Tag: Law 4548/2018

New Law on SAs: the Liability of the Member of the Board of the Directors

The Liability of the Member of the Board of the Directors of a Societe Anonyme

Part 1: The Responsibilities arising from the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes

Α. GENERAL

Preamble

Power in Greece has always (with a special interest most people, if not everyone) attracted us. Whether to exercise it or to engage with those who have it. Hence, we seem to despise that power, at some point, is over. We also seem to forget (?) that its exercise poses risks. Sometimes serious ones.

When Henry Kissinger concluded that “power is the supreme aphrodisiac”, we can be sure that he knew something more than we know. For the consequences of exercising power? Homer had already spoken: “He who is in power cannot sleep for a whole night”. And then, later, Charles Caleb Colton followed to clarify: “The sufferings of power are real, its joys fantastic”.

The extent of the liability of the members of the Board of Directors

The management of legal entities is related to the exercise of power. It is true, however, that if one goes back to the domestic (and of course, to the international) literature, it is unfortunately not possible to identify a study, a workbook, which will record all the risks involved in its exercise. Many individual risks, yes. An overall no. What does this mean at a practical level: that the extent of the liability of those exercising power and the risks they face are neither fully documented nor identifiable.

In the operating environment of Sociétés Anonymes, as this is currently the case, the greatest concern of the directors is the extent of their liability: for acts or – more precisely – for their omissions.

In this context (on the occasion of not only the new law on Sociétés Anonymes, but also of the timeless questions and concerns of interested parties involved), it is attempted to approach some basic areas of the liability of the members of the Board of Directors.

Criminal liability – in general

Criminalization of individual actions of entrepreneurship, business choices and management decisions of a Société Anonyme is a (not theoretical) possibility. The admission of public prosecutors to the day-to-day management of the business, as well as the attempt of (some of them) to be transformed into “Antonio Di Pietro” of the country’s economic and business life by adopting “Clean Hands” actions, sometimes works steadily and some other deterrent for beneficial business decisions.

On the other hand, the involvement of the members of the Board of Directors (not necessarily the executive ones) in criminal (and not only) acts is quite common, due to omissions involving obligations towards the State (for example, non-payment of established debts, non-repayment of taxes levied-i.e. VAT, non-payment of insurance contributions). It is also not an uncommon thing, the involvement (not only criminal) of members of the Board of Directors in events related to (or attempted to relate to) entrepreneurship. We can also have in mind that a member of the Board of the Directors may be found “trapped”, whether responsible or not, for any matter.

In what areas does the liability of the members of the Board of Directors of modern SAs extend? An initial record of the responsibilities/liability (civil and criminal) arising from the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes is being dealt with here.

Intra-corporate liability under the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes

The members of the Board of Directors of a Société Anonyme are liable for the remedy of any damage caused by their actions and omissions. All members can be liable either individually or jointly (and severally). The competent Court may share responsibilities between members according to the data and the attributes of each, individual.

The limitation of the company’s claims against the members of the Board of Directors is three years, but it is suspended for as long as they have that status. For a maximum of ten years. What does this mean at a practical level? If, for example, the CEO of a Société Anonyme “misconducted” seven years ago – in the course of his duties and he transfers the company today (possibly under his capacity as a major shareholder and owner), the company (under its new ownership regime) is entitled to exercise its claims against him within ten years starting from the illegal act or omission.

The approval of the financial statements, the management of the members of the Board of Directors and their possible discharge from “any liability” by the ordinary General Assembly of the Shareholders is considered to as a waiver. This will be “taken into consideration”, among other things, by the competent Court.

The prerequisites for the exercise of the action as well as the exercise thereof are clearly and sufficiently documented and detailed in the new law. The exercise of the corporate action may be entrusted by the competent court (if it is not a choice of the Board of Directors) to a Special Representative.

The criminal liability of the members of the Board of Directors on the basis of the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes

The new law devotes (and logically) a separate section on the criminal liability/ responsibilities of the members of the Board of Directors. The threat of imprisonment for offenders is not the cause of concern as it is not expected that none of them will be taken to prison – for that reason alone. Interestingly, however, are the imminent financial penalties (from € 5.000 to € 100,000): We can be certain that no such sums are in sort for anyone. Exercising the duties of a member of the Board of Directors is not a story without (and) memorable criminal dangers. It would be extremely useful for those members who either have a “lose consciousness” or are being asked to make decisions and provide assurances on specific issues (in a false, e.g. certification of the payment of share capital or in the approval of financial statements that are not “absolutely accurate”) to think twice. It is also assumed that they should exercise the utmost care when performing their duties and faithfully adhere to (with the assistance of appropriate advisers) the law.

In conclusion

The acceptance of an “honorary” proposal for entering a Board of Directors of a Société Anonyme, the service of a good friend for the same reason (“to reach the minimum number of three members”), but also the participation in the corresponding body of a family business- is not a decision that has to be “lightly set” to take. Not that every member of the Board of Directors is assumed that “will not avoid interference”, but it is good to know that the (co) exercise of power is not a simple aphrodisiac.

Α. SPECIFICALLY (and in detail)

1. The intra-corporate liability of the members of the Board of Directors on the basis of the new law on SAs

The extent and the conditions of the liability of the members of the Board of Directors

The members of the Board of Directors of the Société Anonyme are responsible for the reparation of damages caused by their actions and omissions (Article 102 par. 1 of Law 4548/2018).

There is no responsibility when the members are able to prove that they have shown “the care and diligence of a prudent businessman” (Article 102 par.2 of Law 4548/2018).

Additionally, when we have to do with a joint act of the members of the Board of Directors (e.g. BoD decision), the joint and several liability of all its members applies. The competent court reserves the right to share the responsibility of each of the parties involved, but also to regulate the right of recourse (subrogation) between them (Article 102 par. 3 of Law 4548/2018).

It is assumed that there is no liability of the members of the Board of Directors when they basically manage to prove that their actions or omissions: (a) are based on a previous legitimate GA decision or (b) concern a reasonable business decision taken in good faith, based on sufficient information and solely on the basis of the corporate interest, as well as (c) are based on a suggestion by an independent body or committee (Article 102 par.4 of Law 4548/2018).

