جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "shareholders" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

One of the most controversial issues in the field of arbitration is the possibility of using it in the field of labor disputes. This issue that was also raised on the disputes between workers and commercial companies as their employers, has caused many disagreements. Therefore, this article examines the approach of the legal system of countries and commercial companies in this field. The findings of this study indicate that in some legal systems, various types of arbitration (mandatory and voluntary) in labor disputes haشOne of the most controversial issues in the field of arbitration is the possibility of using it in the field of labor disputes. This issue that was also raised on the disputes between workers and commercial companies as their employers, has caused many disagreements. Therefore, this paper examines the approach of the legal system of countries and commercial companies in this field. The findings of this study indicate that in some legal systems, various types of arbitration (mandatory and voluntary) in labor disputes have been accepted but in others, only voluntary arbitration is recognized in limited cases. In a number of other legal systems, referring these disputes to arbitration is not accepted at all. Commercial companies also have different procedures in this regard; some companies, believing in the many benefits of arbitration for companies, have chosen it as the first way to resolve labor disputes. Some other companies, despite accepting the arbitration, use it as a secondary method, ie if other non-judicial methods are not obtained and finally, there are companies that are reluctant to refer arbitration to dispute resolution.ve been accepted but in others, only voluntary arbitration is recognized in limited cases. In a number of other legal systems, referring these disputes to arbitration is not accepted at all. Commercial companies also have different procedures in this regard; some companies, believing in the many benefits of arbitration for companies, have chosen it as the first way to resolve labor disputes. Some other companies, despite accepting the arbitration, use it as a secondary method, ie if other non-judicial methods are not obtained and finally, there are companies that are reluctant to refer arbitration to dispute resolution.

One of the important and effective tools to control the actions of the company's managers is the derivative lawsuit. The main purpose of establishing this legal institution is to protect the rights of shareholders, especially minority shareholders, and the company against the violations of managers. In most legal systems, this lawsuit against the directors the company has been accepted. This legal mechanism can prevent the squandering of the rights and interests of the company and its shareholders. A lawsuit is a derivative lawsuit with its own characteristics and is different from a liability lawsuit, both contractual and non-contractual liability. For the same reason In most legal systems, special attention has been paid to this lawsuit, but in the filing of this lawsuit, the existence of some restrictions, including the payment of court fees by the plaintiff, as well as the fact that the company is a joint stock company, has hindered its effectiveness In Iranian law section 276 of the Amendment to the commercial Act 1347 refer to possibility of filing a derivative action . The same is provided vastly in the bill 1384 in section 473 regarding new development of legal.  This study explains the concept of a derivative lawsuit and the conditions for filing this lawsuit in the French and Iranian legal systems, and the comparative aspect of the German legal system is also examined.

The current research has been carried out with the aim of monitoring commercial companies in Iran and Germany with an emphasis on shareholders' rights. The most important assets of companies are their shareholders. The main characteristic of German law is the involvement of shareholders in the supervision of the company in the management of its affairs; In such a way that the representatives of the employees are present in the supervisory board along with the representatives of the shareholders at every stage. The supervisory board in Germany is generally appointed by the shareholders as part of a resolution passed by the shareholders' meeting. If a joint-stock company is subject to the provisions of the formation law, the employees also determine the composition of the supervisory board. While in joint-stock companies, the supervisory board supervises the company's policy, in a limited liability company, this task is generally the responsibility of the company. It is a shareholders' meeting.After that, the discussion of setting up a supervisory board is raised, especially for medium-sized companies. The findings of the research indicate that monitoring in companies has structural and legal challenges, such as the silence of Iran's laws regarding the determination of the relationship between the inspector and the company, the determination of explicit rules in the civil code regarding monitoring in companies, emphasizing the rights of shareholders.

The Commercial Code recognizes joint-stock companies as merchants. Nowadays, these companies, as legal entities, play a significant and prominent role in economic and commercial transactions. The nature of business involves creating contracts, obligations, and debt payments. Therefore, when a merchant becomes incapable of meeting their debts and their assets are insufficient for this purpose, they are considered bankrupt, and specific regulations are applied to their activities. This situation has effects on other individuals and entities. In joint-stock companies, shareholders and managers are the two main pillars. Shareholders provide the company's capital, while managers are responsible for its administration. Therefore, the bankruptcy of a joint-stock company does not automatically lead to the bankruptcy of shareholders and managers. However, the opposite can also be true, and under certain circumstances or in specific bankruptcy situations, this general rule may be violated, leading to liability for the company's stakeholders. This article aims to explore this topic using library and internet sources and employing a descriptive-analytical approach. It delves into bankruptcy and its various types, as well as the mutual effects of a company's bankruptcy on shareholders and managers.

