cross-border mergers and the possibility to complement them with rules as regards cross-border divisions". This part of the proposal aims to introduce a new legal framework regulating cross-border divisions. Its main objective is to address matters related to cross-border mobility by making it easier for any limited liability company to be able to divide cross-border. The provisions relating to cross-border divisions are inspired by the existing framework of the cross-border merger directive as well as the existing rules for domestic divisions. The rules are adapted to cater for a situation where a company is split instead of where one or more companies transfer all their assets and liabilities to another company. At the same time, the objectives of the harmonised rules on cross-border divisions remain similar to cross-border conversions: - enable companies to divide cross-border in an orderly, efficient and effective manner; - protect the most affected stakeholders such as employees, creditors and shareholders in a suitable and proportionate manner. Given the similar risks inherent to cross-border divisions as to cross-border conversions, the structured and multi-layered procedure as proposed for conversions would also be required for divisions. Such procedure would ensure the scrutiny of legality of the cross-border division by the competent authority of the company being divided and by the authorities of the recipient companies in the light of all relevant facts and information. As in conversions, a crucial element of the procedure would be preventing a cross-border division where it is determined that it constitutes an abuse, namely in cases where it constitutes an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. Given the complexity of dealing with risks of abuse in a situation where a company being divided transfers assets and liabilities to existing companies in different Member States, it was decided to regulate a situation where new companies are created in a cross-border division and not to regulate at this stage the cross-border division by acquisition, i.e. the situation where a company transfers assets and liabilities to more than one existing company. In a domestic context (where such situations are addressed in the current rules), such a procedure involves the examination of the protection of interests of stakeholders in one Member State, whereas in the cross-border context, it could necessitate the involvement of many authorities from different Member States. Whether to also include cross-border divisions by acquisition into the scope of the directive could be evaluated once first experiences with the new rules on cross-border divisions have been gained. Similarly to cross-border conversions, the first step in the procedure would be the preparation of the draft terms of the cross-border division and two targeted reports addressed to shareholders and employees on the implications that the cross-border division will have for them. In addition, medium size and big companies would need to apply to the competent authority to appoint an independent expert examining the accuracy of the draft terms and reports prepared by the company. The written report of the independent expert would also provide the factual basis for the assessment to be carried out by the competent authority as regards inter alia the risk of an abuse as referred to above. The report of the expert which will be disclosed cannot contain any confidential information provided by the company. The draft terms and reports would be made publicly available and could be commented upon by the affected stakeholders. Thereafter, the company being divided is to take a decision at the general meeting on whether to pursue the cross-border division. This decision, together with the relevant information and documents, would then be submitted to the competent authority of the Member State of the dividing company which is responsible to decide whether to issue a pre-division certificate or not. The scrutiny conducted by that authority would be divided into two phases: one being mandatory and the other one being optional. In the first phase, which is limited to one month, the competent authority would examine whether the cross-border division is lawful. The authority would determine if all conditions for the cross-border division laid down in the Directive and in national law are fulfilled, including whether the company is solvent, the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the cross-border division at a general meeting and employees, minority shareholders and creditors are protected within the remit prescribed by the Directive. It would also determine whether there is an artificial arrangement being created which is aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. If at the end of a 1-month period, the authority has no objections, it would issue a pre-division certificate; if it is certain that the cross-border division is unlawful, it would adopt a decision refusing to grant a pre-division certificate; or if it has serious concerns that the division may be unlawful, it would inform the company being divided that it will carry out an in-depth investigation with a view to performing an in-depth examination as regards the existence of abuse as referred to above. The in-depth examination must be concluded and a final decision must be taken within two months from the start of the in-depth investigation. If after such scrutiny, the pre-division certificate is issued, it would be transmitted without delay to the competent authorities of the Member States of the recipient companies. Then, the competent authorities would carry out a scrutiny as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by their respective laws. The competent authorities of the Member States of the recipient companies must ensure that the companies comply with provisions of their national laws on the incorporation of companies where appropriate (for example, whether the company has a real seat in its territory). They should also check whether the arrangements for employee participation have been determined lawfully. Once the legality check has been carried out, the division would be registered and recorded in all relevant business registers. All contacts between the registers should be done via the system of interconnection of business registers (BRIS).
Revised version (Article 31 Limits on the compulsory disclosure of accounting documents):
The compulsory disclosure provided for by Article 30(1)(g) shall be limited to the accounting documents of the company as drawn up, audited and disclosed pursuant to the law of the Member State by which the company is governed in accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 6 ) and Directive 2013/34/EU. Member States may provide that the mandatory disclosure of accounting documents referred to in point (g) of Article 30(1) may be considered fulfilled by the disclosure in the register of the Member State in which the company is registered in accordance with point (f) of Article 14.
Article 32 Language of disclosure and translation of documents to be disclosed
The Member State in which the branch has been opened may stipulate that the documents referred to in Article 30(2)(b) and Article 31 are to be published in another official language of the Union and that the translations of such documents are to be certified.
Article 33 Disclosure in cases of multiple branches in a Member State
Where a company has opened more than one branch in a Member State, the disclosure referred to in Article 30(2)(b) and Article 31 may be made in the register of the branch of the company's choice. In the case referred to in the first paragraph, compulsory disclosure by the other branches shall cover the particulars of the branch register of which disclosure was made, together with the number of that branch in that register.
Article 34 Information on the opening and termination of winding-up or insolvency proceedings and on striking-off of the company from the register
1. Article 20 shall apply to the register of the company and to the register of the branch respectively. 2. Member States shall determine the procedure to be followed upon receipt of the information referred to in Article 20(1) and (2). Such procedure shall ensure that, where a company has been dissolved or otherwise struck off the register, its branches are likewise struck off the register without undue delay. 3. The second sentence of paragraph 2 shall not apply to branches of companies that have been struck off the register as a consequence of any change in the legal form of the company concerned, a merger or division, or a cross-border transfer of its registered office.
Article 35 Information on letters and order forms
Member States shall prescribe that letters and order forms used by a branch shall state, in addition to the information prescribed by Article 26, the register in which the file in respect of the branch is kept together with the number of the branch in that register.
Article 36 Disclosure of documents and particulars relating to a branch
1. Documents and particulars concerning a branch opened in a Member State by a company which is not governed by the law of a Member State but which is of a legal form comparable with the types of company listed in Annex II, shall be disclosed in accordance with the law of the Member State of the branch as laid down in Article 16. 2. Article 29(2) shall apply.
Article 37 Compulsory documents and particulars to be disclosed
The compulsory disclosure provided for in Article 36 shall cover at least the following documents and particulars: (a) the address of the branch; (b) the activities of the branch; (c) the law of the State by which the company is governed; (d) where that law so provides, the register in which the company is entered and the registration number of the company in that register; (e) the instruments of constitution, and memorandum and articles of association if they are contained in a separate instrument, with all amendments to those documents; (f) the legal form of the company, its principal place of business and its object and, at least annually, the amount of subscribed capital if those particulars are not given in the documents referred to in point (e); (g) the name of the company and the name of the branch if that is different from the name of the company; (h) the appointment, termination of office and particulars of the persons who are authorised to represent the company in dealings with third parties and in legal proceedings: — as a company organ constituted pursuant to law or as members of any such organ, — as permanent representatives of the company for the activities of the branch. The extent of the powers of the persons authorised to represent the company shall be stated, as well as whether those persons may represent the company alone or are required to act jointly; (i) — the winding-up of the company and the appointment of liquidators, particulars concerning them and their powers and the termination of the liquidation, — insolvency proceedings, arrangements, compositions or any analogous proceedings to which the company is subject; (j) the accounting documents in accordance with Article 38; (k) the closure of the branch.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The EU economy needs healthy and flourishing companies which can easily operate in the Single Market. Such companies play a crucial role in promoting economic growth, creating jobs and attracting investment in the European Union. They help to deliver greater economic as well as social value for society at large. To achieve this end, companies need to operate in a legal and administrative environment which is both conducive to growth and adapted to face the new economic and social challenges of a globalised and digital world, while pursuing also other legitimate public interests such as the protection of employees, creditors and minority shareholders and providing authorities with all necessary safeguards to combat fraud or abuse. It is with this objective that the Commission is putting forward this proposal, to gether with the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 1 as regards the use of digital tools and processes in company law - a comprehensive set of measures for fair, enabling and modern compa ny law rules in the EU. The freedom of establishment plays a crucial role in the development of the Single Market as it allows corporate entities to pursue economic activities in other Member States on a stable basis. In order to foster the cross-border mobility of companies in the EU, it is essential to take into account their needs and characteristics. There are around 24 million companies in the EU, out of which approximately 80% are limited liability companies. Around 98-99% of limited liability companies are SMEs. However, in practice the exercise of the freedom of establishment by companies remains difficult. One of the reasons for these difficulties is that company law is not sufficiently adapted to cross-border mobility in the EU: it does not offer companies optimal conditions in terms of a clear, predictable and suitable legal framework which could lead to enhanced economic activity, in particular for SMEs as recognised by the 2015 Single Market Strategy 2 . Corporate restructurings and transformations such as cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions, are part of companies' life-cycle and represent a natural way for companies to grow, adapt to a changing environment and explore opportunities in new markets. At the same time, they also entail consequences for companies' stakeholders, in particular for employees, creditors and shareholders. Therefore, it is essential that the protection of stakeholders keeps pace with the ever-growing trans-nationalisation of the corporate world. However, today the legal uncertainty, partial inadequacy and also the lack of rules governing certain cross-border operations of companies means that there is no clear framework to ensure effective protection of these stakeholders. In this situation, the protection offered to stakeholders may therefore be ineffective or insufficient. The cross-border operations of companies can also be facilitated by a legal environment that creates trust in the Single Market by providing for safeguards against abuse. Therefore, it is important to unleash the potential of the Single Market by breaking down barriers to cross-border trade, facilitating access to markets, increasing confidence and stimulating competition while offering effective and proportionate protection to stakeholders. The objective of this proposal is two-fold: provide specific and comprehensive procedures for cross-border conversions, divisions and mergers to foster cross-border mobility in the EU while, at the same time, offering company stakeholders adequate protection in order to safeguard the fairness of the Single Market. Such action forms part of creating a deeper and fairer Single Market, which is one of the priorities of the current Commission. Cross-border conversions A cross-border conversion offers an efficient solution for companies that wish to move to another Member State without losing their legal personality or having to re-negotiate their business contracts. A conversion is particularly attractive for small companies that do not have enough financial resour ces to search for expensive legal advice and conduct a cross-border merger. 3 This reasoning applies in particular to cross-border conversions against the background of the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice of the E uropean Union (ECJ) has considered that the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU entails the right, for companies established in a Member State, to transfer their seat to another Member State through a cross-border conversion without losin g their legal personality. 4 In particular in its recent judgement Polbud 5 the ECJ confirmed the right of companies to carry out cross-border conversions on the basis of the freedom of establishment. The ECJ held that the freedom of establishment is applic able when the registered office alone, without the real head office, is transferred from one Member State to another if the Member State of new incorporation accepts the registration of a company even without the exercise of an economic activity there: in that case Article 49 TFEU does not require such an economic activity as a precondition for its applicability. 6 The ECJ also recalled that, in the absence of harmonisation, Member States are competent to decide the connecting factor of a company to its nati onal order and thus apply their own incorporation requirements to incoming companies. 7 The ECJ further recalled its previous jurisprudence whereby the fact that either the registered office or real head office of a company was established in accordance wit h the legislation of a Member State for the purpose of enjoying the benefit of more favourable legislation does not, in itself, constitute abuse. In Polbud , it was ruled that a national rule which imposes the winding-up prerequisite of cross-border transfe r of a company is an unjustified and disproportionate restriction and thus unlawful. 8 The Polbud judgement clarified the context for cross-border conversions. But the ECJ, being a judiciary organ, may not create any procedure for making such conversions possible or set out the related substantive conditions. In the absence of EU harmonisation on cross-border conversions, national legislation may still set out rules for the procedure to be followed and for the protection of minority shareholders, creditors or workers or for the fight against tax-related or other abuses in case of cross-border company conversion. However, it is necessary to assess case-by-case whether such rules comply with EU law and, in particular, with the right of establishment. This leads to an unsatisfactory situation in terms of legal certainty, which negatively affects companies, stakeholders and Member States. Currently, companies wishing to move their registered offices cross-border need to rely on Member States' laws. Such laws, where they exist, are often incompatible or difficult to combine with each other. Moreover, more than half of the Member States do not provide any specific rules allowing for cross-border conversions. SMEs are in particular negatively impacted since often they lack resources to perform cross-border procedures through costly and complicated alternative methods. This also means that the protection of stakeholders such as employees, creditors or minority shareholders is often ineffective or insufficient due to the lack of, overlapping or contradictory rules. As regards employee protection, in the absence of harmonised safeguards for employee participation rights, companies might use a cross-border conversion and the lack of relevant safeguards for employee participation rights, when moving to another Member State, to lower the level of participation or abandon it. Furthermore, the absence of harmonised rules may also lead to increased use of letterbox companies for fraudulent purposes, allowing for instance, in most serious cases, organised crime organisations to hide and obscure the beneficial ownership of companies to launder proceeds of crime. Therefore, the EU legislator needs to step in and provide for rules on cross-border conversion with adequate and proporti onate safeguards for employees, creditors and shareholders to create a dynamic and fair Single Market. The European Parliament 9 has already made calls for it. In particular, it is important that w orkers or their representatives are involved in the procedur e , in line with the 8 th principle of the Pillar of European Social Rights: notably, they should be informed and consulted in good time on matters relevant to them in the context of companies' cross-border conversions . The mobility of companies must go hand in hand with the protection of national social and labour law prerogatives. In light of the foregoing considerations, the main objectives of the harmonised rules for cross-border conversions are two-fold: - enabling companies, particularly micro and small, to convert cross-border in an orderly, efficient and effective manner; - protecting the most affected stakeholders such as employees, creditors and shareholders in a suitable and proportionate manner. The proposal would enable companies to convert cross-border by changing their legal form of one Member State into a similar legal form of another Member State. This should ensure that companies keep their legal personality throughout the process without the need to dissolve or liquidate in the departure Member State, and form a new entity in the destination Member State. The objective is to provide a specific, structured and multi-layered procedure for cross-border conversions which ensures a scrutiny of the legality of the cross-border conversion firstly by the competent authority of the departure Member State and secondly by the destination Member State in the light of all relevant facts and information. A crucial element of the procedure is that it would prevent a cross-border conversion where it is determined that it constitutes an abuse, namely in cases where it constitutes an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. The first step in the procedure would be the preparation of the draft terms of the cross-border conversion and two targeted reports addressed to shareholders and employees on the implications that the cross-border conversion will have. In addition, medium size and large companies would need to apply to the competent authority for the appointment of an independent expert examining the accuracy of the draft terms and reports prepared by the company. The written report of the