The limitation of the SA’s claims and its resignation from them

The limitation of the claims of the Société Anonyme against the members of the Board of Directors is three years and is suspended for as long as the capacity of a member remains. In any case it occurs after a decade (article 102 par. 6 of Law 4548/2018)

It is possible for a Société Anonyme to resign from its claims against the members of its Board of Directors after two years and with the mandatory consent of the General Assembly, provided that there is no opposition of the 10% of the share capital (article 102 par. 7 of Law 4548/2018)

The conditions and the procedure for the exercise of the Company’s claims against the members of its Board of Directors. The involvement of the shareholders

The Board of Directors is obliged to exercise the company’s claims at the expense of the members liable for compensation, “balancing the corporate interest”. In any case, the members of the Board of Directors are obliged to provide sufficient explanations to the shareholders when they fail to fulfill their specific obligation (Article 103 of Law 4548/2018).

The shareholders of the company who have acquired more than 5% of the share capital during a six-month period are entitled to submit a request to the Board of Directors for the exercise of claims against its members (article 104 par. 1 of Law 4548/2018). They shall provide the necessary information and data to substantiate the damage and provide one month, at a minimum, for evaluation and for reaching the respective decision (Article 104 par.2 of Law 4548/2018).

The Board of Directors shall take such a decision after a hearing of nominated members, but without the voting rights of the parties concerned. If the other members do not form a quorum, it is considered that no decision is taken (Article 104 par.3 of Law 4548/2018).

When the request for the exercise of the corporate action is submitted by the majority of the shareholders, the exercise of same is obligatory for the Board of Directors (article 104 par. 4 of Law 4548/2018).

The majority of the shareholders who have submitted a request to the Board of the Directors for a corporate action are entitled to appeal to the competent court when: (a) their request is rejected; (b) the period prescribed for assessment expires; (c) a period of four months following the decision for the corporate action expires; (d) the Board of Directors has not been able to reach a decision, or (e) a period of two months without bringing any action if the request is made by a majority of the shareholders has expired (Article 105 par.1 of Law 4548/2018).

The competent court accepts the shareholder’s request when there is no overriding interest in not exercising the claim. In this case, it appoints a Special (and possibly also a Deputy) Representative for the exercise of corporate action (Article 105 par.2 of Law 4548/2018).

The Special Representative for raising the corporate claim

The Special Representative: (a) has the special and sole power to bring the action, but also to carry out the proceedings promptly and diligently, (b) has access to evidence, documents and information, (c) is bound by the historical the legal basis of the judgment. The Court may award him reasonable remuneration (Article 105 par.4 and 5 of Law 4548/2018).

The Special Representative, after his appointment, may reach a negative decision with regard to the liability of the designated members of the Board of Directors. In this case, he informs the Board of Directors and the shareholders who have requested the relevant action. These shareholders may, however, be reinstated with a new application (Article 105 par.6 of Law 4548/2018).

In the event that the application is dismissed at first instance, the Board of Directors may, on the recommendation of the Special Representative, waive the right of appeal (Article 105 par.7 of Law 4548/2018).

The suspension of the limitations and the costs related to the respective trials

The submission of a request by the shareholders to the Board of Directors for the enforcement of corporate claims suspends, in general, the limitations (article 106 par. 1 of Law 4548/2018).

The costs of the trial for the appointment of the Special Representative, the trial against the members of the Board of Directors, as well as any remuneration are borne by the company (article 106 par. 3 Law 4548/2018).

Direct damage of third parties from actions or omissions by members of the Board of Directors

The provisions of Law 4548/2018 on the liability of the members of the Board of Directors do not affect or limit their liability in respect of claims arising out of direct damage to shareholders or third parties suffered as a result of their (of the members of the Board) actions or omissions. They also do not affect the liability of the members of the Board of Directors vis-à-vis corporate creditors under the provision of Article 98 of the Bankruptcy Code (: failure to file an application for bankruptcy of the société anonyme, as well as causing the suspension of payments by willfulness or gross negligence of the members of the Board of Directors) – (article 107 par. 3 of Law 4548/2018).

The discharge of the members of the Board of Directors from the ordinary General Meeting

It is possible for the General Assembly to approve the overall management by the members of the Board of Directors when approving its annual financial statements and exempting them from “any liability”. However, this approval – when and if provided – is NOT considered to as a waiver of claims by the company (for the proper waiver, Article 102 par.7 applies). Such an approval is estimated “accordingly” (whatever that means) by the Court that may be seised in the future against the members of the Board of Directors (article 108 par.1 of Law 4548/2018).

The members of the Board of Directors take part in the vote for the approval of the overall management as well as employees of the Société Anonyme with their own shares, and with the shares they represent, provided that they have been given express and specific voting instructions (article 108 par. 2 of Law 4548/2018).

2. The criminal liability of the members of the Board of Directors under the Law on Sociétés Anonymes

False or misleading statements to the public (Article 176 of Law 4548/2018)

There is a threat of imprisonment and a fine of € 10.000 to € 100.000 when a knowingly false or misleading statement is made to the joint founder, by a member of the Board of Directors or by the director of the company regarding (a) the cover or payment of the capital; (b) data of the company with substantial influence over corporate affairs – for the purpose of subscribing to securities issued by the company.

Infringements made by the members of the Board of Directors (Article 177 of Law 4548/2018)

There is a threat of imprisonment and a fine of € 10.000 to € 100.000 for a member of the Board of the Directors who:

(a) Drafts or approves (knowingly) inaccurate or misleading financial statements or draws them up in violation of the law as to their content.

(b) Distributes profits or other benefits to shareholders or third parties that do not arise from the Company’s financial statements or without the preparation of financial statements or based on (knowingly) inaccurate, misleading or financial statements drafted in breach of the law.

(c) Acquires redemptive shares in breach of the relevant provision (Article 39).

(d) Causes the acquisition by the company of its own shares (or its parent’s shares) or warrants (of its own or its parent’s company) in violation of the relevant provisions (Article 48, 49, 52 or 57).

