Scholarly record
CALCULATING PROXY VOTES IN THE CONTROL THRESHOLD IN CROATIAN TAKEOVER LAW
Abstract
In the article the author analyses an open issue of calculating proxy votes in the takeover threshold according to Croatian Law. Since the Takeover Bids Directive does not specify the percentage of voting rights, which triggers the obligation to launch the takeover bid, nor the method for calculating the threshold, Member States are left to decide on these issues. The Croatian legislator has adopted the provisions on calculating the number and percentage of voting rights in Article 8 of the Croatian Takeover Act. According to the adopted solutions, when calculating the number of voting shares of the offeree company, held by the offeror and the persons acting in concert with him, voting shares entrusted to these persons shall be taken into account, under the condition the voting rights arising from those shares may be exercised independently, according to their own judgement, without special instruction of the shareholders. Although the Croatian legislator does not explicitly include proxy votes into the calculation rules, both the Croatian regulator and the courts have adopted a standpoint by which proxies are covered with this provision and should be calculated into the control threshold. The author finds it necessary for Croatian Takeover Act to include proxies with an explicitly regulated provision. Furthermore, it should be noted that, prior to 2007 there was no provision in the Croatian Takeover Act for calculating entrusted votes in the control threshold now set at 25%+1 of voting rights. The paper points out to several open issues in this matter by analysing two cases. In the first case, proxies were solicited prior to, and in the second one after 2007. In the conclusion, the author evaluates the consequences of the adopted provisions and looks for appropriate solutions de lege ferenda.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References18
Croatian Companies Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, No. 111/93, 34/99, 52/00, 118/03, 107/07, 146/08, 137/09, 125/11, 152/11, 111/12, 68/13, 110/15.
Zubović, Antonija, Organizirano prikupljanje punomoći za glasovanje na glavnoj skupštini kao modalitet utjecanja na donošenje odluka u društvu, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, vol. 38/no. 1, pp. 243 - 274, 2017.
Decision of the High Commercial Court of 04 June 2002 in the case Number Pž-1740/02.
Barbić, Jakša, Pravo društava, Društva kapitala, Dioničko društvo, Knjiga druga, Organizator, Zagreb, pp. 1168-1169, 2010.
Čulinović-Herc, Edita, Zubović, Antonija, Is there a need for a revision of the control threshold in Croatian takeover law?, 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences & Arts, SGEM 2016 Conference Proceedings on Political Sciences, Law, Finance, Economics & Tourism, Volume II, Book 2, Bulgaria, pp. 669 – 676, 2016;
Petrović, Siniša, Neka pitanja prometa dionica kod preuzimanja dioničkog društva, Hrvatska pravna revija, no. 8, pp. 22, 2002.
Croatian Takeover Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia, No 109/07, 36/09, 108/12, 148/13.
Geibel/Süssmann/Süssmann, Wertpapiererwerbs-Übernahmegesetz, WpÜG § 30, Rn 27, 2008;
Noack/Zetzsche/Schwark/Zimmer, Kapitalmarktrechts-Kommentar, WpÜG § 30, Rn 18, 2010;
Zöllner, Wolfgang, Noack, Ulrich, Kölner Kommentar zum WpÜG, Rn 200, 2010;
Rulf, Philipp, Die Zurechnungstatbestände des WpHG und WpÜG, Peter Lang, pp. 162, 2010;
Faden, Christoph, Das Pflichtangebot nach dem Wertpapiererwerbs- und Übernahmegesetz (WpÜG), Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, pp. 125, 2008.
Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, OJ L 142, 30. 4. 2004., p. 12-23.
Decision of the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency of 26 July 2012
Decision of the Administrative Court of 8 September 2014 No 5 Usl-1828/12-35
Decision of the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency of 25 March 2010
Decision of the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency of 16 September 2010;
Decision of the High Administrative Court of 22 August 2013 No Us-11349/2010-4
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.