Commercial companies as legal entities consist of various departments. As in some cases the interests of members or directors of a company’s departments may develop into a conflict, disputation are duly expected. Accordingly, the attempt to propose a practical solution to solve such cases has been a significant concern in company Law. Among the existing solutions, arbitration has always been a well-received one because of its advantages. Nevertheless, considering the unique characteristics of companies and the multiplicity of departments, the practice of this solution has faced several challenges and ambiguities particularly as far as the concept and criteria of internal disputes and arbitrability are concerned. Bearing these points in mind, this study examines the arbitration in intra-corporate disputes in the legal systems of Iran and the England. Concepts like intra-corporate dispute, scope of arbitration, and barriers to arbitration are delineated in the first step. The findings of this study suggest that within the Iranian legel system arbitration of intra-corporate disputes is subject to the general rules of corporate law and arbitration law due to lack of specific laws while in the England the jurisprudence, in some cases, examines both the status of arbitration in a company’s internal disputes and the identified obstacles. Also, it gives the concerned parties considerable amount of authority to take advantage of arbitration. Moreover, it takes structural barriers, public policy, restrictions on the type of compensation, and conflict with the rights of third parties as the most significant obstacles to the practice of arbitration in these cases.

Subordination of commercial companies to the rules and principles of corporate law confirms that the dominant of formalism in this area is a necessity for stakeholder, managers and supervisors activates and with considering the Jus Cogens norms in this field, the stakeholders can not withdraw their capital stock from the corporate unless in framework of laws and charter. Therefore, the domination of rules and charter principles may create some obstacles and challenges on stakeholders or managers. Respect to human codes and obligate to social responsibility is the examples of above mentioned challenges. In this line, the relationship between merchandising (business) companies and social responsibility concept is so important. Meanwhile the domination and scope of corporates laws is not inclusive and generally in confronting between stakeholder’s interests and respects to socially responsibility, corporates interests to be chosen. Absolutely, it doesn’t mean a deadlock for considering the social responsibility by corporates. There are two approaches for interpretation. Although corporate it in self-nature obeys rules to achieve profits but limiting them to the function of profitability creates ambiguities about accepting social responsibility. The ambiguities on social responsibility in corporates can be managed and removed by utilizing human and international standards along with rule of law, corporate governance and as well as conventional tools.

Most of the stock offering by publishers and their purchase by shareholders are in accordance with the principle of free will of the parties, but this freedom will affect the efficiency of this market due to the superiority of the publisher over other capital market participants. Sharing this procedure of information transparency means obtaining information related to the performance of the rounds, the financial status and the financial situation, the financial situation and the financial situation, etc.

In terms of gathering information, the current research is descriptive, analytical and comparative. In this research, it is tried to report what is without any interference or subjective inference and obtain objective results from the situation.

The findings of this research, based on the comparative study of the legal systems of three countries, indicate that, unlike the legal system of Iran, where the principles of the obligation to disclose information due to the lack of specific laws and judicial procedures are subject to the general rules contained in the Securities Market Law and other laws, in American and English laws have dealt with this issue hundreds of years ago in different laws; Therefore, preserving the rights of shareholders, public order, good faith, fairness and avoiding financial abuse are known as the most important principles of the obligation to disclose information about companies admitted to the stock market.

Shareholders’ claims for reflective loss, also called indirect claims, are a certain type of shareholder lawsuits in corporate law. Reflective losses are those damages incurred by shareholders of a company in the form of devaluation of their shares resulting from losses sustained by the corporate entity. Whether a shareholder is allowed to seek compensation for such devaluation by bringing a direct action against the wrongdoer is the main question this paper addresses. The article attempts to answer the question in light of corporate law and civil liability principles. In doing so, reflective loss claims are analyzed after a brief review of other types of shareholders’ claims and by reference to common law and civil law jurisprudence. The article also examines feasibility of such claims under Iranian law. The article also reviews the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja dated 15 July 2020 as the latest judicial development concerning reflective loss. The article concludes that these damages are barred under major legal systems and also under Iranian law.

Nowadays, independent directors as one of the most important institutions of good corporate governance have progressed from the doctrinal stage into a dominant concept in corporate law. These directors are capable of becoming compatible with any legal system and at the same time have the amount of flexibility and comprehensiveness to be able to accommodate the legal concerns and values of different societies. Independent directors are independent of the company, management, and controlling shareholder in terms of business and family relationships; In such a way that while emptying the maximum of conflicts of interest, it acts more justly in their decisions and more impartially in their monitoring. Considering that this institution is entering the Iranian Companies Law through the Corporate Governance Instruction of the Stock Exchange and Securities Organization and the Bill for Protection of Small Shareholders, explaining the basics of admission and especially its advancing challenges is important. Therefore, the present study with the analytical-descriptive method has concluded that the agency theory, the principle of prevention, and gaining the trust of investors, including the main basics and groupthink, achieving independence, and the elections system are the most important challenges in accepting independent directors.