(e) Provides an advance, loan or guarantee (in violation of Article 51) either by charging the company with a view to a third party to acquire shares of the company or by charging its subsidiary with the purpose for a third party to acquire shares of its parent company.

(f) Drafts (knowingly) an inaccurate or incomplete management report or other statutory annual reports.

Infringements relating to the orderly operation of the company (Article 179 of Law 4548/2018)

Threatened imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of 5.000 € to 50.000 €:

(a) To whoever concludes a contract on behalf of the company without the prior authorization required under Article 100. (The offense shall be terminated if the necessary authorization is subsequently granted)

(b) To the member of the Board of Directors who violates the obligation to certify the payment of capital within the time limit provided for in Article 20 or makes a false certification.

(c) To the member of the Board of Directors who fails to draft or drafts after the expiry of the time limit: the company’s annual financial statements, the consolidated financial statements, the annual management report, the consolidated annual management report or the remuneration policy, the salary report or other annual report provided by law.

(d) To the member of the Board of Directors who violates the obligation to re-adjust the share capital

(e) To whoever hinders the auditing of the company by the statutory auditors or auditors designated to perform an extraordinary audit or does not provide the auditors with the information, he is required to provide.

Infringements concerning the General Meeting of shareholders and bondholders (Article 180 of Law 4548/2018)

A fine of 5.000 € to 15.000 € is threatened:

(a) For any person who fails to convene the General Meeting of Shareholders or Bondholders or to include a specific item on the Agenda in contravention of the law or bond issuance program.

(b) For any person knowingly taking part in or voting, without right, at a General Meeting of Shareholders or bondholders.

(c) For the member of the Board of Directors who violates the obligation to provide information to shareholders.

Penal and administrative penalties (Article 181 of Law 4548/2018)

The imposition of penal penalties does NOT preclude, under this provision, the imposition of administrative sanctions. This simply means that, in the course of some criminal proceedings, it is possible to impose penalties on a member of the Board of Directors, but any administrative sanctions may follow …

C. Epilogue

The extent of the liability of the members of the Board of Directors is unfortunately not exhausted in the above sections and provisions (much more so in their “business view”). However, in subsequent articles, it will be sought to record the other sections of their liability and, of course, how to mitigate it. Above all, however, the way to remove the (potentially) adverse consequences and the relative risks that these members face.

Stavros Koumentakis
Senior Partner

P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (March 3rd, 2019).

March 3, 2019
Day meeting for the New Law on SAs to Foroepilysis
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] One more presentation, within the framework of the day meetings which are organized by KOUMENTAKIS & ASSOCIATES on the New Law on on Sociétés Anonymes, was successfully held in Heraklion, Crete. Specifically, a presentation was recently held at Foroepilysis, a rapidly growing company of Mr. Vassilakis that provides accounting, financial and tax services.

Stavros Koumentakis, Senior Partner, has highlighted the business opportunity that is emerged by the changes brought by the new Law on on Sociétés Anonymes. He presented the general framework of the New Law and made an extensive reference on individual regulations of the new law and the use of the law’s options for businesses on aspects, such as:
- reducing their operating costs
- attracting investors and investment funds
- exploiting technology
- attracting and retaining competent, senior-level, executives
- protecting the clients of the Law Firm against their “internal and external enemies”.
Mr. Stavros Koumentakis mentioned in particular that “the New Law on Sociétés Anonymes is an important opportunity for enterprises which cannot be missed. Law 4548/2018 extends the responsibility and report of the members of the Board of Directors in terms of civil, criminal and administrative sanctions. This may be a potentially serious problem if there are no corresponding provisions and insurance coverage”. He has also mentioned that “there is a immediate need for the necessary and beneficial regulations to be adapted in the SAs’ articles of association”.

The presentation of Mr. Koumentakis at Foroepilysis, was attended by the top management, executives and employees and it was an opportunity for a broad exchange of views on the specific, extremely important (for enterprises, businessmen and board members) aspects.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Gallery” border_width=”3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_images_carousel images=”36883,36885,36887,36889,36891,36893,36895″ img_size=”” speed=”6000″ slides_per_view=”6″ hide_pagination_control=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
February 18, 2019
Presentation of the New Law on SAs to B. Karaoglou SA
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] The series of presentations of KOUMENTAKIS and ASSOCIATES Law Firm on Law 4548/2018 are continued with great success. The presentations are addressed to Enterprises, Business Associations, Auditors Companies, significant Tax and Accounting Services Companies and so on.

At a recent workshop held at B. Karaoglou SA – Accounting and Taxation Support, Mr. Stavros Koumentakis, Senior Partner, presented the general framework of the new Law on Societes Anonymes and extensively referred to its individual arrangements for protection of customers against “internal and external risks” as well as the utilization of the opportunities provided by Law 4548/2018 on behalf of businesses in aspects such as:
- reduce their costs
- attract and retain skilful executives
- attract investors
- exploit technology.
As Mr. Koumentakis states, “the new Law on Societes Anonymes is an important opportunity for businesses that should not be lost. Law 4548/2018 extends the responsibility and report of the members of the Board of Directors in terms of civil, criminal and administrative sanctions, which can be a potentially serious problem if there are no corresponding provisions and insurance coverage”. He also points out that “there is a direct need of regulations of the SAs’ articles of association”.

The presentation of Mr. Stavros Koumentakis on the new Law to B. Karaoglou SA – – which was attended by senior management and executives – gave the opportunity for a broad exchange of views on the specific, extremely important (for businesses, entrepreneurs and members of the Board of Directors ) units.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Gallery” border_width=”3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_images_carousel images=”36840,36842,36844″ img_size=”” speed=”6000″ slides_per_view=”6″ hide_pagination_control=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
February 7, 2019
Stock Option

Stock Option Plan for the distribution of shares to members of the Board of the Directors, employees and permanent associates

A. Generally

What are Stock Options?

Stock Options are an institution for which there is no long experience in our country. At an international level, however, there is not only a long experience, but also a number of categories of same.

