Form of the notice of shareholders’ meeting and nullity due to lack of good faith or abuse of rights
The Provincial Court of Madrid, in its Judgment 230/2024 of 2 July, analysed the validity of a notice of a general meeting of a limited
Adapted to the needs of each client to provide a flexible and personalized support.
The SAP IB 3022/2023 ruling dated 23 November 2023 issued by the Provincial Court of Palma de Mallorca, heard the case referring to a lack of agreement between two joint and several directors of a company, which in turn was a shareholder of another legal entity, in relation to which of the directors should act on behalf of the company at the General Shareholders’ Meeting.
The relevance of the ruling lies in the fact that the two directors had sufficient powers to represent the company at the general meeting, but with the exclusion of representation in favor of the other company.
Thus, the ruling applies Article 126 of the Capital Companies Act by analogy, to conclude that this is the same as in cases where the co-owners of company shares must appoint a single representative of the joint ownership for the purpose of attending and voting at the general meeting.
The appointment of a single representative allows for the unified exercise of the shareholder’s rights, which, as we can see, also applies in situations of co-ownership of company shares, similar to an estate pending distribution.
The Provincial Court of Madrid, in its Judgment 230/2024 of 2 July, analysed the validity of a notice of a general meeting of a limited
The Commercial Register does not allow the registration of proposals discussed at a shareholders’ general meeting that do not become resolutions due to tied votes,
Once the annual accounts for several years have been approved at the same general meeting, the nullity of the accounts for one year does not