independent expert would also provide the factual basis for the assessment to be carried out by the competent authority as regards inter alia the risk of an abuse referred to above. The report of the expert which will be disclosed cannot contain any confidential information provided by the company. The draft terms and reports would be made publicly available and could be commented upon by the affected stakeholders. Thereafter, the company is to take a decision at the general meeting on whether to pursue the cross-border conversion. That decision, together with the relevant information and documents, would then be submitted to the competent national authority of the Member State of departure which is responsible to decide whether to issue a pre-conversion certificate or not. The scrutiny conducted by that authority would consist of two possible phases: during the first phase, which is limited to one month, the competent authority would examine whether the cross-border conversion is lawful. The authority would determine if all conditions for the cross-border conversion laid down in the Directive and in national law are fulfilled, including whether the company is solvent, the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the conversion at a general meeting and employees, minority shareholders and creditors are protected within the remit prescribed by the Directive. During this phase, the authority would also determine whether there is an artificial arrangement. If at the end of the 1-month period laid down for the first phase of investigation the authority has no objections, it would issue a pre-conversion certificate. If at the end of 1 month it is certain that the cross-border conversion is unlawful, it would refuse to grant a pre-conversion certificate. Alternatively, if at the end of the 1-month period it has serious concerns that the conversion may be unlawful, it would inform the company that it will carry out an in-depth examination as regards the existence of abuse as referred to above. The in-depth examination must be concluded and a final decision must be taken within two months. If after such scrutiny, the pre-conversion certificate is issued, it would be transmitted without delay to the competent authority of the Member State of destination. Then, the Member State of destination would carry out a scrutiny as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by the law of the destination Member State. The competent authority of the destination Member State shall ensure that the converted company complies with provisions of its national law on the incorporation of companies (for example, whether the company has a real seat in its territory) and, where appropriate, that arrangements for employee participation have been determined lawfully. Once the legality check has been carried out, a company would be registered in the register of a Member State of destination and de-registered in the register of a Member State of departure. The conversion shall then become legally effective. All contacts between the registers should be done via the system of interconnection of business registers (BRIS). Cross-border mergers A company may also wish to exercise their freedom of establishment and thereafter benefit from the opportunities offered by the Single Market by carrying out a cross-border merger. Companies may merge cross-border for various reasons including group reorganisations, cutting organisational costs as well as business-oriented considerations in order to enjoy greater returns to scale, consolidated branding, or other synergies between different business activities. The introduction of the Cross-Border Merger Directive 10 laid down a harmonised procedure at EU level for limited liability companies. It led to a substantial increase in cross-border merger activity in the EU and EEA. The number o f cross-border mergers rose by 173% between 2008 and 2012, which indicates that the procedure set up by the Directive substantially enhanced cross-border activity. Stakeholders (such as law firms, business registers and trade unions) interviewed for the 20 13 study on the application of the Directive welcomed the new procedures, the procedural simplification and reported lower costs and shorter timeframes thanks to the harmonised framework. However, despite the overall positive assessment, the evaluation 11 of the functioning of the Cross-Border Merger Directive identified certain problems which impede the full effectiveness and efficiency of the existing rules. The 2015 Single Market Strategy 12 mentioned uncertainties over company law as one of the obstacle s that SMEs complain about in the Single Market and announced that the Commission would " examine the need to update the existing rules on cross-border mergers and the possibility to complement them with rules as regards cross-border divisions". The European Parliament stressed the positive effects of the Directive which has facilitated cross-border mergers between limited liability companies in the European Union and reduced the associated costs and administrative procedures 13 . However, the Europe an Parliament also noted the necessity to revise it in order to improve its functioning 14 . The main identified obstacles concern the lack of harmonisation of substantive rules in particular for creditor protection and minority shareholder protection as well as the lack of fast track (i.e. simplified procedures for less "complex" mergers). In addition, it was observed that the cross-border merger procedure does not sufficiently integrate digital tools and processes (e.g. as regards submitting the documents to public authorities or sharing those between them). It has also been criticised that employees are not sufficiently informed about the details and implications of a cross-border merger. These inefficiencies were confirmed by stakeholders throughout the consultation process. Concerning the protection of creditors and minority shareholders, the existing rules on cross-border mergers lay down minimum, mainly procedural rules and leave the substantive protection to national laws. Therefore, the differences between Member States laws persist. For example, the Directive only lays down that creditors shall be protected subject to national rules, without further specifications. Similarly, the Directive lays down some rules concerning shareholders in general (e.g. information via the draft merger terms, expert reports, voting during the general meetings) but leaves it to Member States to decide whether to introduce further protection for minority shareholders. As to the employee participation on board level, the existing rules set out a comprehensive framework. However, the rules do not require merging companies to provide any specific and comprehensive information about a cross-border merger to the employees. Currently, the situation of employees is only considered in a general manner in the management report addressed predominantly to shareholders. As to simplified procedures, the current rules offer limited possibilities. For example, the rules allow waiving an independent expert report if all shareholders agree and do not require an expert report or the approval by the general meeting in case of a merger between a parent company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. This proposal aims to address these shortcomings. It provides harmonised rules for protection of creditors and shareholders. The company would need to provide the envisaged protection of creditors and shareholders in the draft terms of the cross-border conversion. The creditors who would be dissatisfied with the protection offered, may apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards. Creditors of the merging companies should be presumed not to be prejudiced by a cross-border merger, if an independent expert assessed their situation and considered no prejudice or creditors were offered a right to payment, either against a third party guarantor, or against the company resulting from the merger. Member States may still apply their laws concerning the protection of payment of taxes or social security contributions, if such rules are different to the protection offered by this proposal. Shareholders who did not vote for the cross-border mergers or have no voting rights would have the right to exit the company (dispose of their shares) and receive the adequate compensation. Moreover, Member States should also ensure that shareholders of the merging companies who did not oppose the cross-border merger, but who considered that the proposed share-exchange ratio was inadequate may challenge that ratio set out in the common draft terms of the cross-border merger before a national court. In addition, the proposed rules ensure that employees will be duly informed about the implications of the planned cross-border merger on employees. The proposal also provides for use of digital tools and procedures throughout the cross-border merger procedure as well as for the exchange of the relevant information through the interconnection of business registers. Finally, where possible, the proposal introduces further possibilities for simplified procedures. Cross-border divisions A company may also wish to exercise their freedom of establishment by carrying out a cross-border division. In a similar manner to cross-border conversions and mergers, cross-border divisions offer a way for companies to chan ge or simplify their organisational structure, adapt to changing market conditions and realise new business opportunities in another Member State. This was confirmed by respondents to the 2015 consultation on cross-border mergers and division 15 . However, th e current situation concerning cross-border divisions across the EU Member States also provides a very fragmented picture. There is no harmonised legal framework for cross-border divisions of companies, although divisions also play an important role in the economic environment of Member States. The current EU legal framework provides rules only for cross-border mergers of companies, while cross-border divisions are subject to national rules if such rules exist. Today only less than half of the Member States have national rules on cross-border divisions of companies. In the absence of a reliable legal framework for cross-border divisions, companies have difficulties to access markets in other Member States and often need to find costly alternatives to direct procedures. Different national requirements make it difficult to structure the cross-border operations and render it more complex and costly. Even when Member States allow companies to divide cross-border, the relevant national provisions are often divergent or even incompatible. In a number of Member States carrying out a direct cross-border division is not possible. The legal uncertainty and lack or complexity of rules for cross-border mobility of companies also means that there is no clear framework to ensure effective protection of stakeholders. This may even lead to a situation whereby the freedom of establishment could be abused by some companies. Thus, it is crucial to create a legal framework that ensures a fair balance between the need to provide companies a favourable business environment in the EU and the need at the same time to protect legitimate interests of stakeholders. The 2015 Single Market Strategy 16 mentioned uncertainties over company law as one of the obstacles that SMEs complain about in the Single Market and announced that the Commission " examine the need to update the existing rules on cross-border mergers and the possibility to complement them with rules as regards cross-border divisions". This part of the proposal aims to introduce a new legal framework regulating cross-border divisions. Its main objective is to address matters related to cross-border mobility by making it easier for any limited liability company to be able to divide cross-border. The provisions relating to cross-border divisions are inspired by the existing framework of the cross-border merger directive as well as the existing rules for domestic divisions. The rules are adapted to cater for a situation where a company is split instead of where one or more companies transfer all their assets and liabilities to another company. At the same time, the objectives of the harmonised rules on cross-border divisions remain similar to cross-border conversions: - enable companies to divide cross-border in an orderly, efficient and effective manner; - protect the most affected stakeholders such as employees, creditors and shareholders in a suitable and proportionate manner. Given the similar risks inherent to cross-border divisions as to cross-border conversions, the structured and multi-layered procedure as proposed for conversions would also be required for divisions. Such procedure would ensure the scrutiny of legality of the cross-border division by the competent authority of the company being divided and by the authorities of the recipient companies in the light of all relevant facts and information. As in conversions, a crucial element of the procedure would be preventing a cross-border division where it is determined that it constitutes an abuse, namely in cases where it constitutes an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. Given the complexity of dealing with risks of abuse in a situation where a company being divided transfers assets and liabilities to existing companies in different Member States, it was decided to regulate a situation where new companies are created in a cross-border division and not to regulate at this stage the cross-border division by acquisition, i.e. the situation where a company transfers assets and liabilities to more than one existing company. In a domestic context (where such situations are addressed in the current rules), such a procedure involves the examination of the protection of interests of stakeholders in one Member State, whereas in the cross-border context, it could necessitate the involvement of many authorities from different Member States. Whether to also include cross-border divisions by acquisition into the scope of the directive could be evaluated once first experiences with the new rules on cross-border divisions have been gained. Similarly to cross-border conversions, the first step in the procedure would be the preparation of the draft terms of the cross-border division and two targeted reports addressed to shareholders and employees on the implications that the cross-border division will have for them. In addition, medium size and big companies would need to apply to the competent authority to appoint an independent expert examining the accuracy of the draft terms and reports prepared by the company. The written report of the independent expert would also provide the factual basis for the assessment to be carried out by the competent authority as regards inter alia the risk of an abuse as referred to above. The report of the expert which will be disclosed cannot contain any confidential information provided by the company. The draft terms and reports would be made publicly available and could be commented upon by the affected stakeholders. Thereafter, the company being divided is to take a decision at the general meeting on whether to pursue the cross-border division. This decision, together with the relevant information and documents, would then be submitted to the competent authority of the Member State of the dividing company which is responsible to decide whether to issue a pre-division certificate or not. The scrutiny conducted by that authority would be divided into two phases: one being mandatory and the other one being optional. In the first phase, which is limited to one month, the competent authority would examine whether the cross-border division is lawful. The authority would determine if all conditions for the cross-border division laid down in the Directive and in national law are fulfilled, including whether the company is solvent, the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the cross-border division at a general meeting and employees, minority shareholders and creditors are protected within the remit prescribed by the Directive. It would also determine whether there is an artificial arrangement being created which is aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. If at the end of a 1-month period, the authority has no objections, it would issue a pre-division certificate; if it is certain that the cross-border division is unlawful, it would adopt a decision refusing to grant a pre-division certificate; or if it has serious concerns that the division may be unlawful, it would inform the company being divided that it will carry out an in-depth investigation with a view to performing an in-depth examination as regards the existence of abuse as referred to above. The in-depth examination must be concluded and a final decision must be taken within two months from the start of the in-depth investigation. If after such scrutiny, the pre-division certificate is issued, it would be transmitted without delay to the competent authorities of the Member States of the recipient companies. Then, the competent authorities would carry out a scrutiny as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by their respective laws. The competent authorities of the Member States of the recipient companies must ensure that the companies comply with provisions of their national laws on the incorporation of companies where appropriate (for example, whether the company has a real seat in its territory). They should also check whether the arrangements for employee participation have been determined lawfully. Once the legality check has been carried out, the division would be registered and recorded in all relevant business registers. All contacts between the registers should be done via the system of interconnection of business registers (BRIS).
Revised version (Article 37 Compulsory documents and particulars to be disclosed):
The compulsory disclosure provided for in Article 36 shall cover at least the following documents and particulars: (a) the address of the branch; (b) the activities of the branch; (c) the law of the State by which the company is governed; (d) where that law so provides, the register in which the company is entered and the registration number of the company in that register; (e) the instruments of constitution, and memorandum and articles of association if they are contained in a separate instrument, with all amendments to those documents; (f) the legal form of the company, its principal place of business and its object and, at least annually, the amount of subscribed capital if those particulars are not given in the documents referred to in point (e); (g) the name of the company and the name of the branch if that is different from the name of the company; (h) the appointment, termination of office and particulars of the persons who are authorised to represent the company in dealings with third parties and in legal proceedings: — as a company organ constituted pursuant to law or as members of any such organ, — as permanent representatives of the company for the activities of the branch. The extent of the powers of the persons authorised to represent the company shall be stated, as well as whether those persons may represent the company alone or are required to act jointly; (i) — the winding-up of the company and the appointment of liquidators, particulars concerning them and their powers and the termination of the liquidation, — insolvency proceedings, arrangements, compositions or any analogous proceedings to which the company is subject; — the winding-up of the company and the appointment of liquidators, particulars concerning them and their powers and the termination of the liquidation, — insolvency proceedings, arrangements, compositions or any analogous proceedings to which the company is subject; (j) the accounting documents in accordance with Article 38; (k) the closure of the branch.
Article 38 Limits of compulsory disclosure of accounting documents
1. The compulsory disclosure provided for by Article 37(j) shall apply to the accounting documents of the company as drawn up, audited and disclosed pursuant to the law of the State which governs the company. Where they are not drawn up in accordance with or in a manner equivalent to Directive 2013/34/EU, Member States may require that accounting documents relating to the activities of the branch be drawn up and disclosed. 2. Articles 32 and 33 shall apply.
Article 39 Information on letters and order forms
Member States shall prescribe that letters and order forms used by a branch state the register in which the file in respect of the branch is kept together with the number of the branch in that register. Where the law of the State by which the company is governed requires entry in a register, the register in which the company is entered, and the registration number of the company in that register shall also be stated.
Article 40 Penalties
Member States shall provide for appropriate penalties in the event of failure to disclose the matters set out in Articles 29, 30, 31, 36, 37 and 38 and of omission from letters and order forms of the compulsory particulars provided for in Articles 35 and 39.
Article 41 Persons carrying out disclosure formalities
Each Member State shall determine who shall carry out the disclosure formalities provided for in Sections 2 and 3.
Article 42 Exemptions to provisions on disclosure of accounting documents for branches
1. Articles 31 and 38 shall not apply to branches opened by credit institutions and financial institutions covered by Council Directive 89/117/EEC ( 31 ) . 2. Pending subsequent coordination, the Member States need not apply Articles 31 and 38 to branches opened by insurance companies.