Those that are most well known in Greece (and will be of interest to us here) are the ones that are intended to act as an incentive for senior and supreme executive staff. And in addition: the close-permanent associates of a business. Then, for reasons of brevity, all potential beneficiaries will be referred to as a whole as “executives”. The internationally accepted relevant terminology for stock options of this category is “Employee Stock Option” and abbreviated “ESO”.

These Stock Options, in practical terms, are only the option that an executive (or a group of executives) of an enterprise acquires (at one or more subsequent times) the company’s shares in a predetermined, attractive, price. At a price that the executive himself/ herself is called to pay.

Under the American model (:american options), this right is exercised at any time by the beneficiary, from the time of the issue of the Stock Option Plan up to its maturity. Under the European model (: european options or share options in the UK) this right is exercised by the beneficiary at the time of expiration and / or at predetermined, interim times.

Any withdrawal /removal of an executive before the time at which the right may be exercised shall, as a rule, result in its loss.

How do Stock Options work?

First of all, let’s note that the Stock Options do not (and must not) concern all executives.

But even with this constraint, we have to accept that the categories of executives to which they are addressed are two: To those which the company seeks to attract and those with whom it is already associated under some form of contractual relationship, more usually, labor.

On the other hand, companies that decide to issue ESO can be of all kinds: Start-ups, businesses with a history (with liquidity problems or limited financial capabilities), businesses that are developing (and promising) or even developed companies (with significant financial capacity). A common feature of all: An attempt to motivate executives to either start or continue working with them.

Both the core proposal of the company that decides to issue them and the specific parameters are known: “Come (or stay) with us and you will have serious expectations to derive significant benefits from the increase in the value of the business (in proportion to its part that corresponds to the stock option you receive)”.

Internationally, it is adopted (at least in terms of listed companies) also one more alternative to (direct) ESO provision. The business undertakes instead of delivering the Stock Options to the executive to pay him money at predetermined times in the future. In particular, the difference in the present value of an agreed number of shares relative to the price they will have at those predetermined future dates.

Stock Options on the side of the business and the executive

With the adoption of Stock Options, the company creates significant incentives to attract an “expensive” executive, as it no longer faces him as a mere employee. The executive is upgraded from the level of the simple (and least important) employee to the potential tomorrow’s shareholder, a participant in the vision, development and, as a result, profitable course of the business.

The enterprise (start-up, in difficulty, developing or developed) thus achieves a threefold goal: (a) to reduce the financial requirements of the executive in terms of his/her expected fixed earnings, (b) to increase his/her commitment to the firm (c) to raise (logically) his/her qualitative and quantitative performance.

The executive, on the other hand, “attaches” stronger ties to the company’s chariot as is no longer a simple worker but upgraded to a potential (or tomorrow) shareholder. And even more: Looking forward to the profits he/she could make from his/her stay in the business, he/ she would hardly think of not paying off his/her full potential or leaving before the “full limit of the time”.

By realizing the institution of Stock Options, the target of shareholders, management and executives becomes common: developing the value of the business and, consequently, the value of its stocks.

Especially: The worries of the entrepreneur and the way they can be dispelled.

However, there is also a serious (and quite reasonable) argument on the basis of which an entrepreneur (especially in companies with few shareholders) would not choose to make Stock Option available to his/her executives. Let’s note, among other things, the most common: What will happen if, once the relevant rights have been exercised, the executive (as a shareholder) leaves (resigns or be dismissed), bankrupts, dies or faces a mental health problem? Will then be as a partner an old friend and tomorrow’s enemy? Or will there be the widow and his orphans? Or maybe an insolvency administrator, someone irrelevant or even worse, the most important competitor of the business?

In these critical questions can be given not only satisfactory answers but also absolutely adequate safeguards. The combination of individual legal options can safely succeed in achieving this.

For example, the combination of stock options with the provisions on the issue of restricted stocks may create feelings of security for such concerns (For matters relating to the issue of restricted stocks, you may refer to our related article).

B. The regulations of the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes

On a procedural level, the issuance of Stock Options presupposes (Article 113 par.1) a General Assembly resolution on the beneficiaries of the plan (members of the Board of Directors, executives and / or persons providing their services on a stable basis) as well as on the details of such issuance. In this context, the decision of the General Assembly specifies (Article 113 par. 2) whether the Stock Options will be issued using the Company’s own shares or an increase in its share capital, the maximum number of shares to be issued, the subscription price or the method for its determination, the terms of sale of the shares, the duration and the beneficiaries of the plan, the manner in which the rights be exercised. However, especially with regard to the beneficiaries, the Board of Directors may be entrusted with the designation (by the Board of Directors) of either the beneficiaries, namely, or of the groups of beneficiaries

The Stock Οptions issued may not exceed a maximum of 10% of the share capital (Article 113 par.2), although in practice it would hardly exceed even 1% or 2%.

It is also noteworthy that the General Assembly may delegate (Article 113 par.4) for a period of five years its relevant power to the Board of Directors although such an assignment must be given sparingly as it could possibly lead to unpleasant reversals of sensitive balances between shareholders.

In any event, the Board of the Directors is that body (Article 113 par.3) to:

(a) issue the certificates of exercise of the relevant rights but also

(b) (per calendar quarter) to either deliver the shares involved in the exercise of the Stock Options or to increase the share capital and amend the Articles of Association (by issuing and delivering the newly issued shares and certifying the relative increase).

C. Epilogue

Making use by an enterprise of a modern tool, such as Stock Options, can be beneficial at various levels. Although this approach is simplified, the potential risks to the entrepreneur can be reduced to a significant level (using safe legal tools) – if not eliminated. At the same time, the design of the relevant product can greatly safeguard the central focus of the business: whether it is to attract skilled executives or to maintain the most competent ones and / or to maximize what the benefiting executives are able to offer.

Stavros Koumentakis
Senior Partner

P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (February 3rd, 2019).

February 3, 2019
Presentation of the New Law on SAs to ZIA Insurance
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] Presentation of the New Law on SAs to ZIA Insurance – Business and Board members insurance coverage

It is a fact that the new Law on Societes Anonymes is an important opportunity for enterprises that should not be lost.