In the current era, the emergence of various types of Corporation and the expansion of their activities, has underlied the way for new legal issues regarding these individuals. One of these issues is the use of arbitration in intra-corporate disputes. Although arbitration in intra-corporate disputes is accepted in the legal system of most countries and is used in practice by many corporations, in some cases, this issue is associated with many complications due to the multiplicity of elements or around the differences. One of the things that complicates the arbitration of internal disputes is when the arbitration is multiparty. For this reason, the present article examines multiparty arbitration in intra-corporate disputes. In this regard, after explaining the challenges in multiparty arbitration, the conditions for merging existing disputes have been examined. The findings of this study, based on a comparative study, indicate that in most legal systems, not only the use of general arbitration rules due to the specific characteristics of corporations, does not solve the existing challenges, but also there are not comprehensive laws and sufficient jurisprudence regarding these disputes.

Arbitration is one of the methods of resolving disputes supported by legislators; however, in some cases it is subject to certain conditions in order to protect the exclusive jurisdiction of national courts in certain matters. Undoubtedly, the most important clause is arbitrability, which is known as the cornerstone of arbitration; ignoring it may affect the arbitration process at any stage. One of the disputes arising from the issue of arbitration is the internal disputes of commercial companies. The complexity of the relationship between the elements of the company and the existence of multiple stakeholders, in some cases, is such that the arbitrability of the disputes arises with ambiguity. However, despite the importance of arbitration of internal disputes of commercial companies, in the Iranian legal system, its legal status is not very clear; however, in many countries, there are specific rules in this area. Therefore, the present article comparatively examines the arbitrability of companies’ internal disputes and its findings show that, unlike some countries where the jurisprudence has identified the arbitrability of companies’ internal disputes and explained its obstacles, in the Iranian legal system, the legislator only requires referrals to arbitration for co-operatives and does not have explicit rules for other companies.

Nowadays, independent directors as one of the most important institutions of good corporate governance has progressed from doctrinal stage into a dominated concept in corporate law. These directors have the flexibility and comprehensiveness to adapt to the concerns of different legal systems. Thus, although they were first accepted into American and British law based on more effective board monitoring of the company's management, they also have the potential to be used in Iranian and other countries' law to protect the rights of minority shareholders. Therefore, in order to rank countries in terms of ease of doing business, the World Bank pays special attention to the presence of independent directors in the composition of the board of directors as one of the key indicators. Therefore, considering that the main distinguishing feature of independent directors from other directors is their independence and that this institution is entering the Iranian Companies Law through the Corporate Governance Instruction of the Stock Exchange and Securities Organization and the Bill for Protection of Small Shareholders; For the first time, the present study has tried to use analytical-comparative method and after proposing some very important considerations, By analyzing how to achieve independence of independent directors, to point out the problems with it along with the proposed corrections.

The business judgment rule as a central and a judicially created doctrine in commercial companies’ law immunes corporate directors from personal liability for decisions they make on behalf of a corporation in order to manage it. There are two approaches about its reliability in American law. According to the first approach, the court can hold directors liable only if their decisions do not correspond with management standards. According to the second approach which is considered as “The Abstention Doctrine”, the courts can’t basically and usually review the board’s decisions and actions. Based on this approach, directors are personally liable against corporation only in special cases. The distinction between these conceptions matters a great deal and essentially comes down to who has the burden of establishing the existence of the factors that would grant or deny business judgment rule protection. In this article, we deal with these two approaches and its differences with Iranians commercial regulations comparatively.

The health of any company has a direct relationship with supervision, so that corporations are no exception. Accordingly, in order to prevent abuse of directors and to provide appropriate coverage for the protection of shareholder and third party rights, the audit firm is foreseen in joint stock companies to monitor the performance of the board of directors. These persons are referred to in the Inspectorate of Trade Act 1311 and the Inspector of Trade Amendment Act, which is equivalent to (auditor) in English law. Inspectors are well-known and experienced persons who are well-known and selected by the General Meeting of Shareholders to inform the Company about the Company's status and to monitor the Company's flow of business in order to safeguard the interests of its shareholders, creditors and bondholders. The law and statute of the company are required to submit their views to the general meeting on the balance sheet and performance of the company. False reporting as well as failure to perform may cause damage to shareholders and the corporation. Therefore, both Article 64 of Trade Law 1311 and Article 154 of the Trade Amendment Bill provide for the responsibility of inspectors, so that in addition to civil liability,

Supervision of insurance in all states is carried out for the purpose of development and evolution of insurance market. However، the method and field of supervision is different in states in relation to time and law and national development structure. The function of insurance in relation to creation of security and continuance of economic and social activities and development of social justice and wealth is very important. One of the most important methods for supervision of insurance companies is corporate governance for insurer companies. For this purpose، we need legal means andinfrastructure. This article intends to study the law of Iran in relation to corporate governance for insurer companies for the first time.