Article 43 Contact Committee
The Contact Committee set up pursuant to Article 52 of Council Directive 78/660/EEC ( 32 ) shall also: (a) facilitate, without prejudice to Articles 258 and 259 of the Treaty, the harmonised application of the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and this Section, through regular meetings dealing, in particular, with practical problems arising in connection with their application; (b) advise the Commission, if necessary, on any additions or amendments to the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and this Section.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The EU economy needs healthy and flourishing companies which can easily operate in the Single Market. Such companies play a crucial role in promoting economic growth, creating jobs and attracting investment in the European Union. They help to deliver greater economic as well as social value for society at large. To achieve this end, companies need to operate in a legal and administrative environment which is both conducive to growth and adapted to face the new economic and social challenges of a globalised and digital world, while pursuing also other legitimate public interests such as the protection of employees, creditors and minority shareholders and providing authorities with all necessary safeguards to combat fraud or abuse. It is with this objective that the Commission is putting forward this proposal, to gether with the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 1 as regards the use of digital tools and processes in company law - a comprehensive set of measures for fair, enabling and modern compa ny law rules in the EU. The freedom of establishment plays a crucial role in the development of the Single Market as it allows corporate entities to pursue economic activities in other Member States on a stable basis. In order to foster the cross-border mobility of companies in the EU, it is essential to take into account their needs and characteristics. There are around 24 million companies in the EU, out of which approximately 80% are limited liability companies. Around 98-99% of limited liability companies are SMEs. However, in practice the exercise of the freedom of establishment by companies remains difficult. One of the reasons for these difficulties is that company law is not sufficiently adapted to cross-border mobility in the EU: it does not offer companies optimal conditions in terms of a clear, predictable and suitable legal framework which could lead to enhanced economic activity, in particular for SMEs as recognised by the 2015 Single Market Strategy 2 . Corporate restructurings and transformations such as cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions, are part of companies' life-cycle and represent a natural way for companies to grow, adapt to a changing environment and explore opportunities in new markets. At the same time, they also entail consequences for companies' stakeholders, in particular for employees, creditors and shareholders. Therefore, it is essential that the protection of stakeholders keeps pace with the ever-growing trans-nationalisation of the corporate world. However, today the legal uncertainty, partial inadequacy and also the lack of rules governing certain cross-border operations of companies means that there is no clear framework to ensure effective protection of these stakeholders. In this situation, the protection offered to stakeholders may therefore be ineffective or insufficient. The cross-border operations of companies can also be facilitated by a legal environment that creates trust in the Single Market by providing for safeguards against abuse. Therefore, it is important to unleash the potential of the Single Market by breaking down barriers to cross-border trade, facilitating access to markets, increasing confidence and stimulating competition while offering effective and proportionate protection to stakeholders. The objective of this proposal is two-fold: provide specific and comprehensive procedures for cross-border conversions, divisions and mergers to foster cross-border mobility in the EU while, at the same time, offering company stakeholders adequate protection in order to safeguard the fairness of the Single Market. Such action forms part of creating a deeper and fairer Single Market, which is one of the priorities of the current Commission. Cross-border conversions A cross-border conversion offers an efficient solution for companies that wish to move to another Member State without losing their legal personality or having to re-negotiate their business contracts. A conversion is particularly attractive for small companies that do not have enough financial resour ces to search for expensive legal advice and conduct a cross-border merger. 3 This reasoning applies in particular to cross-border conversions against the background of the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice of the E uropean Union (ECJ) has considered that the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU entails the right, for companies established in a Member State, to transfer their seat to another Member State through a cross-border conversion without losin g their legal personality. 4 In particular in its recent judgement Polbud 5 the ECJ confirmed the right of companies to carry out cross-border conversions on the basis of the freedom of establishment. The ECJ held that the freedom of establishment is applic able when the registered office alone, without the real head office, is transferred from one Member State to another if the Member State of new incorporation accepts the registration of a company even without the exercise of an economic activity there: in that case Article 49 TFEU does not require such an economic activity as a precondition for its applicability. 6 The ECJ also recalled that, in the absence of harmonisation, Member States are competent to decide the connecting factor of a company to its nati onal order and thus apply their own incorporation requirements to incoming companies. 7 The ECJ further recalled its previous jurisprudence whereby the fact that either the registered office or real head office of a company was established in accordance wit h the legislation of a Member State for the purpose of enjoying the benefit of more favourable legislation does not, in itself, constitute abuse. In Polbud , it was ruled that a national rule which imposes the winding-up prerequisite of cross-border transfe r of a company is an unjustified and disproportionate restriction and thus unlawful. 8 The Polbud judgement clarified the context for cross-border conversions. But the ECJ, being a judiciary organ, may not create any procedure for making such conversions possible or set out the related substantive conditions. In the absence of EU harmonisation on cross-border conversions, national legislation may still set out rules for the procedure to be followed and for the protection of minority shareholders, creditors or workers or for the fight against tax-related or other abuses in case of cross-border company conversion. However, it is necessary to assess case-by-case whether such rules comply with EU law and, in particular, with the right of establishment. This leads to an unsatisfactory situation in terms of legal certainty, which negatively affects companies, stakeholders and Member States. Currently, companies wishing to move their registered offices cross-border need to rely on Member States' laws. Such laws, where they exist, are often incompatible or difficult to combine with each other. Moreover, more than half of the Member States do not provide any specific rules allowing for cross-border conversions. SMEs are in particular negatively impacted since often they lack resources to perform cross-border procedures through costly and complicated alternative methods. This also means that the protection of stakeholders such as employees, creditors or minority shareholders is often ineffective or insufficient due to the lack of, overlapping or contradictory rules. As regards employee protection, in the absence of harmonised safeguards for employee participation rights, companies might use a cross-border conversion and the lack of relevant safeguards for employee participation rights, when moving to another Member State, to lower the level of participation or abandon it. Furthermore, the absence of harmonised rules may also lead to increased use of letterbox companies for fraudulent purposes, allowing for instance, in most serious cases, organised crime organisations to hide and obscure the beneficial ownership of companies to launder proceeds of crime. Therefore, the EU legislator needs to step in and provide for rules on cross-border conversion with adequate and proporti onate safeguards for employees, creditors and shareholders to create a dynamic and fair Single Market. The European Parliament 9 has already made calls for it. In particular, it is important that w orkers or their representatives are involved in the procedur e , in line with the 8 th principle of the Pillar of European Social Rights: notably, they should be informed and consulted in good time on matters relevant to them in the context of companies' cross-border conversions . The mobility of companies must go hand in hand with the protection of national social and labour law prerogatives. In light of the foregoing considerations, the main objectives of the harmonised rules for cross-border conversions are two-fold: - enabling companies, particularly micro and small, to convert cross-border in an orderly, efficient and effective manner; - protecting the most affected stakeholders such as employees, creditors and shareholders in a suitable and proportionate manner. The proposal would enable companies to convert cross-border by changing their legal form of one Member State into a similar legal form of another Member State. This should ensure that companies keep their legal personality throughout the process without the need to dissolve or liquidate in the departure Member State, and form a new entity in the destination Member State. The objective is to provide a specific, structured and multi-layered procedure for cross-border conversions which ensures a scrutiny of the legality of the cross-border conversion firstly by the competent authority of the departure Member State and secondly by the destination Member State in the light of all relevant facts and information. A crucial element of the procedure is that it would prevent a cross-border conversion where it is determined that it constitutes an abuse, namely in cases where it constitutes an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. The first step in the procedure would be the preparation of the draft terms of the cross-border conversion and two targeted reports addressed to shareholders and employees on the implications that the cross-border conversion will have. In addition, medium size and large companies would need to apply to the competent authority for the appointment of an independent expert examining the accuracy of the draft terms and reports prepared by the company. The written report of the independent expert would also provide the factual basis for the assessment to be carried out by the competent authority as regards inter alia the risk of an abuse referred to above. The report of the expert which will be disclosed cannot contain any confidential information provided by the company. The draft terms and reports would be made publicly available and could be commented upon by the affected stakeholders. Thereafter, the company is to take a decision at the general meeting on whether to pursue the cross-border conversion. That decision, together with the relevant information and documents, would then be submitted to the competent national authority of the Member State of departure which is responsible to decide whether to issue a pre-conversion certificate or not. The scrutiny conducted by that authority would consist of two possible phases: during the first phase, which is limited to one month, the competent authority would examine whether the cross-border conversion is lawful. The authority would determine if all conditions for the cross-border conversion laid down in the Directive and in national law are fulfilled, including whether the company is solvent, the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the conversion at a general meeting and employees, minority shareholders and creditors are protected within the remit prescribed by the Directive. During this phase, the authority would also determine whether there is an artificial arrangement. If at the end of the 1-month period laid down for the first phase of investigation the authority has no objections, it would issue a pre-conversion certificate. If at the end of 1 month it is certain that the cross-border conversion is unlawful, it would refuse to grant a pre-conversion certificate. Alternatively, if at the end of the 1-month period it has serious concerns that the conversion may be unlawful, it would inform the company that it will carry out an in-depth examination as regards the existence of abuse as referred to above. The in-depth examination must be concluded and a final decision must be taken within two months. If after such scrutiny, the pre-conversion certificate is issued, it would be transmitted without delay to the competent authority of the Member State of destination. Then, the Member State of destination would carry out a scrutiny as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by the law of the destination Member State. The competent authority of the destination Member State shall ensure that the converted company complies with provisions of its national law on the incorporation of companies (for example, whether the company has a real seat in its territory) and, where appropriate, that arrangements for employee participation have been determined lawfully. Once the legality check has been carried out, a company would be registered in the register of a Member State of destination and de-registered in the register of a Member State of departure. The conversion shall then become legally effective. All contacts between the registers should be done via the system of interconnection of business registers (BRIS). Cross-border mergers A company may also wish to exercise their freedom of establishment and thereafter benefit from the opportunities offered by the Single Market by carrying out a cross-border merger. Companies may merge cross-border for various reasons including group reorganisations, cutting organisational costs as well as business-oriented considerations in order to enjoy greater returns to scale, consolidated branding, or other synergies between different business activities. The introduction of the Cross-Border Merger Directive 10 laid down a harmonised procedure at EU level for limited liability companies. It led to a substantial increase in cross-border merger activity in the EU and EEA. The number o f cross-border mergers rose by 173% between 2008 and 2012, which indicates that the procedure set up by the Directive substantially enhanced cross-border activity. Stakeholders (such as law firms, business registers and trade unions) interviewed for the 20 13 study on the application of the Directive welcomed the new procedures, the procedural simplification and reported lower costs and shorter timeframes thanks to the harmonised framework. However, despite the overall positive assessment, the evaluation 11 of the functioning of the Cross-Border Merger Directive identified certain problems which impede the full effectiveness and efficiency of the existing rules. The 2015 Single Market Strategy 12 mentioned uncertainties over company law as one of the obstacle s that SMEs complain about in the Single Market and announced that the Commission would " examine the need to update the existing rules on cross-border mergers and the possibility to complement them with rules as regards cross-border divisions". The European Parliament stressed the positive effects of the Directive which has facilitated cross-border mergers between limited liability companies in the European Union and reduced the associated costs and administrative procedures 13 . However, the Europe an Parliament also noted the necessity to revise it in order to improve its functioning 14 . The main identified obstacles concern the lack of harmonisation of substantive rules in particular for creditor protection and minority shareholder protection as well as the lack of fast track (i.e. simplified procedures for less "complex" mergers). In addition, it was observed that the cross-border merger procedure does not sufficiently integrate digital tools and processes (e.g. as regards submitting the documents to public authorities or sharing those between them). It has also been criticised that employees are not sufficiently informed about the details and implications of a cross-border merger. These inefficiencies were confirmed by stakeholders throughout the consultation process. Concerning the protection of creditors and minority shareholders, the existing rules on cross-border mergers lay down minimum, mainly procedural rules and leave the substantive protection to national laws. Therefore, the differences between Member States laws persist. For example, the Directive only lays down that creditors shall be protected subject to national rules, without further specifications. Similarly, the Directive lays down some rules concerning shareholders in general (e.g. information via the draft merger terms, expert reports, voting during the general meetings) but leaves it to Member States to decide whether to introduce further protection for minority shareholders. As to the employee participation on board level, the existing rules set out a comprehensive framework. However, the rules do not require merging companies to provide any specific and comprehensive information about a cross-border merger to the employees. Currently, the situation of employees is only considered in a general manner in the management report addressed predominantly to shareholders. As to simplified procedures, the current rules offer limited possibilities. For example, the rules allow waiving an independent expert report if all shareholders agree and do not require an expert report or the approval by the general meeting in case of a merger between a parent company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. This proposal aims to address these shortcomings. It provides harmonised rules for protection of creditors and shareholders. The company would need to provide the envisaged protection of creditors and shareholders in the draft terms of the cross-border conversion. The creditors who would be dissatisfied with the protection offered, may apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards. Creditors of the merging companies should be presumed not to be prejudiced by a cross-border merger, if an independent expert assessed their situation and considered no prejudice or creditors were offered a right to payment, either against a third party guarantor, or against the company resulting from the merger. Member States may still apply their laws concerning the protection of payment of taxes or social security contributions, if such rules are different to the protection offered by this proposal. Shareholders who did not vote for the cross-border mergers or have no voting rights would have the right to exit the company (dispose of their shares) and receive the adequate compensation. Moreover, Member States should also ensure that shareholders of the merging companies who did not oppose the cross-border merger, but who considered that the proposed share-exchange ratio was inadequate may challenge that ratio set out in the common draft terms of the cross-border merger before a national court. In addition, the proposed rules ensure that employees will be duly informed about the implications of the planned cross-border merger on employees. The proposal also provides for use of digital tools and procedures throughout the cross-border merger procedure as well as for the exchange of the relevant information through the interconnection of business registers. Finally, where possible, the proposal introduces further possibilities for simplified procedures. Cross-border divisions A company may also wish to exercise their freedom of establishment by carrying out a cross-border division. In a similar manner to cross-border conversions and mergers, cross-border divisions offer a way for companies to chan ge or simplify their organisational structure, adapt to changing market conditions and realise new business opportunities in another Member State. This was confirmed by respondents to the 2015 consultation on cross-border mergers and division 15 . However, th e current situation concerning cross-border divisions across the EU Member States also provides a very fragmented picture. There is no harmonised legal framework for cross-border divisions of companies, although divisions also play an important role in the economic environment of Member States. The current EU legal framework provides rules only for cross-border mergers of companies, while cross-border divisions are subject to national rules if such rules exist. Today only less than half of the Member States have national rules on cross-border divisions of companies. In the absence of a reliable legal framework for cross-border divisions, companies have difficulties to access markets in other Member States and often need to find costly alternatives to direct procedures. Different national requirements make it difficult to structure the cross-border operations and render it more complex and costly. Even when Member States allow companies to divide cross-border, the relevant national provisions are often divergent or even incompatible. In a number of Member States carrying out a direct cross-border division is not possible. The legal uncertainty and lack or complexity of rules for cross-border mobility of companies also means that there is no clear framework to ensure effective protection of stakeholders. This may even lead to a situation whereby the freedom of establishment could be abused by some companies. Thus, it is crucial to create a legal framework that ensures a fair balance between the need to provide companies a favourable business environment in the EU and the need at the same time to protect legitimate interests of stakeholders. The 2015 Single Market Strategy 16 mentioned uncertainties over company law as one of the obstacles that SMEs complain about in the Single Market and announced that the Commission " examine the need to update the existing rules on cross-border mergers and the possibility to complement them with rules as regards cross-border divisions". This part of the proposal aims to introduce a new legal framework regulating cross-border divisions. Its main objective is to address matters related to cross-border mobility by making it easier for any limited liability company to be able to divide cross-border. The provisions relating to cross-border divisions are inspired by the existing framework of the cross-border merger directive as well as the existing rules for domestic divisions. The rules are adapted to cater for a situation where a company is split instead of where one or more companies transfer all their assets and liabilities to another company. At the same time, the objectives of the harmonised rules on cross-border divisions remain similar to cross-border conversions: - enable companies to divide cross-border in an orderly, efficient and effective manner; - protect the most affected stakeholders such as employees, creditors and shareholders in a suitable and proportionate manner. Given the similar risks inherent to cross-border divisions as to cross-border conversions, the structured and multi-layered procedure as proposed for conversions would also be required for divisions. Such procedure would ensure the scrutiny of legality of the cross-border division by the competent authority of the company being divided and by the authorities of the recipient companies in the light of all relevant facts and information. As in conversions, a crucial element of the procedure would be preventing a cross-border division where it is determined that it constitutes an abuse, namely in cases where it constitutes an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. Given the complexity of dealing with risks of abuse in a situation where a company being divided transfers assets and liabilities to existing companies in different Member States, it was decided to regulate a situation where new companies are created in a cross-border division and not to regulate at this stage the cross-border division by acquisition, i.e. the situation where a company transfers assets and liabilities to more than one existing company. In a domestic context (where such situations are addressed in the current rules), such a procedure involves the examination of the protection of interests of stakeholders in one Member State, whereas in the cross-border context, it could necessitate the involvement of many authorities from different Member States. Whether to also include cross-border divisions by acquisition into the scope of the directive could be evaluated once first experiences with the new rules on cross-border divisions have been gained. Similarly to cross-border conversions, the first step in the procedure would be the preparation of the draft terms of the cross-border division and two targeted reports addressed to shareholders and employees on the implications that the cross-border division will have for them. In addition, medium size and big companies would need to apply to the competent authority to appoint an independent expert examining the accuracy of the draft terms and reports prepared by the company. The written report of the independent expert would also provide the factual basis for the assessment to be carried out by the competent authority as regards inter alia the risk of an abuse as referred to above. The report of the expert which will be disclosed cannot contain any confidential information provided by the company. The draft terms and reports would be made publicly available and could be commented upon by the affected stakeholders. Thereafter, the company being divided is to take a decision at the general meeting on whether to pursue the cross-border division. This decision, together with the relevant information and documents, would then be submitted to the competent authority of the Member State of the dividing company which is responsible to decide whether to issue a pre-division certificate or not. The scrutiny conducted by that authority would be divided into two phases: one being mandatory and the other one being optional. In the first phase, which is limited to one month, the competent authority would examine whether the cross-border division is lawful. The authority would determine if all conditions for the cross-border division laid down in the Directive and in national law are fulfilled, including whether the company is solvent, the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the cross-border division at a general meeting and employees, minority shareholders and creditors are protected within the remit prescribed by the Directive. It would also determine whether there is an artificial arrangement being created which is aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. If at the end of a 1-month period, the authority has no objections, it would issue a pre-division certificate; if it is certain that the cross-border division is unlawful, it would adopt a decision refusing to grant a pre-division certificate; or if it has serious concerns that the division may be unlawful, it would inform the company being divided that it will carry out an in-depth investigation with a view to performing an in-depth examination as regards the existence of abuse as referred to above. The in-depth examination must be concluded and a final decision must be taken within two months from the start of the in-depth investigation. If after such scrutiny, the pre-division certificate is issued, it would be transmitted without delay to the competent authorities of the Member States of the recipient companies. Then, the competent authorities would carry out a scrutiny as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by their respective laws. The competent authorities of the Member States of the recipient companies must ensure that the companies comply with provisions of their national laws on the incorporation of companies where appropriate (for example, whether the company has a real seat in its territory). They should also check whether the arrangements for employee participation have been determined lawfully. Once the legality check has been carried out, the division would be registered and recorded in all relevant business registers. All contacts between the registers should be done via the system of interconnection of business registers (BRIS).
