Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Formation of a holding SE is one of the four ways of establishing a European Company (societas europaea - ‘SE') as regulated in the Council Regulation No 2157/2001 on the Statute for a European Company (cited below: SE-Reg.). It is also an original way of European company law to create a joint stock company. It's true that companies are making use of the holding structure in order to combine their economic potentials and to create international groups of enterprises. But, as it was in the case of the formation of the Aventis S.A., the holding structures usually come into existence by means of an increase of the subscribed capital in an existing company. The new shares are issued to the shareholders of another company who pay for it with the shares of their company. The operation results in formation of a holding structure in which the company that increased its capital, becomes a holding company dominating a company or companies the shares of which were contributed. The formation of a holding SE is guided by the similar idea: an exchange of the shares of national private or public limited liability companies into the shares of a European Company. However, in contrast to the Aventis like-cases, the dominant company, i.e. the SE, does not exist yet but has to be created by the companies according to the provisions of the SE-Regulation. This fact as well as many legal gaps existing in the scanty regulation of holding formation and the necessity to apply both the provisions of European and national law concomitantly may lead to many legal problems some of which will be presented below.
1 O.JL. 2001 No 294 p. 1. The other ways of SE formation are: merger, formation of a subsidiary SE, conversion of an existing public-liability company into an SE. See Art. 2 SE-Reg.Google Scholar
2 Advantages, especially fiscal ones, of creating a holding structure on the European level are presented by J.-L. Colombani, M. Favero, Societas Europaea. La société européenne, Paris 2002, pp. 86 et seq. On economic aspects of an international concentration of enterprises see also R. Buchheim, Europäische Aktiengesellschaft und grenzüberschreitende Konzernverschmelzung, Wiesbaden 2001, pp. 52 et seq.Google Scholar
3 On the formation of Aventis S.A. as a result of concentration between the French company Rhǒne-Poulenc S.A. and the German company Hoechst AG see J. Hoffmann, Die Bildung der Aventis S.A. – ein Lehrstück des europäischen Gesellschaftsrechts, Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG), 1999, pp. 1077 et seq. See also G. Thoma and D. Lauering, Die Europäische Aktiengesellschaft – Societas Europaea, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2002, pp. 1449, 1452.Google Scholar
4 On various models of holding formation see: H. Theißen, Die Gründung einer Holdinggesellschaft de lege ferenda. Vorschlag einer zukünftigen Regelung im Umwandlungsgesetz, Berlin 2000, pp. 11 et seq.; E.-T. Kraft in: M. Lutter, Holding Handbuch. Recht, Management, Steuern, Köln 1998, pp. 69 et seq.Google Scholar
5 Ch. Teichmann, Die Einführung der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft. Grundlagen der Ergänzung des europäischen Statuts durch den deutschen Gesetzgeber, Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (ZGR) 2002, p. 383, 416 with regard to the formation by merger; J. Neun in: M. R. Theisen and M. Wenz (eds.), Europäische Aktiengesellschaft. Recht, Steuern und Betriebswirtschaft der Societas Europaea, Stuttgart 2002, pp. 66 et seq.Google Scholar
6 Third Council Directive of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, O.JL. 1978 No 295 p. 36.Google Scholar
7 Ch. Teichmann, supra (n. 5), p. 434.Google Scholar
8 On the frames of the European restructuring law see: P. Hommelhoff and K. Riesenhuber, Strukturmaßnahmen, insbesondere Verschmelzung und Spaltung im Europäischen und deutschen Gesellschaftsrecht, in: S. Grundmann (ed.), Systembildung und Systemlücken in Kerngebieten des europäischen Privatrechts, Tübingen 2000, pp. 259, 263 et seq.Google Scholar
9 Sixth Council Directive of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (82/891/EEC), O.JL.1982 No 378 p. 47.Google Scholar
10 See Neun, J., supra (n. 5), p. 139.Google Scholar
11 See also Colombani, J.-L., Favero, M., supra (n. 2), p. 83 who refer to the regulation of SE formation by merger in the case of ambiguity.Google Scholar
12 Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), p. 414; J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 65.Google Scholar
