
Corporate deadlock: contractual mechanisms for resolving shareholder disputes
A corporate deadlock arises when shareholders or corporate bodies are unable to adopt or implement the resolutions required for the company to operate. Anticipating this
In the Ruling STS 4540/2023 of 31 October, the Supreme Court, sets precedent in considering that neither the four-year period from the date on which the action could have been brought, provided for in Article 241 bis of the Companies Act (LSC), nor the same period of liability for debts, but counted from the termination of the director’s duties, regulated in Article 949 of the Code of Commerce, is applicable. Instead, the Court considers that article 367 of the LSC states that the directors are joint and several guarantors of the company’s debts, therefore the limitation period for the debts of the directors must coincide with that provided for the company’s debt. In this line, the Court applied in this case the limitation period for personal actions of article 1964 of the Civil Code.
The criterion set out above is decisive for the purposes of directors’ liability, in relation to the starting date of the limitation period, that must coincide with that corresponding to the action against the debtor company, regardless of the date on which the director ceases to hold office within the company.

A corporate deadlock arises when shareholders or corporate bodies are unable to adopt or implement the resolutions required for the company to operate. Anticipating this

Changing tax residence outside Spain can have significant tax implications, particularly for taxpayers holding substantial corporate or financial interests. In certain cases, losing Spanish tax

If you are relocating to Spain to work — or if your company is considering bringing someone in from abroad — you have probably already
Your privacy settings
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary
Analytics
Embedded Videos
Google Fonts
Marketing