Article 44 General provisions
1. The coordination measures prescribed by this Chapter shall apply to the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States relating to the types of company listed in Annex I. 2. The Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Chapter to investment companies with variable capital and to cooperatives incorporated as one of the types of company listed in Annex I. In so far as the laws of the Member States make use of this option, they shall require such companies to include the words ‘investment company with variable capital’, or ‘cooperative’ in all documents indicated in Article 26.
Article 45 Minimum capital
1. The laws of the Member States shall require that, in order for a company to be incorporated or obtain authorisation to commence business, a minimum capital shall be subscribed the amount of which shall be not less than EUR 25 000. 2. Every five years the European Parliament and the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Article 50(1) and Article 50(2)(g) of the Treaty, shall examine and, if need be, revise the amount expressed in paragraph 1 in euro in the light of economic and monetary trends in the Union and of the tendency to allow only large and medium-sized undertakings to opt for the types of company listed in Annex I.
Article 46 Assets
Subscribed capital may be formed only of assets capable of economic assessment. However, an undertaking to perform work or supply services may not form part of those assets.
Article 47 Issuing price of shares
Shares may not be issued at a price lower than their nominal value, or, where there is no nominal value, their accountable par. However, Member States may allow those who undertake to place shares in the exercise of their profession to pay less than the total price of the shares for which they subscribe in the course of this transaction.
Article 48 Paying up of shares issued for a consideration
Shares issued for consideration shall be paid up at the time the company is incorporated or is authorised to commence business at not less than 25 % of their nominal value or, in the absence of a nominal value, their accountable par. However, where shares are issued for consideration other than in cash at the time the company is incorporated or is authorised to commence business, the consideration shall be transferred in full within five years of that time.
Article 49 Experts' report on consideration other than in cash
1. A report on any consideration other than in cash shall be drawn up before the company is incorporated or is authorised to commence business, by one or more independent experts appointed or approved by an administrative or judicial authority. Such experts may be natural persons as well as legal persons and companies or firms under the laws of each Member State. 2. The experts' report referred to in paragraph 1 shall contain at least a description of each of the assets comprising the consideration as well as of the methods of valuation used and shall state whether the values arrived at by the application of those methods correspond at least to the number and nominal value or, where there is no nominal value, to the accountable par and, where appropriate, to the premium on the shares to be issued for them. 3. The experts' report shall be published in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State, in accordance with Article 16. 4. Member States may decide not to apply this Article where 90 % of the nominal value, or where there is no nominal value, of the accountable par, of all the shares is issued to one or more companies for a consideration other than in cash, and where the following requirements are met: (a) with regard to the company in receipt of such consideration, the persons referred to in point (i) of Article 4 have agreed to dispense with the experts' report; (b) such agreement has been published as provided for in paragraph 3; (c) the companies furnishing such consideration have reserves which may not be distributed under the law or the statutes and which are at least equal to the nominal value or, where there is no nominal value, the accountable par of the shares issued for consideration other than in cash; (d) the companies furnishing such consideration guarantee, up to an amount equal to that indicated in point (c), the debts of the recipient company arising between the time the shares are issued for a consideration other than in cash and one year after the publication of that company's annual accounts for the financial year during which such consideration was furnished. Any transfer of such shares shall be prohibited during that period; (e) the guarantee referred to in point (d) has been published as provided for in paragraph 3; and (f) the companies furnishing such consideration shall place a sum equal to that indicated in point (c) into a reserve which may not be distributed until three years after publication of the annual accounts of the recipient company for the financial year during which such consideration was furnished or, if necessary, until such later date as all claims relating to the guarantee referred to in point (d) which are submitted during this period have been settled. 5. Member States may decide not to apply this Article to the formation of a new company by way of merger or division where a report by one or more independent experts on the draft terms of merger or division is drawn up. Where Member States decide to apply this Article in the cases referred to in the first subparagraph, they may provide that the report drawn up under paragraph 1 of this Article and the report by one or more independent experts on the draft terms of merger or division may be drawn up by the same expert or experts.
Article 50 Derogation from the requirement for an experts' report
1. Member States may decide not to apply Article 49(1), (2) and (3) where, upon a decision of the administrative or management body, transferable securities as defined in point 44 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 33 ) or money-market instruments as defined in point 17 of Article 4(1) of that Directive are contributed as consideration other than in cash, and those securities or money-market instruments are valued at the weighted average price at which they have been traded on one or more regulated markets as defined in point 21 of Article 4(1) of that Directive during a sufficient period, to be determined by national law, preceding the effective date of the contribution of the respective consideration other than in cash. However, where that price has been affected by exceptional circumstances that would significantly change the value of the asset at the effective date of its contribution, including situations where the market for such transferable securities or money-market instruments has become illiquid, a revaluation shall be carried out on the initiative and under the responsibility of the administrative or management body. For the purposes of such revaluation, Article 49(1), (2) and (3) shall apply. 2. Member States may decide not to apply Article 49(1), (2) and (3) where, upon a decision of the administrative or management body, assets, other than the transferable securities and money-market instruments referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, are contributed as consideration other than in cash which have already been subject to a fair value opinion by a recognised independent expert and where the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the fair value is determined for a date not more than six months before the effective date of the asset contribution; and (b) the valuation has been performed in accordance with generally accepted valuation standards and principles in the Member State which are applicable to the kind of assets to be contributed. In the case of new qualifying circumstances that would significantly change the fair value of the asset at the effective date of its contribution, a revaluation shall be carried out on the initiative and under the responsibility of the administrative or management body. For the purposes of the revaluation referred to in the second subparagraph, Article 49(1), (2) and (3) shall apply. In the absence of such a revaluation, one or more shareholders holding an aggregate percentage of at least 5 % of the company's subscribed capital on the date the decision on the increase in the capital is taken, may demand a valuation by an independent expert, in which case Article 49(1), (2) and (3) shall apply. Such shareholder(s) may submit a demand up until the effective date of the asset contribution, provided that, at the date of the demand, the shareholder(s) in question still hold(s) an aggregate percentage of at least 5 % of the company's subscribed capital, as it was on the date the decision on the increase in the capital was taken. 3. Member States may decide not to apply Article 49(1), (2) and (3) where, upon a decision of the administrative or management body, assets, other than the transferable securities and money-market instruments referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, are contributed as consideration other than in cash the fair value of which is derived from the value of an individual asset from the statutory accounts of the previous financial year provided that the statutory accounts have been subject to an audit in accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC. The second to fifth subparagraphs of paragraph 2 of this Article shall apply mutatis mutandis .
Article 51 Consideration other than in cash without an experts' report
1. Where consideration other than in cash as referred to in Article 50 is provided without an experts' report as referred to in Article 49(1), (2) and (3), in addition to the requirements set out in point (h) of Article 4 and within one month of the effective date of the asset contribution, a declaration containing the following shall be published: (a) a description of the consideration other than in cash at issue; (b) its value, the source of this valuation and, where appropriate, the method of valuation; (c) a statement whether the value arrived at corresponds at least to the number, to the nominal value or, where there is no nominal value, the accountable par and, where appropriate, to the premium on the shares to be issued for such consideration; and (d) a statement that no new qualifying circumstances with regard to the original valuation have occurred. The publication of the declaration shall be effected in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State in accordance with Article 16. 2. Where consideration other than in cash is proposed to be provided without an experts' report, as referred to in Article 49(1), (2) and (3), in relation to an increase in the capital proposed to be made under Article 68(2), an announcement containing the date when the decision on the increase was taken and the information listed in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be published, in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State in accordance with Article 16, before the contribution of the asset as consideration other than in cash is to become effective. In that event, the declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article shall be limited to the statement that no new qualifying circumstances have occurred since the aforementioned announcement was published. 3. Each Member State shall provide for adequate safeguards ensuring compliance with the procedure set out in Article 50 and in this Article where a contribution for a consideration other than in cash is provided without an experts' report as referred to in Article 49(1), (2) and (3).
Article 52 Substantial acquisitions after incorporation or authorisation to commence business
1. If, before the expiry of a time limit laid down by national law of at least two years from the time the company is incorporated or is authorised to commence business, the company acquires any asset belonging to a person or company or firm referred to in point (i) of Article 4 for a consideration of not less than one-tenth of the subscribed capital, the acquisition shall be examined and details of it published in the manner provided for in Article 49(1), (2) and (3), and it shall be submitted for the approval of a general meeting. Articles 50 and 51 shall apply mutatis mutandis . Member States may also require these provisions to be applied when the assets belong to a shareholder or to any other person. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to acquisitions effected in the normal course of the company's business, to acquisitions effected at the instance or under the supervision of an administrative or judicial authority, or to stock exchange acquisitions.
Article 53 Shareholders' obligation to pay up contributions
Subject to the provisions relating to the reduction of subscribed capital, the shareholders may not be released from the obligation to pay up their contributions.
Article 54 Safeguards in the event of conversion
Pending coordination of national laws at a subsequent date, Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to require provision of at least the same safeguards as are laid down in Articles 3 to 6 and Articles 45 to 53 in the event of the conversion of another type of company into a public limited liability company.
Article 55 Modification of the statutes or of the instrument of incorporation
Articles 3 to 6 and Articles 45 to 54 shall be without prejudice to the provisions of Member States on competence and procedure relating to the modification of the statutes or of the instrument of incorporation.
Article 56 General rules on distribution
1. Except for cases of reductions of subscribed capital, no distribution to shareholders may be made when on the closing date of the last financial year the net assets as set out in the company's annual accounts are or, following such a distribution, would become, lower than the amount of the subscribed capital plus those reserves which may not be distributed under the law or the statutes of the company. 2. Where the uncalled part of the subscribed capital is not included in the assets shown in the balance sheet, that amount shall be deducted from the amount of subscribed capital referred to in paragraph 1. 3. The amount of a distribution to shareholders may not exceed the amount of the profits at the end of the last financial year plus any profits brought forward and sums drawn from reserves available for this purpose, less any losses brought forward and sums placed to reserve in accordance with the law or the statutes. 4. The term ‘distribution’ used in paragraphs 1 and 3 includes, in particular, the payment of dividends and of interest relating to shares. 5. When the laws of a Member State allow the payment of interim dividends, at least the following conditions shall apply: (a) interim accounts shall be drawn up showing that the funds available for distribution are sufficient; (b) the amount to be distributed may not exceed the total profits made since the end of the last financial year for which the annual accounts have been drawn up, plus any profits brought forward and sums drawn from reserves available for this purpose, less losses brought forward and sums to be placed to reserve pursuant to the requirements of the law or the statutes. 6. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not affect the provisions of the Member States as regards increases in subscribed capital by capitalisation of reserves. 7. The laws of a Member State may provide for derogation from paragraph 1 in the case of investment companies with fixed capital. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘investment company with fixed capital’ means only companies: (a) the exclusive object of which is to invest their funds in various stocks and shares, land or other assets with the sole aim of spreading investment risks and giving their shareholders the benefit of the results of the management of their assets; and (b) which offer their own shares for subscription by the public. In so far as the laws of Member States make use of the option they shall: (a) require such companies to include the term ‘investment company’ in all documents indicated in Article 26; (b) not permit any such company whose net assets fall below the amount specified in paragraph 1 to make a distribution to shareholders when on the closing date of the last financial year the company's total assets as set out in the annual accounts are, or following such distribution would become, less than one-and-a-half times the amount of the company's total liabilities to creditors as set out in the annual accounts; and (c) require any such company which makes a distribution when its net assets fall below the amount specified in paragraph 1 to include in its annual accounts a note to that effect.
