The existence of options recommends that comparative studies

[mahbubamim077]

The author then transcribes the concepts of the economist BRESCIANI-TURRONI (“I mercati finanziari”), expanding on considerations about the drawbacks of the mandatory nominative nature of shares in public limited companies. 36

In France, after several acts of approximation to the mandatory nominative system, the law of February 28, 1941 returned, but only for new shares of companies incorporated or that increased their capital after bulk sms ukraine that date. The law of June 28 of the same year also established the “CCDVT” (Caisse Controle de Depôts et de Virements de Titres) , “to which all bearer shares had to be collected, unless their holder converted them to nominative form”. However, this system was abolished by the laws of July 5 (art. 26) and August 4, 1949, which, in its art. 2, stated:

“Shares issued by French companies may revert to registered or bearer form. However, the exclusively registered form may be imposed by law or by the articles of association”. 37

The situation in other countries
20. And, while in England and the United States there is no mandatory nominativeness as the system's proponents claim, in France and Italy – when the system was introduced – bearer shares were allowed again, and in Brazil, attempts in this direction were unsuccessful, but they maintain them in their legislation: Switzerland (Code of Obligations, art. 622), the Netherlands (Commercial Code, art. 41), Germany and Austria (law of 30-1-1937, § 10), Belgium (laws of 30-11-1935 and 23-7-1927, art. 44), Spain (Commercial Code, art. 161), Portugal (Commercial Code, article 166, § 2°), Argentina (Commercial Code, art. 326), Uruguay (Commercial Code, art. 412), Japan (Commercial Code, revised in 1951, art. 227). In our country, in fact, laws 38 and previous projects have always prescribed the freedom to issue bearer shares . 39