University of Macau / Faculty of Law

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

Texte remanié de: Thèse d'État--Droit privé--Yaoundé 2. / Bibliogr. p. 377-405. Index.

Mercantile Law / LL. M. (Corporate Law)

The concepts of editorial independence and public accountability are necessary in public broadcasting service as they help make a distinction between a public service broadcaster, a government and a commercial service broadcaster. This is because public service broadcasters are tasked with the responsibility of serving the interests of the general public. To do this, the above mentioned concepts have to be in place. This study examines these issues (editorial independence and public accountability) with reference to a case study of the editorial policies of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). Using public broadcasting theory, policy theory and qualitative research methods, the study examines the genesis of these editorial policies in 2003/2004 and how they provide the SABC with a means of balancing the tensions of editorial independence and public accountability. In analysing the SABC’s editorial policies, the study deals only with those policies whose principles are directly related to editorial independence and public accountability. Although some of these policies are found to be in line with public broadcasting service trends, others are found lacking. Various recommendations are made. The case study demonstrates the importance of an integrated and elaborated policy perspective in setting out how a public service broadcaster can manage editorial independence and public accountability. It also highlights the importance of using international ‘role models’ in ways that are appropriately adapted for the specific country concerned.

Text in Afrikaans / Daar is 'n toenemende bewuswording van die noodsaaklikheid van effektiewe beskerming vir minderhede. Die rede vir hierdie toenemende erkenning aan die behoefte aan minderheidsbeskerming is waarskynlik toe te skryf aan die beset dat dit nie alleen die minderheidsaandeelhouers is wat skade ly in geval van benadelende optrede nie, maar ook die ekonomie. Maatskappye word ingevolge die beginsel van meerderheidsbewind bestuur, met die gevolg dat die minderheid onderworpe is aan die wil van die meerderheid. Die minderheid kan hulself hierdeur in 'n onbenydenswaardige posisie bevind, veral indien die meerderheid hul mag aanwend om hul eie belange te bevorder. Gemeenregtelik is die reel in Foss v Harbottle 'n struikelblok vir minderheidsaandeelhouers wat gedingvoering beoog. In 'n poging om die gebrekkige gemeenregtelike beskerming van minderhede te ondervang, is bepaalde statutere maatreels ingevoer. Die evaluasie van hierdie maatreels geskied aan die hand van 'n regsvergelykende ondersoek na verskeie buitelandse stelsels, waarvan die van Nieu-Seeland en Kanada uit staan vanwee die innoverende aard van hul statutere beskermingsmaatreels. Die gevolgtrekking is dat die beskerming wat die Suid-Afrikaanse statutere maatreels aan minderhede bied, onbevredigend is om verskeie redes. Eerstens is hierdie maatreels dikwels te eng bewoord wat daartoe lei dat die aanwendingsveld van die maatreels beperk is. Tweedens hou die maatreels nie tred met ontwikkelings elders in die wereld en veranderende omstandighede en behoeftes in die praktyk nie. Derdens ontbreek goed geformuleerde remedies wat aanvullend tot artikel 252 van die Wet sal wees. Daar is verder bevind dat ad hocwysigings van bestaande maatreels nie die gewenste resultaat gaan bereik nie en 'n algehele hervorming van die Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappyereg word aanbeveel. Ten slotte word konkrete voorstelle in die vorm van konsepwetgewing gemaak en word vergesel van verduidelikende notas. Hierdie wetgewing is hoofsaaklik aan die hand van die Nieu-Seelandse en Kanadese modelle geformuleer. / There is a growing awareness of the need for effective protection of minority shareholders. This can probably be ascribed to the acknowledgement of the fact that prejudicial conduct harms not only minority shareholders, but also the economy at large. Companies are governed by the principle of majority rule; consequently the minority is subjected to the will of the majority. This often places the minority in an invidious position, especially when the majority use their power to further their own interests. The rule in Foss v Harbottle presents a stumbling block to minority shareholder action. Certain statutory measures have been introduced in an effort to counter defective minority protection. These statutory measures are evaluated in the light of a comparative study of several foreign jurisdictions, the most prominent of which are New Zealand and Canada, because of the innovative nature of the measures which they employ. The conclusion arrived at is that, for various reasons, the protection afforded minorities by the South African statutory measures is unsatisfactory. Firstly, the wording of these measures is narrowly construed; this in turn results in a narrow field of application. Secondly, these measures are not in step with developments elsewhere in the world and with the changing circumstances and needs in practice. Thirdly, well-formulated remedies needed in order to supplement section 252 of the Act are non-existent. It has also been found that ad hoc amendments of existing measures will not achieve the required result, and consequently a complete reform of South African company law is recommended. Finally, specific recommendations in the form of draft legislation are made; these are accompanied by explanatory notes. This draft legislation was formulated primarily along the lines of the New Zealand and Canadian models. / Private Law / LL.D.