Article 57 Recovery of distributions unlawfully made
Any distribution made contrary to Article 56 shall be returned by shareholders who have received it if the company proves that those shareholders knew of the irregularity of the distributions made to them, or could not in view of the circumstances have been unaware of it.
Article 58 Serious loss of the subscribed capital
1. In the case of a serious loss of the subscribed capital, a general meeting of shareholders shall be called within the period laid down by the laws of the Member States, to consider whether the company should be wound up or any other measures taken. 2. The amount of a loss deemed to be serious within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall not be set by the laws of Member States at a figure higher than half the subscribed capital.
Article 59 No subscription of own shares
1. The shares of a company may not be subscribed for by the company itself. 2. If the shares of a company have been subscribed for by a person acting in his or her own name, but on behalf of the company, the subscriber shall be deemed to have subscribed for them for his or her own account. 3. The persons or companies or firms referred to in point (i) of Article 4 or, in cases of an increase in subscribed capital, the members of the administrative or management body shall be liable to pay for shares subscribed in contravention of this Article. However, the laws of a Member State may provide that any such person may be released from his or her obligation if they prove that no fault is attributable to them personally.
Article 60 Acquisition of own shares
1. Without prejudice to the principle of equal treatment of all shareholders who are in the same position, and to Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, Member States may permit a company to acquire its own shares, either itself or through a person acting in his or her own name but on the company's behalf. To the extent that the acquisitions are permitted, Member States shall make such acquisitions subject to the following conditions: (a) authorisation is given by the general meeting, which shall determine the terms and conditions of such acquisitions, and, in particular, the maximum number of shares to be acquired, the duration of the period for which the authorisation is given, the maximum length of which shall be determined by national law without, however, exceeding five years, and, in the case of acquisition for value, the maximum and minimum consideration. Members of the administrative or management body shall satisfy themselves that, at the time when each authorised acquisition is effected, the conditions referred to in points (b) and (c) are respected; (b) the acquisitions, including shares previously acquired by the company and held by it, and shares acquired by a person acting in his or her own name but on the company's behalf, cannot have the effect of reducing the net assets below the amount referrred to in Article 56(1) and (2); and (c) only fully paid-up shares can be included in the transaction. Furthermore, Member States may subject acquisitions within the meaning of the first subparagraph to any of the following conditions: (a) the nominal value or, in the absence thereof, the accountable par of the acquired shares, including shares previously acquired by the company and held by it, and shares acquired by a person acting in his own name but on the company's behalf, does not exceed a limit to be determined by Member States; this limit may not be lower than 10 % of the subscribed capital; (b) the power of the company to acquire its own shares within the meaning of the first subparagraph, the maximum number of shares to be acquired, the duration of the period for which the power is given and the maximum or minimum consideration are laid down in the statutes or in the instrument of incorporation of the company; (c) the company complies with appropriate reporting and notification requirements; (d) certain companies, as determined by Member States, can be required to cancel the acquired shares provided that an amount equal to the nominal value of the shares cancelled is included in a reserve which cannot be distributed to the shareholders, except in the event of a reduction in the subscribed capital; this reserve may be used only for the purposes of increasing the subscribed capital by the capitalisation of reserves; (e) the acquisition does not prejudice the satisfaction of creditors' claims. 2. The laws of a Member State may provide for derogations from the first sentence of point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 where the acquisition of a company's own shares is necessary to prevent serious and imminent harm to the company. In such a case, the next general meeting shall be informed by the administrative or management body of the reasons for and nature of the acquisitions effected, of the number and nominal value or, in the absence of a nominal value, the accountable par, of the shares acquired, of the proportion of the subscribed capital which they represent, and of the consideration for those shares. 3. Member States may decide not to apply the first sentence of point (a) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 to shares acquired by either the company itself or by a person acting in his or her own name but on the company's behalf, for distribution to that company's employees or to the employees of an associate company. Such shares shall be distributed within 12 months of their acquisition.
Article 61 Derogation from rules on acquisition of own shares
1. Member States may decide not to apply Article 60 to: (a) shares acquired in carrying out a decision to reduce capital, or in the circumstances referred to in Article 82; (b) shares acquired as a result of a universal transfer of assets; (c) fully paid-up shares acquired free of charge or by banks and other financial institutions as purchasing commission; (d) shares acquired by virtue of a legal obligation or resulting from a court ruling for the protection of minority shareholders in the event, particularly, of a merger, a change in the company's object or form, transfer abroad of the registered office, or the introduction of restrictions on the transfer of shares; (e) shares acquired from a shareholder in the event of failure to pay them up; (f) shares acquired in order to indemnify minority shareholders in associated companies; (g) fully paid-up shares acquired under a sale enforced by a court order for the payment of a debt owed to the company by the owner of the shares; and (h) fully paid-up shares issued by an investment company with fixed capital, as defined in the second subparagraph of Article 56(7), and acquired at the investor's request by that company or by an associate company. Point (a) of the third subparagraph of Article 56(7) shall apply. Such acquisitions may not have the effect of reducing the net assets below the amount of the subscribed capital plus any reserves the distribution of which is forbidden by law. 2. Shares acquired in the cases listed in points (b) to (g) of paragraph 1 shall, however, be disposed of within not more than three years of their acquisition unless the nominal value or, in the absence of a nominal value, the accountable par of the shares acquired, including shares which the company may have acquired through a person acting in his own name but on the company's behalf, does not exceed 10 % of the subscribed capital. 3. If the shares are not disposed of within the period laid down in paragraph 2, they shall be cancelled. The laws of a Member State may make this cancellation subject to a corresponding reduction in the subscribed capital. Such a reduction shall be prescribed where the acquisition of shares to be cancelled results in the net assets having fallen below the amount specified in Article 56(1) and (2).
Article 62 Consequences of illegal acquisition of own shares
Shares acquired in contravention of Articles 60 and 61 shall be disposed of within one year of their acquisition. If they are not disposed of within that period, Article 61(3) shall apply.
Article 63 Holding of own shares and annual report in case of acquisition of own shares
1. Where the laws of a Member State permit a company to acquire its own shares, either itself or through a person acting in his or her own name but on the company's behalf, they shall make the holding of these shares at all times subject to at least the following conditions: (a) among the rights attaching to the shares, the right to vote attaching to the company's own shares must in any event be suspended; (b) if the shares are included among the assets shown in the balance sheet, a reserve of the same amount, unavailable for distribution, shall be included among the liabilities. 2. Where the laws of a Member State permit a company to acquire its own shares, either itself or through a person acting in his or her own name but on the company's behalf, they shall require the annual report to state at least: (a) the reasons for acquisitions made during the financial year; (b) the number and nominal value or, in the absence of a nominal value, the accountable par of the shares acquired and disposed of during the financial year and the proportion of the subscribed capital which they represent; (c) in the case of acquisition or disposal for a value, the consideration for the shares; (d) the number and nominal value or, in the absence of a nominal value, the accountable par of all the shares acquired and held by the company and the proportion of the subscribed capital which they represent.
Article 64 Financial assistance by a company for acquisition of its shares by a third party
1. Where Member States permit a company to, either directly or indirectly, advance funds or make loans or provide security, with a view to the acquisition of its shares by a third party, they shall make such transactions subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 5. 2. The transactions shall take place under the responsibility of the administrative or management body at fair market conditions, especially with regard to interest received by the company and with regard to security provided to the company for the loans and advances referred to in paragraph 1. The credit standing of the third party or, in the case of multiparty transactions, of each counterparty thereto shall have been duly investigated. 3. The transactions shall be submitted by the administrative or management body to the general meeting for prior approval, whereby the general meeting shall act in accordance with the rules for a quorum and a majority laid down in Article 83. The administrative or management body shall present a written report to the general meeting, indicating: (a) the reasons for the transaction; (b) the interest of the company in entering into such a transaction; (c) the conditions on which the transaction is entered into; (d) the risks involved in the transaction for the liquidity and solvency of the company; and (e) the price at which the third party is to acquire the shares. This report shall be submitted to the register for publication in accordance with Article 16. 4. The aggregate financial assistance granted to third parties shall at no time result in the reduction of the net assets below the amount specified in Article 56(1) and (2), taking into account also any reduction of the net assets that may have occurred through the acquisition, by the company or on behalf of the company, of its own shares in accordance with Article 60(1). The company shall include, among the liabilities in the balance sheet, a reserve, unavailable for distribution, of the amount of the aggregate financial assistance. 5. Where a third party by means of financial assistance from a company acquires that company's own shares within the meaning of Article 60(1) or subscribes for shares issued in the course of an increase in the subscribed capital, such acquisition or subscription shall be made at a fair price. 6. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not apply to transactions concluded by banks and other financial institutions in the normal course of business, nor to transactions effected with a view to the acquisition of shares by or for the company's employees or the employees of an associate company. However, these transactions may not have the effect of reducing the net assets below the amount specified in Article 56(1). 7. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not apply to transactions effected with a view to acquisition of shares as described in of Article 61(1)(h).
Article 65 Additional safeguards in case of related party transactions
In cases where individual members of the administrative or management body of the company being party to a transaction referred to in Article 64(1) of this Directive, or of the administrative or management body of a parent undertaking within the meaning of Article 22 of Directive 2013/34/EU or such parent undertaking itself, or individuals acting in their own name, but on behalf of the members of such bodies or on behalf of such undertaking, are counterparties to such a transaction, Member States shall ensure through adequate safeguards that such transaction does not conflict with the company's best interests.
Article 66 Acceptance of the company's own shares as security
1. The acceptance of the company's own shares as security, either by the company itself or through a person acting in his own name but on the company's behalf, shall be treated as an acquisition for the purposes of Article 60, Article 61(1), and Articles 63 and 64. 2. The Member States may decide not to apply paragraph 1 to transactions concluded by banks and other financial institutions in the normal course of business.
Article 67 Subscription, acquisition or holding of shares by a company in which the public limited liability company holds a majority of the voting rights or on which it can exercise a dominant influence
1. The subscription, acquisition or holding of shares in a public limited liability company by another company of a type listed in Annex II in which the public limited liability company directly or indirectly holds a majority of the voting rights or on which it can directly or indirectly exercise a dominant influence shall be regarded as having been effected by the public limited liability company itself. The first subparagraph shall also apply where the other company is governed by the law of a third country and has a legal form comparable to those listed in Annex II. However, where the public limited liability company holds a majority of the voting rights indirectly or can exercise a dominant influence indirectly, Member States need not apply the first and the second subparagraphs if they provide for the suspension of the voting rights attached to the shares in the public limited liability company held by the other company. 2. In the absence of coordination of national legislation on groups of companies, Member States may: (a) define the cases in which a public limited liability company shall be regarded as being able to exercise a dominant influence on another company; if a Member State exercises this option, its national law shall in any event provide that a dominant influence can be exercised if a public limited liability company: (i) has the right to appoint or dismiss a majority of the members of the administrative organ, of the management organ or of the supervisory organ, and is at the same time a shareholder or member of the other company; or (ii) is a shareholder or member of the other company and has sole control of a majority of the voting rights of its shareholders or members under an agreement concluded with other shareholders or members of that company. Member States shall not be obliged to make provision for any cases other than those referred to in points (i) and (ii) of the first subparagraph; (b) define the cases in which a public limited liability company shall be regarded as indirectly holding voting rights or as able indirectly to exercise a dominant influence; (c) specify the circumstances in which a public limited liability company shall be regarded as holding voting rights. 3. Member States need not apply the first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 1 where the subscription, acquisition or holding is effected on behalf of a person other than the person subscribing, acquiring or holding the shares, who is neither the public limited liability company referred to in paragraph 1 nor another company in which the public limited liability company directly or indirectly holds a majority of the voting rights or on which it can directly or indirectly exercise a dominant influence. 4. Member States need not apply the first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 1 where the subscription, acquisition or holding is effected by the other company in its capacity and in the context of its activities as a professional dealer in securities, provided that it is a member of a stock exchange situated or operating within a Member State, or is approved or supervised by an authority of a Member State competent to supervise professional dealers in securities which, within the meaning of this Directive, may include credit institutions. 5. Member States need not apply the first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 1 where shares in a public limited liability company held by another company were acquired before the relationship between the two companies corresponded to the criteria laid down in paragraph 1. However, the voting rights attached to those shares shall be suspended and the shares shall be taken into account when it is determined whether the condition laid down in Article 60(1)(b) is fulfilled. 6. Member States need not apply Article 61(2) or (3) or Article 62 where shares in a public limited liability company are acquired by another company on condition that they provide for: (a) the suspension of the voting rights attached to the shares in the public limited liability company held by the other company; and (b) the members of the administrative or the management organ of the public limited liability company to be obliged to buy back from the other company the shares referred to in Article 61(2) and (3) and Article 62 at the price at which the other company acquired them; this sanction shall be inapplicable only where the members of the administrative or the management organ of the public limited liability company prove that that company played no part whatsoever in the subscription for or acquisition of the shares in question.
Article 68 Decision by the general meeting on the increase of capital
1. Any increase in capital shall be decided upon by the general meeting. Both that decision and the increase in the subscribed capital shall be published in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State, in accordance with Article 16. 2. Nevertheless, the statutes or instrument of incorporation or the general meeting, the decision of which is to be published in accordance with the rules referred to in paragraph 1, may authorise an increase in the subscribed capital up to a maximum amount which they shall fix with due regard for any maximum amount provided for by law. Where appropriate, the increase in the subscribed capital shall be decided on within the limits of the amount fixed by the company body empowered to do so. The power of such body in this respect shall be for a maximum period of five years and may be renewed one or more times by the general meeting, each time for a period not exceeding five years. 3. Where there are several classes of shares, the decision by the general meeting concerning the increase in capital referred to in paragraph 1 or the authorisation to increase the capital referred to in paragraph 2, shall be subject to a separate vote at least for each class of shareholder whose rights are affected by the transaction. 4. This Article shall apply to the issue of all securities which are convertible into shares or which carry the right to subscribe for shares, but not to the conversion of such securities, nor to the exercise of the right to subscribe.
