Top Best car title loans in fayetteville nc – Last Modified November 2020 – YelpOn December 9, 2020 by irreversibleness0
2 of the Capital Companies Law.
These conclusions, as well as the doctrine maintained in previous Resolutions of this Board of Directors, are sufficient to resolve the issues discussed in this appeal.
In the first place, regarding the compatibility of the statutory clause object of negative qualification and the rule of article 246.2 of the Capital Companies Law, it should be recalled that this General Directorate, with reference to the necessary specification of the content of the corporate bylaws, has declared that it is not necessary to reproduce identical rules to the legal ones when the reference to the content of the Law is stated, given the application, sometimes imperative and other times supplementary, which have the rules contained in it (cf., for all , the Resolutions of January 24, 1986, December 9, 1993 and July 7, 2011), although these necessary mentions, as well as those others that the partners include in the statutes optionally, must be subject to the contractual consent expressed in the granting of the deed of incorporation, the founding partners not being exonerated from the obligation to include those statutory mentions in the title – it is necessary Some are necessary and, where appropriate, others are optional, since such statutes do not have the character of a legal norm to which the partners may refer or that comes into play additionally.
Focusing the question in this way, it must be concluded that the statutory clause discussed, insofar as it does not contain any exceptions, directly contradicts the legal standard of minimum legitimacy of certain administrators to convene the board of directors, since it is not possible to accept an interpretation as broad as the appellant, in the sense that this legitimation must be understood as included in the statutory reference to the call by “whoever acts as” the chairman of the board, since, as stated in the Resolutions of this Board of Directors of December 15, 1995 and April 6, 1999, that term must be limited to the case that the president, whose times another member of the board is to act in a subsidiary manner, is effectively prevented from exercising the functions of the position.
For this reason, given the requirement of clarity and precision of the title and of the registry entries, the inscription of the disputed clause cannot be accessed, which lacks, precisely, the important exception of what is established in article 246.2 of the Law of Capital Companies.