
Consequences of the revoked NIF in registry access
On 18th September 2024, the General Directorate of Legal Certainty and Public Faith, addressed an appeal against the qualification of the Property Registrar of Huelva
In judgment 361/2023 dated July 28, 2023, section 6 of the Provincial Court of Valencia analyzes the clause of a shareholders’ agreement that establishes a fixed term but, according to the plaintiff shareholders, de facto, indefinite term. The clause itself establishes the validity of the shareholders’ agreement until the purchase of shares by the shareholders of the entire share capital of three other specific business entities.
The PA considers that the shareholders’ agreement does establish a duration determined by a condition, which will be materialized with the acquisition of the shares by sale or otherwise, so that it does not allow for an indefinite duration to be foreseen because only four years have elapsed since its execution. Only when this acquisition proves to be impossible to perform, it can be understood that the duration of the shareholders’ agreement is indefinite and, therefore, on the basis of article 1,705 of the Civil Code, the shareholders can exercise a right of separation.
Although in the present case the PC does not detect the indefinite nature denounced, it also recognises, in general terms, the right that the shareholders would have to dissociate themselves from a shareholders’ agreement that obliges the signatory shareholders to remain in the same and against their will, without a term of duration, under the protection of the principles of good faith, protection of trust or abuse of rights.
On 18th September 2024, the General Directorate of Legal Certainty and Public Faith, addressed an appeal against the qualification of the Property Registrar of Huelva
Judgment no. 311/2024 of the Madrid Provincial Court of 4 October 2024 analyses the requirements of article 249.3 of the LSC on the appointment of
The Ruling of the Provincial Court of Valencia, of September 24, 2024, no. 162/2024 is generally in favor of the broad admissibility of the challenge