Article 69 Paying up shares issued for consideration
Shares issued for consideration, in the course of an increase in subscribed capital, shall be paid up to at least 25 % of their nominal value or, in the absence of a nominal value, of their accountable par. Where provision is made for an issue premium, it shall be paid in full.
Article 70 Shares issued for consideration other than in cash
1. Where shares are issued for consideration other than in cash in the course of an increase in the subscribed capital, the consideration shall be transferred in full within a period of five years from the decision to increase the subscribed capital. 2. The consideration referred to in paragraph 1 shall be the subject of a report drawn up before the increase in capital is made by one or more experts who are independent of the company and appointed or approved by an administrative or judicial authority. Such experts may be natural persons as well as legal persons and companies and firms under the laws of each Member State. Article 49(2) and (3) and Articles 50 and 51 shall apply. 3. Member States may decide not to apply paragraph 2 in the event of an increase in subscribed capital made in order to give effect to a merger, a division or a public offer for the purchase or exchange of shares and to pay the shareholders of the company which is being absorbed or divided, or which is the object of the public offer for the purchase or exchange of shares. In the case of a merger or a division, however, Member States shall apply the first subparagraph only where a report by one or more independent experts on the draft terms of merger or division is drawn up. Where Member States decide to apply paragraph 2 in the case of a merger or a division, they may provide that the report under this Article and the report by one or more independent experts on the draft terms of merger or division may be drawn up by the same expert or experts. 4. Member States may decide not to apply paragraph 2 if all the shares issued in the course of an increase in subscribed capital are issued for a consideration other than in cash to one or more companies, on condition that all the shareholders in the company which receive the consideration have agreed not to have an experts' report drawn up and that the requirements of points (b) to (f) of Article 49(4) are met.
Article 71 Increase in capital not fully subscribed
Where an increase in capital is not fully subscribed, the capital will be increased by the amount of the subscriptions received only if the conditions of the issue so provide.
Article 72 Increase in capital by consideration in cash
1. Whenever the capital is increased by consideration in cash, the shares shall be offered on a pre-emptive basis to shareholders in proportion to the capital represented by their shares. 2. The laws of a Member State: (a) need not apply paragraph 1 to shares which carry a limited right to participate in distributions within the meaning of Article 56 and/or in the company's assets in the event of liquidation; or (b) may permit, where the subscribed capital of a company having several classes of shares carrying different rights with regard to voting, or participation in distributions within the meaning of Article 56 or in assets in the event of liquidation, is increased by issuing new shares in only one of these classes, the right of pre-emption of shareholders of the other classes to be exercised only after the exercise of this right by the shareholders of the class in which the new shares are being issued. 3. Any offer of subscription on a pre-emptive basis and the period within which this right shall be exercised shall be published in the national gazette appointed in accordance with Article 16. However, the laws of a Member State need not provide for such publication where all of a company's shares are registered. In such case, all the company's shareholders shall be informed in writing. The right of pre-emption shall be exercised within a period which shall not be less than 14 days from the date of publication of the offer or from the date of dispatch of the letters to the shareholders. 4. The right of pre-emption may not be restricted or withdrawn by the statutes or instrument of incorporation. This may, however, be done by decision of the general meeting. The administrative or management body shall be required to present to such a meeting a written report indicating the reasons for restriction or withdrawal of the right of pre-emption, and justifying the proposed issue price. The general meeting shall act in accordance with the rules for a quorum and a majority laid down in Article 83. Its decision shall be published in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State, in accordance with Article 16. 5. The laws of a Member State may provide that the statutes, the instrument of incorporation or the general meeting, acting in accordance with the rules for a quorum, a majority and publication set out in paragraph 4 of this Article, may give the power to restrict or withdraw the right of pre-emption to the company body which is empowered to decide on an increase in subscribed capital within the limit of the authorised capital. This power may not be granted for a longer period than the power for which provision is made in Article 68(2). 6. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall apply to the issue of all securities which are convertible into shares or which carry the right to subscribe for shares, but not to the conversion of such securities, nor to the exercise of the right to subscribe. 7. The right of pre-emption is not excluded for the purposes of paragraphs 4 and 5 where, in accordance with the decision to increase the subscribed capital, shares are issued to banks or other financial institutions with a view to their being offered to shareholders of the company in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3.
Article 73 Decision by the general meeting on reduction in the subscribed capital
Any reduction in the subscribed capital, except under a court order, shall be subject at least to a decision of the general meeting acting in accordance with the rules for a quorum and a majority laid down in Article 83 without prejudice to Articles 79 and 80. Such decision shall be published in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State in accordance with Article 16. The notice convening the meeting shall specify at least the purpose of the reduction and the way in which it is to be carried out.
Article 74 Reduction in the subscribed capital in case of several classes of shares
Where there are several classes of shares, the decision by the general meeting concerning a reduction in the subscribed capital shall be subject to a separate vote, at least for each class of shareholders whose rights are affected by the transaction.
Article 75 Safeguards for creditors in case of reduction in the subscribed capital
1. In the event of a reduction in the subscribed capital, at least the creditors whose claims antedate the publication of the decision on the reduction shall at least have the right to obtain security for claims which have not fallen due by the date of that publication. Member States may not set aside such a right unless the creditor has adequate safeguards, or unless such safeguards are not necessary having regard to the assets of the company. Member States shall lay down the conditions for the exercise of the right provided for in the first subparagraph. In any event, Member States shall ensure that the creditors are authorised to apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards provided that they can credibly demonstrate that due to the reduction in the subscribed capital the satisfaction of their claims is at stake, and that no adequate safeguards have been obtained from the company. 2. The laws of the Member States shall also stipulate at least that the reduction shall be void, or that no payment may be made for the benefit of the shareholders, until the creditors have obtained satisfaction or a court has decided that their application should not be acceded to. 3. This Article shall apply where the reduction in the subscribed capital is brought about by the total or partial waiving of the payment of the balance of the shareholders' contributions.
Article 76 Derogation from safeguards for creditors in case of reduction in the subscribed capital
1. Member States need not apply Article 75 to a reduction in the subscribed capital the purpose of which is to offset losses incurred or to include sums of money in a reserve provided that, following this operation, the amount of such reserve is not more than 10 % of the reduced subscribed capital. Except in the event of a reduction in the subscribed capital, this reserve may not be distributed to shareholders; it may be used only for offsetting losses incurred or for increasing the subscribed capital by the capitalisation of such reserve, in so far as the Member States permit such an operation. 2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the laws of the Member States shall at least provide for the measures necessary to ensure that the amounts deriving from the reduction of subscribed capital may not be used for making payments or distributions to shareholders, or discharging shareholders from the obligation to make their contributions.
Article 77 Reduction in the subscribed capital and the minimum capital
The subscribed capital may not be reduced to an amount less than the minimum capital laid down in accordance with Article 45. However, Member States may permit such a reduction if they also provide that the decision to reduce the subscribed capital may take effect only when the subscribed capital is increased to an amount at least equal to the prescribed minimum.
Article 78 Redemption of subscribed capital without reduction
Where the laws of a Member State authorise total or partial redemption of the subscribed capital without reduction of the latter, they shall at least require that the following conditions are observed: (a) where the statutes or instrument of incorporation provide for redemption, the latter shall be decided on by the general meeting voting at least under the usual conditions of quorum and majority; where the statutes or instrument of incorporation do not provide for redemption, the latter shall be decided upon by the general meeting acting at least under the conditions of quorum and majority laid down in Article 83; the decision shall be published in the manner prescribed by the laws of Member States, in accordance with Article 16; (b) only sums which are available for distribution within the meaning of Article 56(1) to (4) may be used for redemption purposes; (c) shareholders whose shares are redeemed shall retain their rights in the company, with the exception of their rights to the repayment of their investment and participation in the distribution of an initial dividend on unredeemed shares.
Article 79 Reduction in the subscribed capital by compulsory withdrawal of shares
1. Where the laws of a Member State allow companies to reduce their subscribed capital by compulsory withdrawal of shares, they shall require that at least the following conditions are observed: (a) compulsory withdrawal must be prescribed or authorised by the statutes or instrument of incorporation before the shares which are to be withdrawn are subscribed for; (b) where the compulsory withdrawal is authorised merely by the statutes or instrument of incorporation, it shall be decided upon by the general meeting unless it has been unanimously approved by the shareholders concerned; (c) the company body deciding on the compulsory withdrawal shall fix the terms and manner thereof, where they have not already been fixed by the statutes or instrument of incorporation; (d) Article 75 shall apply except in the case of fully paid-up shares which are made available to the company free of charge or are withdrawn using sums available for distribution in accordance with Article 56(1) to (4); in these cases, an amount equal to the nominal value or, in the absence thereof, to the accountable par of all the withdrawn shares must be included in a reserve; except in the event of a reduction in the subscribed capital, this reserve may not be distributed to shareholders; it can be used only for offsetting losses incurred or for increasing the subscribed capital by the capitalisation of such reserve, in so far as Member States permit such an operation; and (e) the decision on compulsory withdrawal shall be published in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State in accordance with Article 16. 2. The first paragraph of Article 73 and Articles 74, 76 and 83 shall not apply to the cases to which paragraph 1 of this Article refers.
Article 80 Reduction in the subscribed capital by the withdrawal of shares acquired by the company itself or on its behalf
1. In the case of a reduction in the subscribed capital by the withdrawal of shares acquired by the company itself or by a person acting in his own name but on behalf of the company, the withdrawal shall always be decided on by the general meeting. 2. Article 75 shall apply unless the shares are fully paid up and are acquired free of charge or using sums available for distribution in accordance with Article 56(1) to (4); in these cases an amount equal to the nominal value or, in the absence thereof, to the accountable par of all the shares withdrawn shall be included in a reserve. Except in the event of a reduction in the subscribed capital, this reserve may not be distributed to shareholders. It may be used only for offsetting losses incurred or for increasing the subscribed capital by the capitalisation of such reserve, in so far as the Member States permit such an operation. 3. Articles 74, 76 and 83 shall not apply to the cases to which paragraph 1 of this Article refers.
Article 81 Redemption of the subscribed capital or its reduction by withdrawal of shares in case of several classes of shares
In the cases covered by Article 78, Article 79(1)(b) and Article 80(1), when there are several classes of shares, the decision by the general meeting concerning redemption of the subscribed capital or its reduction by withdrawal of shares shall be subject to a separate vote, at least for each class of shareholders whose rights are affected by the transaction.
Article 82 Conditions for redemption of shares
Where the laws of a Member State authorise companies to issue redeemable shares, they shall require that the following conditions, at least, are complied with for the redemption of such shares: (a) redemption must be authorised by the company's statutes or instrument of incorporation before the redeemable shares are subscribed for; (b) the shares must be fully paid up; (c) the terms and the manner of redemption must be laid down in the company's statutes or instrument of incorporation; (d) redemption can be only effected by using sums available for distribution in accordance with Article 56(1) to (4) or the proceeds of a new issue made with a view to effecting such redemption; (e) an amount equal to the nominal value or, in the absence thereof, to the accountable par of all the redeemed shares must be included in a reserve which cannot be distributed to the shareholders, except in the event of a reduction in the subscribed capital; it may be used only for the purpose of increasing the subscribed capital by the capitalisation of reserves; (f) point (e) shall not apply to redemption using the proceeds of a new issue made with a view to effecting such redemption; (g) where provision is made for the payment of a premium to shareholders in consequence of a redemption, the premium may be paid only from sums available for distribution in accordance with Article 56(1) to (4), or from a reserve other than that referred to in point (e) of this Article which may not be distributed to shareholders except in the event of a reduction in the subscribed capital; this reserve may be used only for the purposes of increasing the subscribed capital by the capitalisation of reserves or for covering the costs referred to in point (j) of Article 4 or the cost of issuing shares or debentures or for the payment of a premium to holders of redeemable shares or debentures; (h) notification of redemption shall be published in the manner laid down by the laws of each Member State in accordance with Article 16.
Article 83 Voting requirements for the decisions of the general meeting
The laws of the Member States shall provide that the decisions referred to in Article 72(4) and (5) and Articles 73, 74, 78 and 81 are to be taken at least by a majority of not less than two thirds of the votes attaching to the securities or the subscribed capital represented. The laws of the Member States may, however, lay down that a simple majority of the votes specified in the first paragraph is sufficient when at least half the subscribed capital is represented.
Article 84 Derogation from certain requirements
1. Member States may derogate from the first paragraph of Article 48, the first sentence of Article 60(1)(a) and Articles 68, 69 and 72 to the extent that such derogations are necessary for the adoption or application of provisions designed to encourage the participation of employees, or other groups of persons defined by national law, in the capital of undertakings. 2. Member States may decide not to apply the first sentence of Article 60(1)(a) and Articles 73, 74 and 79 to 82 to companies incorporated under a special law which issue both capital shares and workers' shares, the latter being issued to the company's employees as a body, who are represented at general meetings of shareholders by delegates having the right to vote. 3. Member States shall ensure that Article 49, Articles 58(1) and 68(1), (2) and (3), the first subparagraph of Article 70(2), Articles 72 to 75, 79, 80 and 81 do not apply in the case of use of the resolution tools, powers and mechanisms provided for in Title IV of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 34 ) .
