TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

1

Avtor polemizira s stališčem domače pravne teorije in tudi dela sodne prakse, da je namen prepovedi finančne asistence iz prvega in drugega odstavka 248. člena Zakona o gospodarskih družbah (ZGD-1) preprečiti, da bi se za- obšle omejitve v zvezi s pridobivanjem lastnih delnic. Zastopa stališče, da ima prepoved finančne asistence samostojen pomen v sistemu pravil o ohranjanju kapitala družbe in je namenjena zaščiti premoženja družbe pred specifičnimi tveganji, povezanimi s posli finančne pomoči za pridobitev njenih delnic. Zato bi bilo treba po avtorjevem mnenju določbe o prepovedi finančne asistence izločiti iz 248. člena ZGD-1, ki v sklopu pravil o lastnih delnicah ureja zaobidne posle, ter s tem namenom oblikovati poseben člen.

The author critically discusses the position of the Slovenian domestic law theory and part of the case law that the purpose of the financial assistance prohibition provided by Articles 248(1) and 248(2) of the Slovenian Companies Act (ZGD-1) is to prevent the avoidance of restrictions concerning the acquisition of own shares. The author argues that the prohibition against financial assistance has an independent meaning in the system of rules on company’s capital maintenance, and that it is intended to protect company’s assets against specific risks associated with financial assistance operations for the acquisition of its shares. Therefore, according to the author, the provisions on financial assistance prohibition should be excluded from Article 248 of the Companies Act, which, in the framework of the rules on own shares, regulates the transactions of avoidance, and with that a separate article should be drafted.

Financial Assistance Prohibition in Stock Corporation Law – Merely an Anti-Avoidance Rule or an Independent Meaning in the System of Capital Maintenance?