The case in question is a good example of this

[mahbubamim077]

The debenture holder is not a shareholder, but a privileged creditor of the company, and sits in a separate assembly. Debentures, within the regime that governs them, which, among us, is Decree No. 177-A, of September 15, 1893, are bearer bonds, as their name indicates. The planned compulsory conversion leaves them, therefore, in a position of unfair privilege in relation to shares in general, which, there is no denying, is significantly detrimental to the composition and integrity of companies, large or small, because the public will come to prefer this form of securities, within their tendency to prefer bearer securities” (ob. cit., page 14).

Finally, if bearer shares were excluded, the few advocates of their belgium bulk sms packages extinction would have to initiate the “other types of shares” that could facilitate the circulation of capital, as bearer shares notoriously and indisputably do” (ob. cit., page 14).

Having thus replicated the arguments invoked in the justification of the project, it is now necessary to demonstrate its unfeasibility, inconvenience and inadmissibility.

Preliminarily, the draft corrigendum would require the use of the expressions “corporations”, “public limited company” and “company”, which have technically distinct meanings, as synonyms or equivalents.

This is not the first project presented on the subject.

“The controversies over bearer bonds,” recalls ALBERTO DEODATO, “are very old. When bearer bonds seemed to be flourishing in the 13th century, scholars of Roman Law destroyed them. They reappeared in the 17th century, as bonds to order and blank notes.”