It is also a fact that the new law extends the responsibility and report of the members of the Board of Directors in terms of civil, criminal and administrative sanctions. This may be a potentially serious problem if there are no corresponding provisions and insurance coverage. The presentation of Mr. Stavros Koumentakis on the specific law to ZIA Insurance was an opportunity for a broad exchange of views on the specific, extremely important (for enterprises, businessmen and board members) aspects. An exchange of views also took place on the level of potential insurance coverage for individual complex products created on the basis of the new law.

In his speech, Mr. Koumentakis presented the general framework of the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes, the differences that exist in relation to the older ones and was extensively mentioned:
- deepening into individual regulations of the new law
- making use of the law’s options on behalf of the businesses on its own aspects, such as:
  - reducing their operating costs
  - attracting investors and investment funds
  - exploiting technology
  - attracting and retaining competent, senior-level, executives
- protecting the clients of the Law Firm against their “internal and external enemies”.
- the potential, necessary and beneficial regulations of the SAs’ articles of association, where applicable, the provisions of which must, individually and directly, be adapted
The presentation was attended by the senior management of ZIA Insurance. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Gallery” border_width=”3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_images_carousel images=”36807,36805,36803,36801″ img_size=”” speed=”6000″ slides_per_view=”6″ hide_pagination_control=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
January 24, 2019
Presentation of Law 4548/2018 to ARTION Group
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] The new law on Sociétés Anonymes is a new opportunity for businesses and not yet another headache. This was the conclusion of the presentation by Mr. Stavros Koumentakis, Senior Partner of KOUMENTAKIS & ASSOCIATES Law Firm, titled: “Enlightening the New Law on Sociétés Anonymes (L.4548 / 2018)”, which took place at the headquarters of ARTION Group.

Law 4548/2018 For Businesses

In his speech, Mr. Koumentakis presented the general framework of the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes, the differences that exist in relation to the older ones and had the opportunity to make a detailed presentation of all the law and not only of its basic regulations. Through the interactive and creative exchange of views, it was possible to enlighten individual aspects of the entire law. There was also highlighted the need for the immediate adaptation of the articles of association of the sociétés anonymes to the provisions of the new law as well as the “tailor made” exploitation, for each one, of the law’s particular options and regulations.

Mr. Koumentakis’ suggestion’s objectives were among other:
- reporting and, where appropriate, deepening into individual regulations of the new law
- making use of the law’s options on behalf of the businesses on its own aspects, such as:
- reducing their operating costs
- attracting investors and investment funds
- exploiting technology
- attracting and retaining competent, senior-level, executives
- protecting the clients of the Law Firm against their “internal and external enemies”.
- the potential, necessary and beneficial regulations of the SAs’ articles of association, where applicable, the provisions of which must, individually and directly, be adapted
- small, non- publicly releasable secrets on individual critical issues
The presentation was attended by the main shareholders, the senior management and executive staff of ARTION Group.

ARTION Group

ARTION group of companies with more than 30 years of experience in the field of supporting businesses and business activities, has gradually evolved into one of the most important units in accounting, tax consulting, specialized consulting services and computerization services.

ARTION Group has more than 100 personnel, providing a safe, stylish and modern work environment characterized by stability, parity and opportunities for continuing education and professional development.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Gallery” border_width=”3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_images_carousel images=”36723,36725,36727,36729,36731″ img_size=”” speed=”6000″ slides_per_view=”6″ hide_pagination_control=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
January 19, 2019
Two-day conference on the new law on Sociétés Anonymes
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

On the occasion of the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes (in the final form of which the firm was actively involved), the Senior Partner of the Law Firm Mr. Stavros Koumentakis, held an internal informative seminar on “Enlightening the New Law on Sociétés Anonymes (L.4548 / 2018)”.

Law 4548/2018

At the two-day conference, of 12 hours duration, the Senior Partner of the Law Firm Mr. Stavros Koumentakis had the opportunity to make a detailed presentation of all the legislative text and not just of its basic regulations. Through the interactive and creative exchange of views between the partners and associates of the Law Firm, it was possible to enlighten individual aspects of the entire law. There was also highlighted the need for the immediate adaptation of the articles of association of the sociétés anonymes (in particular of the Law Firm’s clients) to the provisions of the new law as well as the “tailor made” exploitation, for each one, of the law’s particular options and regulations.

Mr. Koumentakis’ suggestion’s objective was, among other topics:
- reporting and, where appropriate, deepening into individual regulations of the new law
- making use of the law’s options on behalf of the businesses on its own aspects, such as:
  - reducing their operating costs
  - attracting investors and investment funds
  - exploiting technology
  - attracting and retaining competent, senior-level, executives
- protecting the clients of the Law Firm against their “internal and external enemies”.
- the potential, necessary and beneficial regulations of the SAs’ articles of association, where applicable, the provisions of which must, individually and directly, be adapted
- Significant “secrets” on issues such as the management and the power of the minority
The Law 4548 presentations

With this particular two-day conference, KOUMENTAKIS & ASSOCIATES Law Firm has launched a series of similar presentations, which is on track to take place in Businesses, Business Associations, Auditors Companies, significant Tax and Accounting Services Companies and so on.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_text_separator title=”Gallery” border_width=”3″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_images_carousel images=”36707,36709,36711″ img_size=”” speed=”6000″ slides_per_view=”6″ hide_pagination_control=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row]
January 17, 2019
Sociétés Anonymes: The new law

The agreements of an SA with its main shareholders, the members of its BoD and with related parties: The correction of the “wrongly raised” issues

The seriousness of the matter and how the new law on SAs deals with it

The issue of the agreements signed between a Société Anonyme and its main shareholders, members of its Board of Directors and related parties is one of the most important issues that the new Law (Law 4548/2018) was required to deal with for Sociétés Anonyme.

Our work with this particular issue

This particular issue has already been addressed in the recent past (in the column “Business: Law and Practice” in the Sunday edition of the newspaper Makedonia on 18.11.2018), but also in a previous article on the blog of our law firm.