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The EU economy needs healthy and flourishing companies which can easily operate in the Single Market. Such companies play a crucial role in promoting economic growth, creating jobs and attracting investment in the European Union. They help to deliver greater economic as well as social value for society at large. To achieve this end, companies need to operate in a legal and administrative environment which is both conducive to growth and adapted to face the new economic and social challenges of a globalised and digital world, while pursuing also other legitimate public interests such as the protection of employees, creditors and minority shareholders and providing authorities with all necessary safeguards to combat fraud or abuse. It is with this objective that the Commission is putting forward this proposal, to gether with the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 1 as regards the use of digital tools and processes in company law - a comprehensive set of measures for fair, enabling and modern compa ny law rules in the EU. The freedom of establishment plays a crucial role in the development of the Single Market as it allows corporate entities to pursue economic activities in other Member States on a stable basis. In order to foster the cross-border mobility of companies in the EU, it is essential to take into account their needs and characteristics. There are around 24 million companies in the EU, out of which approximately 80% are limited liability companies. Around 98-99% of limited liability companies are SMEs. However, in practice the exercise of the freedom of establishment by companies remains difficult. One of the reasons for these difficulties is that company law is not sufficiently adapted to cross-border mobility in the EU: it does not offer companies optimal conditions in terms of a clear, predictable and suitable legal framework which could lead to enhanced economic activity, in particular for SMEs as recognised by the 2015 Single Market Strategy 2 . Corporate restructurings and transformations such as cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions, are part of companies' life-cycle and represent a natural way for companies to grow, adapt to a changing environment and explore opportunities in new markets. At the same time, they also entail consequences for companies' stakeholders, in particular for employees, creditors and shareholders. Therefore, it is essential that the protection of stakeholders keeps pace with the ever-growing trans-nationalisation of the corporate world. However, today the legal uncertainty, partial inadequacy and also the lack of rules governing certain cross-border operations of companies means that there is no clear framework to ensure effective protection of these stakeholders. In this situation, the protection offered to stakeholders may therefore be ineffective or insufficient. The cross-border operations of companies can also be facilitated by a legal environment that creates trust in the Single Market by providing for safeguards against abuse. Therefore, it is important to unleash the potential of the Single Market by breaking down barriers to cross-border trade, facilitating access to markets, increasing confidence and stimulating competition while offering effective and proportionate protection to stakeholders. The objective of this proposal is two-fold: provide specific and comprehensive procedures for cross-border conversions, divisions and mergers to foster cross-border mobility in the EU while, at the same time, offering company stakeholders adequate protection in order to safeguard the fairness of the Single Market. Such action forms part of creating a deeper and fairer Single Market, which is one of the priorities of the current Commission. Cross-border conversions A cross-border conversion offers an efficient solution for companies that wish to move to another Member State without losing their legal personality or having to re-negotiate their business contracts. A conversion is particularly attractive for small companies that do not have enough financial resour ces to search for expensive legal advice and conduct a cross-border merger. 3 This reasoning applies in particular to cross-border conversions against the background of the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. The Court of Justice of the E uropean Union (ECJ) has considered that the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU entails the right, for companies established in a Member State, to transfer their seat to another Member State through a cross-border conversion without losin g their legal personality. 4 In particular in its recent judgement Polbud 5 the ECJ confirmed the right of companies to carry out cross-border conversions on the basis of the freedom of establishment. The ECJ held that the freedom of establishment is applic able when the registered office alone, without the real head office, is transferred from one Member State to another if the Member State of new incorporation accepts the registration of a company even without the exercise of an economic activity there: in that case Article 49 TFEU does not require such an economic activity as a precondition for its applicability. 6 The ECJ also recalled that, in the absence of harmonisation, Member States are competent to decide the connecting factor of a company to its nati onal order and thus apply their own incorporation requirements to incoming companies. 7 The ECJ further recalled its previous jurisprudence whereby the fact that either the registered office or real head office of a company was established in accordance wit h the legislation of a Member State for the purpose of enjoying the benefit of more favourable legislation does not, in itself, constitute abuse. In Polbud , it was ruled that a national rule which imposes the winding-up prerequisite of cross-border transfe r of a company is an unjustified and disproportionate restriction and thus unlawful. 8 The Polbud judgement clarified the context for cross-border conversions. But the ECJ, being a judiciary organ, may not create any procedure for making such conversions possible or set out the related substantive conditions. In the absence of EU harmonisation on cross-border conversions, national legislation may still set out rules for the procedure to be followed and for the protection of minority shareholders, creditors or workers or for the fight against tax-related or other abuses in case of cross-border company conversion. However, it is necessary to assess case-by-case whether such rules comply with EU law and, in particular, with the right of establishment. This leads to an unsatisfactory situation in terms of legal certainty, which negatively affects companies, stakeholders and Member States. Currently, companies wishing to move their registered offices cross-border need to rely on Member States' laws. Such laws, where they exist, are often incompatible or difficult to combine with each other. Moreover, more than half of the Member States do not provide any specific rules allowing for cross-border conversions. SMEs are in particular negatively impacted since often they lack resources to perform cross-border procedures through costly and complicated alternative methods. This also means that the protection of stakeholders such as employees, creditors or minority shareholders is often ineffective or insufficient due to the lack of, overlapping or contradictory rules. As regards employee protection, in the absence of harmonised safeguards for employee participation rights, companies might use a cross-border conversion and the lack of relevant safeguards for employee participation rights, when moving to another Member State, to lower the level of participation or abandon it. Furthermore, the absence of harmonised rules may also lead to increased use of letterbox companies for fraudulent purposes, allowing for instance, in most serious cases, organised crime organisations to hide and obscure the beneficial ownership of companies to launder proceeds of crime. Therefore, the EU legislator needs to step in and provide for rules on cross-border conversion with adequate and proporti onate safeguards for employees, creditors and shareholders to create a dynamic and fair Single Market. The European Parliament 9 has already made calls for it. In particular, it is important that w orkers or their representatives are involved in the procedur e , in line with the 8 th principle of the Pillar of European Social Rights: notably, they should be informed and consulted in good time on matters relevant to them in the context of companies' cross-border conversions . The mobility of companies must go hand in hand with the protection of national social and labour law prerogatives. In light of the foregoing considerations, the main objectives of the harmonised rules for cross-border conversions are two-fold: - enabling companies, particularly micro and small, to convert cross-border in an orderly, efficient and effective manner; - protecting the most affected stakeholders such as employees, creditors and shareholders in a suitable and proportionate manner. The proposal would enable companies to convert cross-border by changing their legal form of one Member State into a similar legal form of another Member State. This should ensure that companies keep their legal personality throughout the process without the need to dissolve or liquidate in the departure Member State, and form a new entity in the destination Member State. The objective is to provide a specific, structured and multi-layered procedure for cross-border conversions which ensures a scrutiny of the legality of the cross-border conversion firstly by the competent authority of the departure Member State and secondly by the destination Member State in the light of all relevant facts and information. A crucial element of the procedure is that it would prevent a cross-border conversion where it is determined that it constitutes an abuse, namely in cases where it constitutes an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. The first step in the procedure would be the preparation of the draft terms of the cross-border conversion and two targeted reports addressed to shareholders and employees on the implications that the cross-border conversion will have. In addition, medium size and large companies would need to apply to the competent authority for the appointment of an independent expert examining the accuracy of the draft terms and reports prepared by the company. The written report of the independent expert would also provide the factual basis for the assessment to be carried out by the competent authority as regards inter alia the risk of an abuse referred to above. The report of the expert which will be disclosed cannot contain any confidential information provided by the company. The draft terms and reports would be made publicly available and could be commented upon by the affected stakeholders. Thereafter, the company is to take a decision at the general meeting on whether to pursue the cross-border conversion. That decision, together with the relevant information and documents, would then be submitted to the competent national authority of the Member State of departure which is responsible to decide whether to issue a pre-conversion certificate or not. The scrutiny conducted by that authority would consist of two possible phases: during the first phase, which is limited to one month, the competent authority would examine whether the cross-border conversion is lawful. The authority would determine if all conditions for the cross-border conversion laid down in the Directive and in national law are fulfilled, including whether the company is solvent, the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the conversion at a general meeting and employees, minority shareholders and creditors are protected within the remit prescribed by the Directive. During this phase, the authority would also determine whether there is an artificial arrangement. If at the end of the 1-month period laid down for the first phase of investigation the authority has no objections, it would issue a pre-conversion certificate. If at the end of 1 month it is certain that the cross-border conversion is unlawful, it would refuse to grant a pre-conversion certificate. Alternatively, if at the end of the 1-month period it has serious concerns that the conversion may be unlawful, it would inform the company that it will carry out an in-depth examination as regards the existence of abuse as referred to above. The in-depth examination must be concluded and a final decision must be taken within two months. If after such scrutiny, the pre-conversion certificate is issued, it would be transmitted without delay to the competent authority of the Member State of destination. Then, the Member State of destination would carry out a scrutiny as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by the law of the destination Member State. The competent authority of the destination Member State shall ensure that the converted company complies with provisions of its national law on the incorporation of companies (for example, whether the company has a real seat in its territory) and, where appropriate, that arrangements for employee participation have been determined lawfully. Once the legality check has been carried out, a company would be registered in the register of a Member State of destination and de-registered in the register of a Member State of departure. The conversion shall then become legally effective. All contacts between the registers should be done via the system of interconnection of business registers (BRIS). Cross-border mergers A company may also wish to exercise their freedom of establishment and thereafter benefit from the opportunities offered by the Single Market by carrying out a cross-border merger. Companies may merge cross-border for various reasons including group reorganisations, cutting organisational costs as well as business-oriented considerations in order to enjoy greater returns to scale, consolidated branding, or other synergies between different business activities. The introduction of the Cross-Border Merger Directive 10 laid down a harmonised procedure at EU level for limited liability companies. It led to a substantial increase in cross-border merger activity in the EU and EEA. The number o f cross-border mergers rose by 173% between 2008 and 2012, which indicates that the procedure set up by the Directive substantially enhanced cross-border activity. Stakeholders (such as law firms, business registers and trade unions) interviewed for the 20 13 study on the application of the Directive welcomed the new procedures, the procedural simplification and reported lower costs and shorter timeframes thanks to the harmonised framework. However, despite the overall positive assessment, the evaluation 11 of the functioning of the Cross-Border Merger Directive identified certain problems which impede the full effectiveness and efficiency of the existing rules. The 2015 Single Market Strategy 12 mentioned uncertainties over company law as one of the obstacle s that SMEs complain about in the Single Market and announced that the Commission would " examine the need to update the existing rules on cross-border mergers and the possibility to complement them with rules as regards cross-border divisions". The European Parliament stressed the positive effects of the Directive which has facilitated cross-border mergers between limited liability companies in the European Union and reduced the associated costs and administrative procedures 13 . However, the Europe an Parliament also noted the necessity to revise it in order to improve its functioning 14 . The main identified obstacles concern the lack of harmonisation of substantive rules in particular for creditor protection and minority shareholder protection as well as the lack of fast track (i.e. simplified procedures for less "complex" mergers). In addition, it was observed that the cross-border merger procedure does not sufficiently integrate digital tools and processes (e.g. as regards submitting the documents to public authorities or sharing those between them). It has also been criticised that employees are not sufficiently informed about the details and implications of a cross-border merger. These inefficiencies were confirmed by stakeholders throughout the consultation process. Concerning the protection of creditors and minority shareholders, the existing rules on cross-border mergers lay down minimum, mainly procedural rules and leave the substantive protection to national laws. Therefore, the differences between Member States laws persist. For example, the Directive only lays down that creditors shall be protected subject to national rules, without further specifications. Similarly, the Directive lays down some rules concerning shareholders in general (e.g. information via the draft merger terms, expert reports, voting during the general meetings) but leaves it to Member States to decide whether to introduce further protection for minority shareholders. As to the employee participation on board level, the existing rules set out a comprehensive framework. However, the rules do not require merging companies to provide any specific and comprehensive information about a cross-border merger to the employees. Currently, the situation of employees is only considered in a general manner in the management report addressed predominantly to shareholders. As to simplified procedures, the current rules offer limited possibilities. For example, the rules allow waiving an independent expert report if all shareholders agree and do not require an expert report or the approval by the general meeting in case of a merger between a parent company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. This proposal aims to address these shortcomings. It provides harmonised rules for protection of creditors and shareholders. The company would need to provide the envisaged protection of creditors and shareholders in the draft terms of the cross-border conversion. The creditors who would be dissatisfied with the protection offered, may apply to the appropriate administrative or judicial authority for adequate safeguards. Creditors of the merging companies should be presumed not to be prejudiced by a cross-border merger, if an independent expert assessed their situation and considered no prejudice or creditors were offered a right to payment, either against a third party guarantor, or against the company resulting from the merger. Member States may still apply their laws concerning the protection of payment of taxes or social security contributions, if such rules are different to the protection offered by this proposal. Shareholders who did not vote for the cross-border mergers or have no voting rights would have the right to exit the company (dispose of their shares) and receive the adequate compensation. Moreover, Member States should also ensure that shareholders of the merging companies who did not oppose the cross-border merger, but who considered that the proposed share-exchange ratio was inadequate may challenge that ratio set out in the common draft terms of the cross-border merger before a national court. In addition, the proposed rules ensure that employees will be duly informed about the implications of the planned cross-border merger on employees. The proposal also provides for use of digital tools and procedures throughout the cross-border merger procedure as well as for the exchange of the relevant information through the interconnection of business registers. Finally, where possible, the proposal introduces further possibilities for simplified procedures. Cross-border divisions A company may also wish to exercise their freedom of establishment by carrying out a cross-border division. In a similar manner to cross-border conversions and mergers, cross-border divisions offer a way for companies to chan ge or simplify their organisational structure, adapt to changing market conditions and realise new business opportunities in another Member State. This was confirmed by respondents to the 2015 consultation on cross-border mergers and division 15 . However, th e current situation concerning cross-border divisions across the EU Member States also provides a very fragmented picture. There is no harmonised legal framework for cross-border divisions of companies, although divisions also play an important role in the economic environment of Member States. The current EU legal framework provides rules only for cross-border mergers of companies, while cross-border divisions are subject to national rules if such rules exist. Today only less than half of the Member States have national rules on cross-border divisions of companies. In the absence of a reliable legal framework for cross-border divisions, companies have difficulties to access markets in other Member States and often need to find costly alternatives to direct procedures. Different national requirements make it difficult to structure the cross-border operations and render it more complex and costly. Even when Member States allow companies to divide cross-border, the relevant national provisions are often divergent or even incompatible. In a number of Member States carrying out a direct cross-border division is not possible. The legal uncertainty and lack or complexity of rules for cross-border mobility of companies also means that there is no clear framework to ensure effective protection of stakeholders. This may even lead to a situation whereby the freedom of establishment could be abused by some companies. Thus, it is crucial to create a legal framework that ensures a fair balance between the need to provide companies a favourable business environment in the EU and the need at the same time to protect legitimate interests of stakeholders. The 2015 Single Market Strategy 16 mentioned uncertainties over company law as one of the obstacles that SMEs complain about in the Single Market and announced that the Commission " examine the need to update the existing rules on cross-border mergers and the possibility to complement them with rules as regards cross-border divisions". This part of the proposal aims to introduce a new legal framework regulating cross-border divisions. Its main objective is to address matters related to cross-border mobility by making it easier for any limited liability company to be able to divide cross-border. The provisions relating to cross-border divisions are inspired by the existing framework of the cross-border merger directive as well as the existing rules for domestic divisions. The rules are adapted to cater for a situation where a company is split instead of where one or more companies transfer all their assets and liabilities to another company. At the same time, the objectives of the harmonised rules on cross-border divisions remain similar to cross-border conversions: - enable companies to divide cross-border in an orderly, efficient and effective manner; - protect the most affected stakeholders such as employees, creditors and shareholders in a suitable and proportionate manner. Given the similar risks inherent to cross-border divisions as to cross-border conversions, the structured and multi-layered procedure as proposed for conversions would also be required for divisions. Such procedure would ensure the scrutiny of legality of the cross-border division by the competent authority of the company being divided and by the authorities of the recipient companies in the light of all relevant facts and information. As in conversions, a crucial element of the procedure would be preventing a cross-border division where it is determined that it constitutes an abuse, namely in cases where it constitutes an artificial arrangement aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. Given the complexity of dealing with risks of abuse in a situation where a company being divided transfers assets and liabilities to existing companies in different Member States, it was decided to regulate a situation where new companies are created in a cross-border division and not to regulate at this stage the cross-border division by acquisition, i.e. the situation where a company transfers assets and liabilities to more than one existing company. In a domestic context (where such situations are addressed in the current rules), such a procedure involves the examination of the protection of interests of stakeholders in one Member State, whereas in the cross-border context, it could necessitate the involvement of many authorities from different Member States. Whether to also include cross-border divisions by acquisition into the scope of the directive could be evaluated once first experiences with the new rules on cross-border divisions have been gained. Similarly to cross-border conversions, the first step in the procedure would be the preparation of the draft terms of the cross-border division and two targeted reports addressed to shareholders and employees on the implications that the cross-border division will have for them. In addition, medium size and big companies would need to apply to the competent authority to appoint an independent expert examining the accuracy of the draft terms and reports prepared by the company. The written report of the independent expert would also provide the factual basis for the assessment to be carried out by the competent authority as regards inter alia the risk of an abuse as referred to above. The report of the expert which will be disclosed cannot contain any confidential information provided by the company. The draft terms and reports would be made publicly available and could be commented upon by the affected stakeholders. Thereafter, the company being divided is to take a decision at the general meeting on whether to pursue the cross-border division. This decision, together with the relevant information and documents, would then be submitted to the competent authority of the Member State of the dividing company which is responsible to decide whether to issue a pre-division certificate or not. The scrutiny conducted by that authority would be divided into two phases: one being mandatory and the other one being optional. In the first phase, which is limited to one month, the competent authority would examine whether the cross-border division is lawful. The authority would determine if all conditions for the cross-border division laid down in the Directive and in national law are fulfilled, including whether the company is solvent, the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the cross-border division at a general meeting and employees, minority shareholders and creditors are protected within the remit prescribed by the Directive. It would also determine whether there is an artificial arrangement being created which is aimed at obtaining undue tax advantages or at unduly prejudicing the legal or contractual rights of employees, creditors or minority members. If at the end of a 1-month period, the authority has no objections, it would issue a pre-division certificate; if it is certain that the cross-border division is unlawful, it would adopt a decision refusing to grant a pre-division certificate; or if it has serious concerns that the division may be unlawful, it would inform the company being divided that it will carry out an in-depth investigation with a view to performing an in-depth examination as regards the existence of abuse as referred to above. The in-depth examination must be concluded and a final decision must be taken within two months from the start of the in-depth investigation. If after such scrutiny, the pre-division certificate is issued, it would be transmitted without delay to the competent authorities of the Member States of the recipient companies. Then, the competent authorities would carry out a scrutiny as regards that part of the procedure which is governed by their respective laws. The competent authorities of the Member States of the recipient companies must ensure that the companies comply with provisions of their national laws on the incorporation of companies where appropriate (for example, whether the company has a real seat in its territory). They should also check whether the arrangements for employee participation have been determined lawfully. Once the legality check has been carried out, the division would be registered and recorded in all relevant business registers. All contacts between the registers should be done via the system of interconnection of business registers (BRIS).
