Finally the restrictive and protective legal regime already defined by articles l

The violence of the impact of the crisis should now compel the stock public to watch the réalité duty communication such that their notoriety is forgetting the existence of non-listed companies important, often of family essence, which remain uncomfortable, or low skilled, to share the problems that it may meet with their own shareholders. These difficulties relate to the lack of fluidity in the circulation of shares between shareholders, a temporary imbalance between supply and demand for shares, to the will of some minority to liquidate their actions to do with a need for cash and unable to enter the capital a new industrial partner or financial, or officers or employees without power find a deposit of titles available. The Act of 2 July 1998 was open to companies listed on a regulated market the way to solve this type of problems in carrying out, under certain conditions, limits and conditions for the redemption of their own actions. The recent modernisation of the economy law allowed companies admitted on the Alternext market to redeem their shares for the purpose to promote liquidity in their securities.

Why not go to the end of this approach by extending the important non-listed companies the benefit of a legal regime and tax analogue by allowing to buy back their own shares for the purposes strictly and restrictively defined Thus, they could proceed with the purchase of a minority block belonging to a shareholder wishing to out of the capital, to reduce the latter without having to follow the long procedures provided by the Code of trade to this effect, either to finance operations of external growth by delivery of the repurchased shares in payment without new dilution. Such repurchases may also be used to offset a marginal, momentary and transient imbalance between supply and application for shares in companies that would take the commitment to hold a regular, structured and transparent buyers and sellers interests confrontation between shareholders same shares at a predetermined price.

Surely, a partner company, publicly traded or not, is not a variable capital investment company or a company to market. Acting non-listed companies, such a device of redemption cannot be reserved only for large corporations by their size or the number of shareholders. It cannot be that an incidental character and must be legally framed according to the requirements of the European directives on respect the equality of treatment between shareholders and not to compromise the satisfaction of the creditors. Redemption should be made subject to an assessment of an independent expert recognized as such in the light of accounting and financial information homogeneous and coherent. The principle and modalities of redemptions should have been decided according to a transparent procedure by the General Assembly of the shareholders who should be made account transactions and the use of the shares redeemed within a predefined time. The number of actions that can be redeemed should remain limited to a small fraction of the capital, as well as the shares owned by the company could never exceed the 10 threshold. Finally, the restrictive and protective legal regime already defined by articles l. 225 - 210 to l. 225 - 217 of the Code of trade would be applicable ensure, inter alia, that the own funds of the Corporation cannot be altered.

Strictly framed in precise legal rules, guaranteed by the intervention of third-party independent, subject to the control of the shareholders themselves and, finally, to civil and criminal courts that challenges or potential offences would be brought, this device is likely to make the most significant services to companies who would be entitled to use. The fact that he has "checks and balances" appropriate should lead Parliament to overcome the absurd bias, but unfortunately so insidiously spread, that which is not listed is opaque and opaque is suspect.