In summary, in the above-mentioned article on the blog, among other things, we mentioned: “Based on the options of the new law it is NOT entitled to participate in the decision-making process in the Board of Directors and the General Assembly the member of the BoD or any shareholder, who derives interest (directly or indirectly) from the particular transaction. It is noteworthy that the final decision belongs to the General Assembly, which is convened on this issue at the request of 5% (only) of the share capital. Only the remaining shareholders – in practice, i.e. ONLY the (usually one) minority shareholder – can vote in this particular General Assembly”.

This choice … is expected to lead to exactly the opposite effects to those that the Legislative Committee was looking at: The privilege of 5% minority shareholders to decide unilaterally on the matters relating to the company’s relations, for example, with the shareholder of the majority is expected to lead to abusive (and / or extortionist) behaviors.

…Therefore, there is no doubt that there is a strong need to find a different solution. For example, to return to the former (safer and fairer) “regime” (article 23a of Law 2190/1920): Shareholders who derive interest from a contract are entitled to participate in the General Assembly that will provide the final approval, but the authorization to conclude it will be provided only if the 1/3 of the share capital represented in it does not oppose.

The activation

This issue was a matter of particular concern for a Body of our city (which, for reasons of modesty, has asked for its involvement not to be mentioned). We worked together to achieve the best solution. With our law firm’s letter dated 6.11.2018, we recommended the amendment of the critical provision (Article 100 (5)) of the new law.

In the Body’s letter dated 13 November 2018, addressed to the competent ministers, there was asked for the pre-existing legislative provisions on non-listed companies to be reintroduced. It mentioned, among others:

“It is therefore necessary to return to the previous regime (article 23a of Law 2190/1920) according to which the shareholders affected by the decision may take part in the General Meeting in question, but the authorization to conclude the contract will only be given if the 1/3 of the share capital represented in the General Assembly does not oppose…

In the context of the above, there is no doubt that there is an urgent need to restrict the provision for the application of Article 100 (5) of Law 4548/2018 to listed companies and to amend it as soon as possible as the new law comes into effect on 1.1.2019”.

The response of the political authorities

We are accustomed to addressing to the “ears of those who will not listen” when we rush to the competent authorities for any issues – sometimes critical. In this case, however, the prementioned activation seems to have been completely effective. Through an amendment that has already been submitted to Parliament for voting, it is expected that paragraph 5 of article 100 4548/2018 be amended in the proposed direction.

The Explanatory Memorandum for the amendment of article 100 of Law 4548/2018

This explanatory memorandum verbatim states:

“7. With paragraph 7, paragraph 5 of Article 100 of Law 4548/2018 is amended in order to alleviate the consequences of the full ban to vote for the shareholder who will participate in the General Assembly that will provide the authorization in order for the company to conclude a transaction with a related party, should (this shareholder) be this related party. While Directive 2017/828 provides that in this case the shareholder does not have the right to vote, thus, it allows the provision of interim solutions if the interests of the minority are protected. Given that the abstraction of the vote applies, in accordance with the Directive, only to listed companies, it is appropriate not to apply the prohibition to non-listed companies, while for those listed there is an intermediate system where voting rights are preserved in the assembly provided that the independent members of the BoD have reached a majority agreement on the granting of the authorization. It is added that in every case (both listed and non-listed companies), the minority of 1/3 of the capital represented in the meeting has the right of veto to the granting of the authorization, as provided for in Article 23a (3) of Law 2190/1920. It should be kept in mind that according to par. 4 of article 100 of law 4548/2018, if, prior to the general assembly’s decision, the transaction has already been concluded, a minority of 1/20 has the right of a veto”.

The introduced amendment and the amendment to the disputed (problematic) provision

The introduced amendment verbatim states:

“7. At the end of paragraph 5 of Article 100, paragraphs are added as follows:

“This does not apply (a) to companies with shares not listed on a regulated market and (b) to listed companies if the authorization of the Board of Directors pursuant to paragraph 1 was granted with the agreement of the majority of its non-listed members. In any event, the authorization by the general meeting is canceled if shareholders representing one third (1/3) of the capital represented in the meeting object to it”.

The problem “with the potentially dramatic consequences”: NO longer exists

The aforementioned activation (with the assistance of our Law Firm) proves to have had the desired effect: The problem “with the potentially dramatic consequences” (i.e. the 5% minority being a regulatory factor for critical decisions with the assumption that the company and shareholders will be involved in long-standing litigation) will not exist since the very beginning of the implementation of the new law.

We can be both happy and proud.

Congratulations, however, must be given to those who have decided to activate while refusing to submit to (the usual) practices of introversion.

Stavros Koumentakis
Senior Partner

Υ.Γ. A short version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (December 30, 2018).

December 30, 2018
The New Law On Societes Anonymes

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

At Koumentakis & Associates Law Firm we have a deep faith in the values and benefits of preventive law practicing. We are not limited to just good conventional predictions and / or developing the right strategy in our clients’ affairs. We are proceeding with the evaluation of the adverse effects of existing legislation and, consequently, with proposals for legislative interventions to prevent them.

This includes the comments of Stavros Koumentakis, Senior Partner of our firm, on the (unfortunately poor) predictions while implementing the new Law on Sociétés Anonymes regarding its provisions for contracts between their shareholders and their directors.

The risk of abuse of existing legal options by shareholders of the minority acting in bad faith is (more) visible. Our proposed legislative intervention has already been adopted by FINF (Federation of Industries of North Greece) and has been properly processed.

The public debate has opened!

THE NEW LAW ON SOCIETE ANONYMES

The Contracts Of The S.A. With Main Shareholders, Members Of The Board Of The Directors And Related Parties: The Problem With The (Potential) Dramatic Consequences

A. INTRODUCTION: THE VIEW OF THE COMPANY

1. The New Law On Societes Anonymes

With the recent law (L. 4548/2018), a commendable effort to reform the law of Societes Anonymes as well as the replacement of a hundred-year (old) statute were concluded. Changes are, in some sections, sweeping. The (careful) adaptation of the articles of association of Societes Anonymes should take place in 2019. However, the effect of the provisions of this law begins immediately: from 1.1.2019.

