This is how the question of how much is the 50% of the shareholding

[mahbubamim077]

Therefore, what is considered to be the liquidation of the company is, for the sake of precision, the liquidation of the share(s) in order to dissolve the company in relation to... a partner? No! The legislator thought about the withdrawal of the company and simply forgot about article 1,027, in a childish mistake: if 50% is intended for distribution in inventory, divorce or dissolution of cohabitation, the company will not be dissolved in relation to the partner, but in relation to a fraction of his participation. He may continue as a partner, although with a smaller participation.

There are lawyers who argue that such a solution would violate bulk sms argentina the theory of the legal entity as an autonomous entity with its own assets. After all, the limited liability company's assets would be liquidated and used to meet the needs of the ex-spouse, ex-partner or his/her heir(s). This argument does not hold water due to the dual nature of companies: they are people, but they are economic assets: assets that can be converted into cash, either by transfer or liquidation.

One only has to look at the staggering volume of daily trading of shares on the stock exchanges, not to mention the significant amounts with which companies, even limited liability companies, are incorporated by others, not to mention the pure and simple transfer of shares. The discussion, therefore, does not go beyond the legal entity, but rather below it. Share(s) is/are legal asset(s). And it does not matter in whose name such asset is; if there is communion, it must make up the pie that will be shared. This is already settled in relation to companies with two or more partners and there is no reason for it to be an exception when there is only one partner: the legal nature of the shareholding is the same, regardless of how many partners there are.