THE PHOENIX IS RISING AGAIN
Abstract
The separation of company assets from the assets of its shareholders and the limited liability of company shareholders are two fundamental principles of company law. The principle of limited liability places a “corporate veil“ betweeen the company and its shareholders, protecting them from personal responsibility for corporate obligations. It also enables investors to limit their exposure to potential loss to their actual investment in company and to shift the risk of corporate insolvency to the business’s creditors. By creating incentives for business ventures, the“corporate veil“ of limited liability principle is beneficial to corporate shareholders and the society in general. However, it also opens the door for different kinds of abuses, one of which is embodied in the emergence of “phoenix“ companies. A “phoenix“ company is usually defined as a new company that arises from the ashes of its failed predcessor, taking over its assets and continuing its business, usually under the same or similar name, and with the same (de facto or de iure) controllers. The phenomenon of “phoenixism“ encompasses a range of activities, some of which are legitimate and lawful means of saving the business in financial distress, while others are illegal and constitute an abuse of the corporate limited liability form and the abuse of insolvency and tax law; there are also different shades of grey inbetween the two. The aim of this paper is to describe the conceptual framework of “phoenix“ companies, present the main indicators for detecting their activities, and categorise the various types of phoenix activity, with the aim of distinguishing between the harmful and beneficial “phoenixing“.
References
Anderson Helen,“ Profiling phoenix acitivity: A new taxonomy“, Company and Securities Law Journal 33/2015,133-137.
Anderson Helen, „Corporate law and the phoenix company“ у Routledge Handbook of Corporate Law, ур. Roman Tomasic, (Abingdon, Oxon [UK]; New York: Routledge, 2017), 114-127.
Blumberg Philip, „Limited Liability and Corporate Groups“, Jorunal of Corporation Law 11/1985, 573-631.
Easterbrook H. Frank, Fischel R. Daniel, „Limited Liability and the Corporation“, University of Chicago Law Review 52/1985, 89-117.
Hannigan Brenda, Company Law 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
Живковић Михајло, Право побијања дужникових правних радњи, докторска дисертација, Универзитет у Београду – Правни факултет, Београд, 2016.
Јевремовић – Петровић Татјана, Групе привредних друштава, Центар за издаваштво и информисање, Универзитет у Београду – Правни факултет, Београд, 2014.Ljutić B.
McCormack Gerard, Keay Andrew, Brown Sarah, European Insolvency Law: Reform and Harmonization, Edward Elgar Publishing, Chetlenham[UK], Northampton [USA], 2017.
Millon K. David, “Piercing the Corporate Veil, Financial Responsibility and the Limits of Limited Liability”, Emory Law Journal 56(5)/2007,1305-1381.
Радовић Марко, Пробијање правне личности у стечајном поступку, Центар за издаваштво и информисање, Универзитет у Београду – Правни факултет, Београд, 2018.
Радовић Вук, Стечајно право – књига прва, Центар за издаваштво и информисање, Универзитет у Београду – Правни факултет, Београд, 2018.
Радовић Вук, Стечајно право – књига друга, Центар за издаваштво и информисање, Универзитет у Београду – Правни факултет, Београд, 2018.
Радовић Вук, „О оправданости института дисквалификације директора“, Право и привреда 1-3/2010, 25-56.
Roach Murray, „Combating the Phoenix Phenomenon: An Analysis of International Approaches“, eJournal of Tax Research 8(2)/2010, 90-127.
Spariosu, Ž. Todor, Teorijska i empirijska analiza efikasnosti stečajnog procesa – doktorska disertacija, Univerzitet u Beogradu – Ekonomski fakultet, Beograd, 2016.
Васиљевић Мирко, Компанијско право – Право привредних друштава, Центар за издаваштво и информисање, Универзитет у Београду – Правни факултет, Београд, 2012.
Васиљевић Мирко, Корпоративно управљање – изабране теме, Удружење правника у привреди Републике Србије, Београд 2013
Васиљевић Мирко, Трговинско право, Удружење правника у привреди Републике Србије, Београд, 2014.
Michelle Welsh, Helen Anderson, „Director Restriction: An Alternative to Disqualification for Corporate Insovlency“, Company and Securities Law Journal 37(1)/2017