2. The Contracts Of The S.A. With Main Shareholders, Members Of The Board Of The Directors And Related Parties

One of the most important issues that the new law is regulating is the conclusion of these contracts.

The matter has already been dealt with by the European Union legislator in Directive 2017/828: thus, this concerns exclusively companies listed on a regulated market. The new law adopts (Articles 97, 99 et seq.) the provisions of this Directive for all companies. Is this right for non-listed?

3. The Options Of The New Law And The (Dramatic) Risks For The Shareholders Of The Majority

Based on the options of the new law it is NOT entitled to participate in the decision-making process in the Board of Directors and the General Assembly the member of the BoD or any shareholder, who derives interest (directly or indirectly) from the particular transaction. It is noteworthy that the final decision belongs to the General Assembly, which is convened on this issue at the request of 5% (only) of the share capital. Only the remaining shareholders – in practice, i.e. ONLY the (usually one) minority shareholder – can vote in this particular General Assembly.

This choice (as it appears) is intended to protect the minority shareholders and the company itself from the unfair influence of the persons entitled to make decisions on its behalf.

Unfortunately, it is expected to lead to exactly the opposite effects to those that the Legislative Committee was looking at: The privilege of 5% minority shareholders to decide unilaterally on the matters relating to the company’s relations, for example, with the shareholder of the majority is expected to lead to abusive (and / or extortionist) behaviors.

The possibility, which tacitly is given to the majority shareholder (even if it owns 95% of the share capital of the SA) to defend himself with (multiannual and costly) legal actions, does not ensure his own interests nor the company’s.

4. The Solution of the “Gordian Knot”

Therefore, there is no doubt that there is a strong need to find a different solution. For example, to return to the former (safer and fairer) “regime” (article 23a of Law 2190/1920): Shareholders who derive interest from a contract are entitled to participate in the General Assembly that will provide the final approval, but the authorization to conclude it will be provided only if it 1/3 of the share capital represented in it does not oppose.

This particular issue poses serious risks to the smooth operation of Sociétés Anonymes.

The solution should be simple and immediate!

Otherwise: The only ones to be happy shall be the malignant shareholders of the minority and their lawyers (and of course, the lawyers of the shareholders of the majority) ….

Β. THE DATA FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW – THE PROPOSED SOLUTION

1. Preamble

1.1 According to the chairman of the legislative committee on the reform of the law of SA Prof. Evangelos Perakis (Evangelos Perrakis “The New Law of the Société Anonyme”, Nomiki Bibliothiki, 2018, p. 59) “two major issues of great difficulty were the subject of the new law … the question of the remuneration of the members of the board of directors … and the issue of related party transactions … of those transactions that are suspected of occurring through the unfair influence (and for the benefit of) persons controlling or managing the company …”

1.2 The Legislative Committee, which has been set up for this purpose, successfully completed the titanium project of the transition from hundred-year (old) statute (L.2190/1920) to a modern statute (Law 4548/2018) that will govern the operation of the Société Anonyme. However, in such a large project it would be impossible to avoid problems; some, indeed, serious.

2. Related Party Transactions Management – Selected Solutions

2.1 The way selected by the Legislative Committee for dealing with the above mentioned (under 1.1) significant problems and finally adopted by Law 4548/2018 is basically reflected in the provisions of Art. 97, 99 & 100 as well as to that of Art. 109.

2.2 The rule in Art. 99, par. 1, L. 4548/2018 provides for the prior authorization by the Board of Directors of the Société Anonyme for the purpose of concluding contracts with related parties (members of the BoD of the company, persons controlling the company, close members of their family, the legal entities controlled by them, General Directors and Managers of the company etc-99 par. 2)

2.3 The rule in Art. 97, par. 3, L. 4548/2018 provides that when there is a conflict of interest between the members of the Board of Directors (or the aforesaid, under 2.2, related persons) and the Société Anonyme, these members are NOT entitled to vote. As a matter of fact, if failure to vote concerns so many members so as not to have a quorum, the issue is referred to the General Assembly. However, even if the number of remaining members is adequate for the decision by the Board of Directors to be taken, a minority shareholder holding 1/20 (i.e. 5%) of the share capital may impose (in any event) the convening of a General Meeting with the subject of the provision of or not of the relevant approval (Article 100 (3)).

2.4 In the event that the person directly or indirectly involved in the conclusion of the contract happens to be a shareholder, the votes corresponding to his shares are not counted either in the quorum formation or in the majority (Article 100 (5)). Equally, however, neither the votes corresponding to the shares of the related parties are counted. Therefore: The minority shareholder of 5%, for example, (whether acting in good faith, or not), and he ALONE is the one who will take the decision concerning the shareholder of the majority – 95%, for example, after taking into consideration his personal view, and of course his personal interest, and not necessarily that of the company.

2.5 The choices of the new law (L. 4548/2018) and especially the abovementioned deprivation of the right to vote are based on the provision of Art. 9c (4) of Directive 2007/36 / EC (inserted by Directive 2017/828).

2.6 [As an aside, it is to be noted that the rule of Art. Article 99 (3) of Law 4548/2018 provides for a series of exceptions to the application of the above formal (and in our view problematic) procedure. From these exceptions, it is, in our view, to be proved more important in practice the exception provided in case (f): from the generally risky and problematic procedure are excluded the contracts of the company concluded with other directly or indirectly controlled ones, which are concluded with the objective of the interests of the company or from which the interests of the company and of the at shareholders of the minority are not jeopardized. This case is expected to be popular in practice, but it is quite vague as to its specific criteria while it concerns only part of the disputed transactions].

2.7 The above mentioned regarding the deprivation of the voting rights in the Board of Directors and the General Assembly, unfortunately also apply when remuneration is to be paid to the members of the Board of Directors in the framework of a special relationship (in the framework, for example, of the most commonly selected contracts of employment, management contracts or mandates – Article 109 (3)): In such cases, the SOLE member to decide is the shareholder of 5% and not the 95% shareholder (if the latter is also the member of the Board of Directors whom concerns the discussion of the fees to be paid).