Revised version (Article 84 Derogation from certain requirements):
1. Member States may derogate from the first paragraph of Article 48, the first sentence of Article 60(1)(a) and Articles 68, 69 and 72 to the extent that such derogations are necessary for the adoption or application of provisions designed to encourage the participation of employees, or other groups of persons defined by national law, in the capital of undertakings. 2. Member States may decide not to apply the first sentence of Article 60(1)(a) and Articles 73, 74 and 79 to 82 to companies incorporated under a special law which issue both capital shares and workers' shares, the latter being issued to the company's employees as a body, who are represented at general meetings of shareholders by delegates having the right to vote. 3. Member States shall ensure that Article 49, Articles 58(1) and 68(1), (2) and (3), the first subparagraph of Article 70(2), Articles 72 to 75, 79, 80 and 81 do not apply in the case of use of the resolution tools, powers and mechanisms provided for in Title IV of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 9 ). 4. Member States shall derogate from Article 58(1), Article 68, Articles 72, 73, and 74, point (b) of Article 79(1), Article 80(1) and Article 81 to the extent and for the period that such derogations are necessary for the establishment of the preventive restructuring frameworks provided for in Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 10 ). The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the principle of equal treatment of shareholders.
Article 85 Equal treatment of all shareholders who are in the same position
For the purposes of the implementation of this Chapter, the laws of the Member States shall ensure equal treatment to all shareholders who are in the same position.
Article 86 Transitional provisions
Member States may decide not to apply points (g), (i), (j) and (k) of Article 4 to companies already in existence at the date of entry into force of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in order to comply with Council Directive 77/91/EEC ( 35 ) .
Article 87 General provisions
1. The coordination measures laid down by this Chapter shall apply to the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the types of company listed in Annex I. 2. Member States need not apply this Chapter to cooperatives incorporated as one of the types of company listed in Annex I. In so far as the laws of the Member States make use of this option, they shall require such companies to include the word ‘cooperative’ in all the documents referred to in Article 26. 3. Member States need not apply this Chapter in cases where the company or companies which are being acquired or will cease to exist are the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings. 4. Member States shall ensure that this Chapter does not apply to the company or companies which are the subject of the use of resolution tools, powers and mechanisms provided for in Title IV of Directive 2014/59/EU.
Article 88 Rules governing mergers by acquisition and mergers by formation of a new company
Member States shall, as regards companies governed by their national laws, make provision for rules governing mergers by the acquisition of one or more companies by another company and merger by the formation of a new company.
Article 89 Definition of a ‘merger by acquisition’
1. For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘merger by acquisition’ shall mean the operation whereby one or more companies are wound up without going into liquidation and transfer to another all their assets and liabilities in exchange for the issue to the shareholders of the company or companies being acquired of shares in the acquiring company and a cash payment, if any, not exceeding 10 % of the nominal value of the shares so issued or, where they have no nominal value, of their accounting par value. 2. A Member State's laws may provide that merger by acquisition may also be effected where one or more of the companies being acquired is in liquidation, provided that this option is restricted to companies which have not yet begun to distribute their assets to their shareholders.
Article 90 Definition of a ‘merger by the formation of a new company’
1. For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘merger by the formation of a new company’ shall mean the operation whereby several companies are wound up without going into liquidation and transfer to a company that they set up all their assets and liabilities in exchange for the issue to their shareholders of shares in the new company and a cash payment, if any, not exceeding 10 % of the nominal value of the shares so issued or, where they have no nominal value, of their accounting par value. 2. A Member State's laws may provide that merger by the formation of a new company may also be effected where one or more of the companies which are ceasing to exist is in liquidation, provided that this option is restricted to companies which have not yet begun to distribute their assets to their shareholders.
Article 91 Draft terms of merger
1. The administrative or management bodies of the merging companies shall draw up draft terms of merger in writing. 2. Draft terms of merger shall specify at least: (a) the type, name and registered office of each of the merging companies; (b) the share exchange ratio and the amount of any cash payment; (c) the terms relating to the allotment of shares in the acquiring company; (d) the date from which the holding of such shares entitles the holders to participate in profits and any special conditions affecting that entitlement; (e) the date from which the transactions of the company being acquired shall be treated for accounting purposes as being those of the acquiring company; (f) the rights conferred by the acquiring company on the holders of shares to which special rights are attached and the holders of securities other than shares, or the measures proposed concerning them; (g) any special advantage granted to the experts referred to in Article 96(1) and members of the merging companies' administrative, management, supervisory or controlling bodies.
Article 92 Publication of the draft terms of merger
Draft terms of merger shall be published in the manner prescribed by the laws of the Member States in accordance with Article 16, for each of the merging companies, at least one month before the date fixed for the general meeting which is to decide thereon. Any of the merging companies shall be exempt from the publication requirement laid down in Article 16 if, for a continuous period beginning at least one month before the date fixed for the general meeting which is to decide on the draft terms of merger and ending not earlier than the conclusion of that meeting, it makes the draft terms of such merger available on its website free of charge for the public. Member States shall not subject that exemption to any requirements or constraints other than those which are necessary in order to ensure the security of the website and the authenticity of the documents, and may impose such requirements or constraints only to the extent that they are proportionate in order to achieve those objectives. By way of derogation from the second paragraph of this Article, Member States may require that publication be effected via the central electronic platform referred to in Article 16(5). Member States may alternatively require that such publication be made on any other website designated by them for that purpose. Where Member States avail themselves of one of those possibilities, they shall ensure that companies are not charged a specific fee for such publication. Where a website other than the central electronic platform is used, a reference giving access to that website shall be published on the central electronic platform at least one month before the date fixed for the general meeting. That reference shall include the date of publication of the draft terms of merger on the website and shall be accessible to the public free of charge. Companies shall not be charged a specific fee for such publication. The prohibition precluding the charging of companies of a specific fee for publication, laid down in the third and fourth paragraphs, shall not affect the ability of Member States to pass on to companies the costs in respect of the central electronic platform. Member States may require companies to maintain the information for a specific period after the general meeting on their website or, where applicable, on the central electronic platform or the other website designated by the Member State concerned. Member States may determine the consequences of temporary disruption of access to the website or to the central electronic platform, caused by technical or other factors.
Article 93 Approval by the general meeting of each of the merging companies
1. A merger shall require at least the approval of the general meeting of each of the merging companies. The laws of the Member States shall provide that this approval decision shall require a majority of not less than two thirds of the votes attached either to the shares or to the subscribed capital represented. The laws of a Member State may, however, provide that a simple majority of the votes specified in the first subparagraph shall be sufficient when at least half of the subscribed capital is represented. Moreover, where appropriate, the rules governing alterations to the memorandum and articles of association shall apply. 2. Where there is more than one class of shares, the decision concerning a merger shall be subject to a separate vote by at least each class of shareholders whose rights are affected by the transaction. 3. The decision shall cover both the approval of the draft terms of merger and any alterations to the memorandum and articles of association necessitated by the merger.
Article 94 Derogation from the requirement of approval by the general meeting of the acquiring company
The laws of a Member State need not require approval of the merger by the general meeting of the acquiring company where the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the publication provided for in Article 92 is effected, for the acquiring company, at least one month before the date fixed for the general meeting of the company or companies being acquired which is to decide on the draft terms of merger; (b) at least one month before the date specified in point (a), all shareholders of the acquiring company are entitled to inspect the documents specified in Article 97(1) at the registered office of the acquiring company; (c) one or more shareholders of the acquiring company holding a minimum percentage of the subscribed capital is entitled to require that a general meeting of the acquiring company be called to decide whether to approve the merger; this minimum percentage may not be fixed at more than 5 %. Member States may, however, provide for the exclusion of non-voting shares from this calculation. For the purposes of point (b) of the first paragraph, Article 97(2), (3) and (4) shall apply.
Article 95 Detailed written report and information on a merger
1. The administrative or management bodies of each of the merging companies shall draw up a detailed written report explaining the draft terms of merger and setting out the legal and economic grounds for them, in particular the share exchange ratio. That report shall also describe any special valuation difficulties which have arisen. 2. The administrative or management bodies of each of the companies involved shall inform the general meeting of their company, and the administrative or management bodies of the other companies involved, so that the latter may inform their respective general meetings of any material change in the assets and liabilities between the date of preparation of the draft terms of merger and the date of the general meetings which are to decide on the draft terms of merger. 3. Member States may provide that the report referred to in paragraph 1 and/or the information referred to in paragraph 2 shall not be required if all the shareholders and the holders of other securities conferring the right to vote of each of the companies involved in the merger have so agreed.
Article 96 Examination of the draft terms of merger by experts
1. One or more experts, acting on behalf of each of the merging companies but independent of them, appointed or approved by a judicial or administrative authority, shall examine the draft terms of merger and draw up a written report to the shareholders. However, the laws of the Member States may provide for the appointment of one or more independent experts for all the merging companies, if such appointment is made by a judicial or administrative authority at the joint request of those companies. Such experts may, depending on the laws of each Member State, be natural or legal persons or companies or firms. 2. In the report referred to in paragraph 1, the experts shall in any case state whether in their opinion the share exchange ratio is fair and reasonable. Their statement shall at least: (a) indicate the method or methods used to arrive at the share exchange ratio proposed; (b) state whether such method or methods are adequate in the case in question, indicate the values arrived at using each such methods and give an opinion on the relative importance attributed to such methods in arriving at the value decided on. The report shall also describe any special valuation difficulties which have arisen. 3. Each expert shall be entitled to obtain from the merging companies all relevant information and documents and to carry out all necessary investigations. 4. Neither an examination of the draft terms of merger nor an expert report shall be required if all the shareholders and the holders of other securities conferring the right to vote of each of the companies involved in the merger have so agreed.
Article 97 Availability of documents for inspection by shareholders
1. All shareholders shall be entitled to inspect at least the following documents at the registered office at least one month before the date fixed for the general meeting which is to decide on the draft terms of merger: (a) the draft terms of merger; (b) the annual accounts and annual reports of the merging companies for the preceding three financial years; (c) where applicable, an accounting statement drawn up on a date which shall not be earlier than the first day of the third month preceding the date of the draft terms of merger, if the latest annual accounts relate to a financial year which ended more than six months before that date; (d) where applicable, the reports of the administrative or management bodies of the merging companies provided for in Article 95; (e) where applicable, the report referred to in Article 96(1). For the purposes of point (c) of the first subparagraph, an accounting statement shall not be required if the company publishes a half-yearly financial report in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2004/109/EC and makes it available to shareholders in accordance with this paragraph. Furthermore, Member States may provide that an accounting statement shall not be required if all the shareholders and the holders of other securities conferring the right to vote of each of the companies involved in the merger have so agreed. 2. The accounting statement provided for in point (c) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be drawn up using the same methods and the same layout as the last annual balance sheet. However, the laws of a Member State may provide that: (a) it is not necessary to take a fresh physical inventory; (b) the valuations shown in the last balance sheet are to be altered only to reflect entries in the books of account; the following shall nevertheless be taken into account: — interim depreciation and provisions, — material changes in actual value not shown in the books. 3. Every shareholder shall be entitled to obtain, on request and free of charge, full or, if so desired, partial copies of the documents referred to in paragraph 1. Where a shareholder has consented to the use by the company of electronic means for conveying information, such copies may be provided by electronic mail. 4. A company shall be exempt from the requirement to make the documents referred to in paragraph 1 available at its registered office if, for a continuous period beginning at least one month before the date fixed for the general meeting which is to decide on the draft terms of merger and ending not earlier than the conclusion of that meeting, it makes them available on its website. Member States shall not subject that exemption to any requirements or constraints other than those which are necessary in order to ensure the security of the website and the authenticity of the documents and may impose such requirements or constraints only to the extent that they are proportionate in order to achieve those objectives. Paragraph 3 shall not apply if the website gives shareholders the possibility, throughout the period referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, of downloading and printing the documents referred to in paragraph 1. However, in that case Member States may provide that the company is to make those documents available at its registered office for consultation by the shareholders. Member States may require companies to maintain the information on their website for a specific period after the general meeting. Member States may determine the consequences of temporary disruption of access to the website caused by technical or other factors.
Article 98 Protection of employees' rights
Protection of the rights of the employees of each of the merging companies shall be regulated in accordance with Directive 2001/23/EC.