Bibliographic citations
Chavesta, A., (2024). La flexibilización de la prohibición de la asistencia financiera: Un análisis del artículo 106 de la Ley General de Sociedades [Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12423/7351
Chavesta, A., La flexibilización de la prohibición de la asistencia financiera: Un análisis del artículo 106 de la Ley General de Sociedades []. PE: Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12423/7351
@misc{renati/583817,
title = "La flexibilización de la prohibición de la asistencia financiera: Un análisis del artículo 106 de la Ley General de Sociedades",
author = "Chavesta Cornejo, Ausby Stewart",
publisher = "Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo",
year = "2024"
}
Today, Peru is a country highly influenced by international nations, thereby generating adaptation needs primarily in corporate law. However, in light of the present situation, obstacles persist regarding prohibitive regulations that, in one way or another, hinder operations that have been able to be streamlined in other countries. One of the regulations that gives rise to this research study is the so-called prohibited financial assistance, regulated in Article 106 of the General Law of Companies, a provision that throughout its history has been unreasonably restricted. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the legal foundations that allow for the flexibility of the provisions on financial assistance contained in Article 106 of the General Companies Law, in relation to Leveraged Buyouts. To achieve the results of our research, two objectives were outlined: to analyze the national legal framework of financial assistance regulated in Article 106 of the General Law of Companies and its treatment in comparative law, and to examine the legal foundations related to financial assistance, in relation to Leveraged Buyouts. In relation to the first point, it is highly likely that its presence lacks justification, as it is geared towards unnecessary purposes or, if it addresses legitimate needs, it does so in a somewhat illogical manner. Regarding the second point, we have absolute certainty that the current regulation is regrettably restrictive, limiting numerous structures for share acquisition more than what a wide range of scholars in the field and legal practitioners would wish to acknowledge.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License