2.8 Conclusion: In any of the above cases (: conclusion of a contract between the SA and related parties and / or members of the Board of Directors – the contracts for their remunerations included), and of course also in a number of others, is shown the absolute contradiction that the one to whom the power to take a potentially very important decision within a SA, is not the shareholder of 95% but the one of 5%.

3. The Scientific Approach

3.1 On the basis of what Prof. Evang. Perakis mentions (Evang. Perakis, “The New Law of Societe Anonyme”, Nomiki Bibliothiki, 2018, p. 63): “In any case, deprivation of the right to vote may be considered to be an excessive measure because of its possible consequences, as for example the ability of an obstructive minority of 1/20 of the share capital to seek for a General Assembly to convene in order to reject itself the transactions with shareholders – members of the management of the company with whom they have bad relations while the latter will be unable to vote. It must therefore be accepted that the refusal of the minority to grant the license to conclude the contract should also be reviewed under the provision of Article 281 of the Civil Code”.

3.2 The proposed by Professor Evang. Perakis solution (the judicial ascertainment of the abusive refusal of the shareholder holding the 5%) seems to refer the issue in the distant future and at considerable cost to the companies involved and, above all, to uncertainty as to the outcome. Business decisions, however, should not wait for long lasting legal procedures. It is widely known (to all, lawyers, entrepreneurs, “institutions”, etc.) what it means to wait for the issue of a final judgment (first instance proceedings, appeal) and / or an irrevocable decision on any matter; a fortiori, a judgement on the ascertainment (or not) of the abusive exercise of a right.

4. The Ratio of the Regulations of Directive 828/2017

4.1 The ratio of the regulations of Directive 828/2017 (beyond any doubt) is to ensure: (a) the smooth and unhindered operation of the companies whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market as well as the adequate management and performance of the company and (b) the encouragement of the long-term active participation of the shareholders and the improvement of the transparency between companies and investors; as it is already apparent from the recitals 2 and 3. The ultimate goal seems to be the smooth functioning of the “markets” in view of the participation of large sections of the population in Europe and of their general effect on the individual national economies. Particularly, in relation to the transactions of these companies with related parties, “adequate protection of the interests of the company and the shareholders who are not related, including minority shareholders” (recitals 42 and 43) is also sought.

4.2 These objectives and, more generally, the provisions of Directive 828/2017 refer explicitly to “listed” companies and do not extend to “non-listed” companies. This choice of the EU legislator is not accidental: If the reasons for the specific arrangements for “listed” companies were at the same or at a similar level as in the case of “unlisted”, it would be obvious that the latter would also be included (even with minor variations) in the regulatory scope of the Directive.

5. The Greek Reality

5.1 The rule of the Directive, as already mentioned, refers ONLY to the listed companies. However, it was consciously chosen by the relevant Legislative Committee to extend to the non-listed, ignoring the harsh Greek reality that has at least two strands:

(α) Until 2007, the creation of a single-member Société Anonyme was not allowed. Until then, we used to set up Sociétés Anonymes by providing a small percentage (for example 5%, and why not!) to a friend of the exclusive shareholder. Obviously, no one was aware that the percentage of 5% would be able to gain power in “life and death” …

(b) The shares of unlisted Sociétés Anonymes usually belong to a narrow circle of persons (members of the same family, close relatives or friends), whereas as a rule one person is the main shareholder and “runs” the company. Shareholders with small shares in the share capital either acquired them by transfer from the main shareholder or participated in the formation of the company (in both cases with or without payment of the corresponding “price”, having full knowledge of who is managing the company) or, finally, due to succession. Vesting them with the same heightened protection that the shareholders of the “listed” companies need due to the wide dispersion of their shares would not only be unjustified but would also turn these shareholders into potential blackmailers of the majority while it would undermine the proper operation of company and could even lead it to complete depreciation.

5.2 In view of this, the extension by Law 4548/2018 of the provisions of Article 9c (4) of the Directive (Articles 99-101 of Law 4548/2018) also to the “unlisted” companies not only is no self-evident but it is also lacking convincing justification. The legitimate weighting of the interests of the regulated entities in every legislation does not seem to justify the extension but, on the contrary, it fails to appreciate or, at the very least, does not adequately assess the reality of the “unlisted” companies mentioned above in 5.1 Thus, the reasons for the specific arrangements for “listed” companies do not apply neither in the same nor to a similar extent for “unlisted” companies”, which makes the Greek legislator’s choice for “expansion” to the latter problematic.

6. The Proposed Solution

The aforementioned leave no doubt that there is a major need to restrict the application of the provision of Art. 100 par. 5 of Law 4548/2018 to the listed companies and to amend it (before the beginning of the implementation of the new law-1.1.2019, with the additions in bold) as follows:

“Article 100 ….. Par.5.

(a) For a company with shares listed on a regulated market, in the case where the transaction concerns a shareholder of the company, that shareholder does not participate in the vote of the general assembly and is not counted for the formation of the quorum and the majority. Similarly, no other shareholders with whom the counterparty is linked by a relationship under Article 99 (2) shall participate in the vote.

(b) For a company with shares not listed on a regulated market, in the case where the transaction concerns a shareholder of the company, that shareholder participates in the vote of the general assembly and is calculated for the formation of the quorum and the majority. Similarly, other shareholders with whom the counterparty is linked by a relationship subject to paragraph 2 of Article 99 shall likewise participate in the vote. In that case, however, the provisions for the quorum and the majority of Articles 130 (3) and 132 (2) shall apply.”

7. Moral

This piece of legislation (Law 4548/2018) seems to be legally in order. It will be tested along the way. It is appreciated successfully.

The Legislative Committee seems to have done a great job. Its President continues to be, for us all, a teacher.

However, despite all these, it is a fact that the aforementioned provision of Art. 100 par. 5 seems (and is) problematic with regard to non-listed companies.

Its amendment is desirable, as above.

Stavros Koumentakis
Senior Partner

P.S. A shorter, Greek version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA newspaper (November 18, 2018)

November 18, 2018

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.