13 Schwarz, G.Ch., Zum Statut der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 2001, pp. 1947, 1850; J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 63; Ch. Teichmann, supra (n. 5), p. 411. The opposite opinion takes P. Hommelhoff, Einige Bemerkungen zur Organisationsverfassung der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft, Die Aktiengesellschaft (AG) 2001, pp. 279, 281, n. 15: only one of the participating companies being subject to the same national law has to have an international link in form of a subsidiary or a branch in another Member State.Google Scholar
14 O.JL.2001 No 294 p. 22. See J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p 64 who also takes into account the definition of the subsidiary contained in art. 3 sec. 1 of the Directive of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (90/435/EEC), O.JL.1990 No 225 p. 6.Google Scholar
15 O. JL. No 254 from 30.09. 1994 pp. 0064 – 0072.Google Scholar
16 First Council Directive of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (68/151/EEC), O.JL.1968, No. 65, p. 8.Google Scholar
17 Details of the draft terms are discussed by J. Neun, supra (n. 5), pp. 131–136.Google Scholar
18 Second Council Directive of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (77/91/EEC), O.JL.1977, No. 26, p. 1.Google Scholar
19 With regard to the form of draft terms of merger see Ch. Teichmann, supra (n. 5), p. 420, J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 91 on the one hand, A. Schulz and B. Geismar, Die Europäische Aktiengesellschaft, Deutsches Steuerrecht (DStR) 2001, pp. 1078, 1080 on the other hand. The latter ones deny the necessity of observance of the special form prescribed in the national law for the merger contract.Google Scholar
20 See Pluskat, S., Die Arbeitnehmerbeteiligung in der geplanten Europäischen AG, DStR 35/2001 pp. 1483; M. Heinze, Die Europäische Aktiengesellschaft, ZGR 1/2002, pp. 68 et seq.; R. Köstler in: M. R. Theisen and M. Wenz (eds.), supra (n. 5), pp. 301 et seq. From the historical point of view: G. Mävers, Die Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer in der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft, Baden-Baden 2002.Google Scholar
21 Third amended draft from 16.5.1991, O.JC. from 8.7.1991, pp. 1 et seq.Google Scholar
22 J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 107, 136; Ch. Teichmann, supra (n. 5), pp. 423 and 433. Different G. Ch. Schwarz, supra (n. 13), p. 1851 who takes the opinion (with regard to the merger), that one or more expert examining the draft terms should not be compulsory independent from the promoting companies.Google Scholar
23 For details, see J. Neun (n. 5), supra, pp. 137 et seq.Google Scholar
24 The unanimous opinion in the German literature: J. Neun, supra (n. 5), pp. 147 et seq.; E.-T. Kraft, supra (n. 4), pp. 69; H. Theißen, supra (n. 4), pp. 29 et seq.; U. Trojan-Limmer, Die Geänderten Vorschläge für ein Statut der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft (SE). Gesellschaftsrechtliche Probleme, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 1991, pp. 1010, 1014 et seq.Google Scholar
25 See J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 148.Google Scholar
26 Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), pp. 415-416; J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 139.Google Scholar
27 Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), p. 434.Google Scholar
28 See Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), p. 435Google Scholar
29 In the German law this provision is implemented in sec. 65 of the German Restructuring Act. It requires the majority of 3/4 of the capital represented (par. 1); if there are shares of different classes the separate decision should be taken with that majority in each of them (par. 2)Google Scholar
30 See also Neun, J., supra (n. 5), p. 142.Google Scholar
31 See also Menjucq, J., Société européenne, (Règl. CE no 2157/2001 et Direct. No 2001/86/CE du Conseil du 8 oct. 2001), Rép. sociétés Dalloz, june 2002, p. 7, who takes the opinion that the general meeting of each promoting company approves the draft on conditions of quorum and majority which are required for resolutions not changing the articles.Google Scholar
32 For details see also Neun, J., supra (n. 5), pp. 145 et seq.Google Scholar
33 Such a date on which the period for shares exchange starts to run was laid down in Art. 31a par. 1 of the draft of the SE-Regulation from 1991. See also Ch. Teichmann, supra (n. 5), p. 436; J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 146.Google Scholar
34 Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), p. 436; J. Neun, supra (n. 5), pp. 145 et seq.Google Scholar
35 Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), p. 436.Google Scholar
36 See Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), p. 437, J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 147 who also assume that the additional period starts to run before the registration of the SE. The contrary opinion (one month period starts to run after the registration of a holding SE) takes Ch. Kersting, Societas Europaea: Gründung und Vorgesellschaft, Der Betrieb (DB) 2001, pp. 2079, 2084.Google Scholar