Article 231 of the Peruvian Corporations Act states that, if shareholders that have at least 20% of the voting shares of a company request a distribution of a determined amount of utilities from the previous period, if there are distributable utilities, the company is obligated to distribute them.The author of the present article analyses the convenience of this disposition, from the point of view of the actors involved and taking into account the experience in other countries regarding regulation about the mandatory dividend.Furthermore, the author explains the practical application of article 231, and he inquires and questions the interpretation that has to be given as to allow the disposition to fulfill its objectives. / El artículo 231 de la Ley General de Sociedades señala que, si los accionistas que ostentan el 20% de las acciones con derecho a voto solicitan una distribución de determinado monto de las utilidades, siempre que haya utilidades distribuibles, la sociedad está obligada a repartir las mismas. El autor del presente artículo analiza la conveniencia de la mencionada norma, desde el punto de vista de los actores involucrados y teniendo en cuenta la regulación sobre el dividendo mínimo en otros países. Asimismo, el autor explica la aplicación del artículo en la práctica, y se pregunta y cuestiona sobre el sentido que se le debe dar para que no se desvirtúe su finalidad.

LL.M. (Commercial Law) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

In his 2012 Budget Review, the Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan acknowledged that the introduction of the "new" Companies Act had given rise to certain anomalies in relation to tax and subsequently announced that the South African government would undertake to review the nature of company mergers, acquisitions and other restructurings with the view of possibly amending the Income Tax Act and/or the "new" Companies Act, to bring the two legislations in line with one another. These anomalies give rise to the present research. The literature reviewed in the present research revealed and identified the inconsistencies that exist between the "new" Companies Act, 71 of 2008 and the Income Tax Act, 58 of 1962, specifically the inconsistencies that exist in respect of the newly introduced amalgamation or merger provisions as set out in the "new" Companies Act. Moreover, this research was undertaken to identify the potential tax implications insofar as they relate to amalgamation transactions and, in particular, the potential tax implications where such transactions, because of the anomalies, fall outside the ambit section 44 of the Income Tax Act, which would in normal circumstances provide for tax "rollover relief". In this regard, the present research identified the possible income tax, capital gains tax, value-added tax, transfer duty tax and securities transfer tax affected by an amalgamation transaction, on the assumption that the "rollover relief" in section 44 of the Income Tax Act does not apply.

The capital maintenance doctrine presupposes that a company’s capital must not be returned to its shareholders. The doctrine was anchored on three rules, one of which was that a company cannot acquire its own shares as this amounted to a diversion of capital to the shareholders whose shares were acquired. This rule was partly rationalized as protecting the interests of shareholders. In South Africa the rule was embodied in s 85 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. However, it was amended by s 9 of the subsequent Companies Amendment Act 37 of 1999 to provide that a company can acquire its own shares if certain substantive and procedural requirements were satisfied. Upon the enactment of Companies Act 71 of 2008, the requirements have not been substantially altered. They are partly geared towards protecting shareholders by ensuring that shareholders are treated equally and fairly. Moreover, the Johannesburg Securities Exchange Limited (hence the JSE Limited) was empowered by the Companies Act 61 of 1973 to promulgate requirements to be met when a company wishes to acquire its own shares. The Companies Act 71 of 2008 does not in express terms empower the JSE Limited to develop requirements to be met when a company wishes to acquire its own shares. However, the Act expressly requires that a listed company wishing to acquire its own shares must also comply with the requirements of the relevant exchange. Such requirements can therefore be deemed to subsist even amidst the new Act as an internal regulation of the JSE Limited. The said requirements are also partly aimed at protecting shareholders, largely by ensuring that adequate information is availed to shareholders to empower them to make informed decisions. / Private Law / LL. M. (Company Law)