
Conflicts of interests among shareholders in the general meeting
The Supreme Court (TS) confirms that the prohibition on voting rights under Article 190.1 c) of the Spanish Companies Act (LSC) only applies to rights
In a recent judgement, the Madrid Provincial Court (SAP of Madrid, 28th Section, Judgement 108/2024, of 5 April), ruled on the equivalence between this system (bureaufax) and registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, as provided for in the bylaws of the company in question.
In the case in dispute, a shareholder challenged the resolutions of a general meeting of a limited liability company on the grounds that the notice of meeting had been sent by burofax instead of registered mail, a method expressly provided for in the bylaws. The plaintiff argued that this procedural irregularity should cause the nullity of the resolutions adopted at the meeting.
Although the burofax was not expressly contemplated in the bylaws, all the requirements of personal communication and proof of receipt were met, thus guaranteeing the traceability of the process and the certainty of the notification. The Provincial Court emphasised that the objective of the bylaws is to ensure that the notification actually reaches the shareholder, and that this can be accredited, which was fulfilled in this case.
In regulatory terms, the Capital Companies Act (article 173.2 LSC) establishes that the meeting must be convened by means of a written and personal communication procedure and allows the bylaws to provide for other methods as long as the receipt by the shareholder is ensured. In this regard, the Provincial Court concluded that the use of the burofax complies with the regulations, as it offers guarantees similar to those of registered mail.
The Supreme Court (TS) confirms that the prohibition on voting rights under Article 190.1 c) of the Spanish Companies Act (LSC) only applies to rights
A statutory clause authorizing the company to take out civil liability insurance (D&O) for its directors is not sufficient to clearly and bindingly integrate the
It cannot be automatically concluded that a non-resident entity has a permanent establishment (PE) in Spain for VAT purposes, merely because it has a subsidiary