The Directorate General of Legal Security and Public Faith (DGSJFP) reiterates the criterion that exclusive registrable entries, in this case of provisional cancellation, are those regulated in the exceptions of Article 96 of the Commercial Registry Regulations, which consist of the entries ordered by a judicial authority or those necessary for the reopening of the registry page and corresponding to the deposit of the annual accounts. In this sense, the criterion previously assumed, among others, in the resolutions of July 29 and September 2, 2021, is reiterated.
The Management Center elaborates the limiting criterion on the basis of article 119.2 of Law 27/2014 of November 27, 2014, on Corporate Income Tax (formerly art. 131.2 of the TRLIS) which makes any type of registration subject to the prior certification of the registration in the index of entities, so that, in compliance with the principle of legality (article 18 of the Commercial Code), the registrar cannot enter to assess “the inevitable negative consequences for the corporate management that derive from them”, as was requested in this case for the opening of the registry sheet for the entries commented and for the purposes of obtaining the digital signature that would allow the payment of the taxes owed by the company
The Provincial Court of Madrid reaffirms that testamentary provisions can establish the disassociation of voting rightsof shares without violating corporate public policy. Facts of the
The recent Ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) of 6 February 2025, no. 190/2025 dealt with a case in which a call for a meeting,
The General Directorate of Legal Certainty and Public Trust (DGSJFP) has ruled on an appeal lodged against the refusal of the Commercial Registry to register
