I.- INTRODUCTION

On 14th March 2013, section 1 of the Civil Chambers of the Spanish High Court passed judgement number 216/2013. Said judgement discusses the possibility of two partners of a limited company, holders of participations (shares) encumbered with the obligation to render professional services to a subsidiary company exiting the company voluntarily, having resigned from rendering such services.

II.- CASE BACKGROUND

Both partners, holders of type A participations (shares) of the company LICEA 2003, S.L., resigned from their posts in PRIVARY, A.V., S.A.U. (subsidiary of the former company and to which they had been rendering professional services) owing to discrepancies with the rest of the company partners (shareholders). Consequently, they summoned a partners’ meeting for LICEA 2003, S.L. in order that, pursuant to article 6.3 of the company by laws, the acquisition of the their participations (shares) or their redemption, be agreed. However, once the meeting was underway, the proposal of the exiting partners was rejected.

The two partners decided to file a lawsuit challenging the decision of the partners’ meeting claiming the infringement of article 6.3 of the company by laws and articles 95 and 96 of the Limited Liability Companies Act (“LLC”), currently article 346 of the Capital Companies Act (“CCA”). The Commercial Court nº 5 of Barcelona dismissed the case of the plaintiffs in first instance, however, they appealed, and the Provincial Court of Barcelona allowed the appeal.

III.- THE HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by LICEA 2003, S.L. against the judgement of the Provincial Court, considering that:

  1. The free will of the partners of a limited liability company may adjust to the system applicable to their specific needs and benefits; in such a way that article 12 of the LLC, currently article 28 of the CCA, allows atypical clauses.
  2. The exit option for partners at any time is expressly allowed by the law, which also subordinates the validity of clauses prohibiting the voluntary transmission of participations (shares) in recognition of the faculty of a partner to exit the company at any time (article 30.3 of the LLA, today article 108.3 of the CCA).
  3. The allowance of the voluntary exit clauses (“ad nutum” – at will) does not mean the infringement of what is set forth in article 1256 of the Civil code, since the validity and effectiveness of the company contract is not left to the judgement of just one of the partners, because the faculty of the partner to exercise the discretional unilateral right of exit from a permanent contract is limited.
  4. The fact that the by laws anticipate the rendering of accessory services by certain partners accentuates the personalist and contractualist character of a limited company. Above all, this is the case if the accessory service lies in the partner working personally for the company, or a company of the same group, as is the case. This justifies the legality of the provisions of the by laws which grant the partner with a unilateral exit right when having resigned voluntarily from rendering services as an employee providing accessory services.

 

 

Vilá Abogados

 

For more information, please contact:

va@vila.es

 

21st of June 2013