37 Gesetz zur Regelung von öffentlichen Angeboten zum Erwerb von Wertpapieren und von Unternehmensübernahmen vom 20.12.2001. English version in: J. Adolff, B. Meister, Ch. Randell, K.-D. Stephan, Public Company Takeovers in Germany, Munich 2002, pp. 341 et seq.Google Scholar
38 Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), p. 437.Google Scholar
39 For details of contents of the founders report see J. Neun, supra (n. 5), pp. 148 et seq.Google Scholar
40 Kersting, Ch., supra (n. 36), p. 2083.Google Scholar
41 See also sec. 2 of German SCA from which follows that the founders of the company who signed its statute also have to subscribe all its shares. U. Hüffer, Aktiengesetz. Kommentar, 5.ed., Munich 2002, p. 13, marginal number 12.Google Scholar
42 Neun, J., supra (n. 5), p. 148; Trojan-Limmer, supra (n. 24), p. 1015.Google Scholar
43 Opposite opinion takes Kersting, Ch., supra (n. 36), p. 2084.Google Scholar
44 See Teichmann, Ch., Vorschläge für das deutsche Ausführungsgesetz zur Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft, ZIP 2002, pp. 1109, 1113.Google Scholar
45 For such an analogy cf. Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 5), p. 437; J. Neun, supra (n. 5), p. 143.Google Scholar
46 Different: Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 44), p. 1113.Google Scholar
47 Teichmann, Ch. in: Theisen, M. R. and Wenz, M. (eds.), supra (n. 5), p. 588. See also H. Theißen, supra (n. 4), pp. 150 et seq. who propose such a right de lege ferenda with regard to the regulation of holding formation in the German law.Google Scholar
48 See Teichmann, Ch., supra (n. 44), p. 1113 who also denies the necessity of introducing into German law special regulations protecting creditors and employees of promoting companies.Google Scholar
49 With regard to Austrian law see S. Kalss and Winner, Übernahmerecht und Umgründungsrecht – Versuch einer Synthese, Österreichisches Bank Archiv (ÖBA) 2000, p. 51; Opinion of the Austrian Takeover Commission from 12.09.2000, Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht (NZG) 2001, pp. 282 et seq. In German literature see: Ch. Seibt and K.J. Heiser, Regelungskonkurrenz zwischen neuem Übernahmerecht und Umwandlungsrecht, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht (ZHR) 165 (2001), pp. 466 et seq.; D. Kleindiek, Funktion und Geltungsanspruch des Pflichtangebots nach dem WpÜG. Kapitalmarktrecht – Konzernrecht – Umwandlungsrecht, ZGR 2002, pp. 546, 564 et seq.; K.J. Hopt, Grundsatzund Praxisprobleme nach dem Wertpapiererwerbs- und Übernahmegesetz, ZHR 166 (2002), pp. 384, 397; H. Fleischer, Schnittmengen des WpÜG mit benachbarten Rechtsmaterien – eine Problemskizze, NZG 2002, pp. 545, 549; P. Hommelhoff and C.-H. Witt in: W. Haarmann, K. Riehmer and M. Schüppen (eds.), Öffentliche Übernahmeangebote. Kommentar zum Wertpapiererwerbs- und Übernahmegesetz, Heidelberg 2002, pp. 671 et seq.Google Scholar
The contrary view is presented by: Nowotny, Ch., Zur Auslegung des Übernahmegesetzes, Recht der Wirtschaft (RdW) 2000, pp. 330 et seq. (with regard to Austrian law); D. Weber-Rey and B. G. Schütz, Zum Verhältnis von Übernahmerecht und Umwandlungsrecht, AG 2001, pp. 325, 328 et seq.; J. Adolff, B. Meister, Ch. Randell, K.-D. Stephan, supra (n. 35), p. 243.Google Scholar
50 Brandt, U., Überlegungen zu einem SE-Ausführungsgesetz, NZG 2002, pp. 991, 995.Google Scholar
51 See e.g. Nowotny, Ch., supra (n. 49), p. 331 who takes the opinion that the concentrations of enterprises which are completed according to legal provisions guaranteeing its transparency and control are equivalent to the protection mechanism of take over law (“Als allgemeine Leitlinie lässt sich festhalten, dass Unternehmenszusammenschlüsse, die unter gesetzlicher Aufsicht erfolgen und bei denen die Transparenz des Vorgangs und seine Überprüfbarkeit gewährleistet sind, über einen Schutzmechanismus verfügen, der dem Übernahmegesetz gleichwertig ist.“).Google Scholar
52 See Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on takeover bids from 6 December 2002, Interinstitutional File 2002/0240, accessible on the website: http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st15/150/15078en2.pdf For an overview see in German doctrine: H.-W. Neye, Der Vorschlag 2002 einer Takeover-Richtlinie, NZG 2002, pp. 1144 et seq.; Ch.H. Seibt and K. J. Heiser, Der neue Vorschlag einer EU-Übernahmerichtlinie und das deutsche Übernahmerecht, ZIP 2002, pp. 2193 et seq.; H. Krause, Der Kommissionsvorschlag für die Revitalisierung der EU-Übernahmerichtlinie, Betriebs-Berater (BB) 2002, pp. 2341 et seq.Google Scholar
53 Hommelhoff, P. and Witt, C.-H., supra (n. 49), p. 670.Google Scholar
You have
Access
