Change wished
The law and practices concerning Limited Liability Companies differ amongst countries. In Finland, the legislation requires the existence of one deputy member, if there is only one member (mandatory if less than three members) in the board of directors. Could the before mentioned requirement concerning the existence of deputy board member be replaced by other means (e.g. by requiring written documentation on issues relating to the company operations or ownership and by other types of arrangements to ensure that any necessary actions will take place despite or in case of sudden changes)? The existing operating environment highlights the role of private money and especially private investments as a source of growth. It seems quite obvious that restricting the ways to acquire funding can increase the risk of losing viable business potential. In addition, it is much more difficult to engage others in business or identify the attractiveness of one's business, in case there is no possibility to provide shares. Other related issues to contemplate may include the following: 1. Involving others in the business only because law requires: managing issues alone would probably lead to better result than engaging somebody not familiar with or not interested in the business. 2. It is not always entirely indifferent whose name appears in the company data: the impact of board member's private credentials to business and vice versa. 3. Some other legislation and practices in Finland pay regard to entrepreneurial status: one can find cases in which the opportunities provided by law or related processes differ if one is considered an entrepreneur or not. These matters can, in some situations, concern also family members, not only the entrepreneur him- or herself. 4. Considerations concerning the responsibility of deputy members of the board in certain circumstances. 4. tammikuuta 2016, 21:24 Johanna Sandman
© Johanna Sandman 2013-2023
Change wished
The law and practices concerning Limited Liability Companies differ amongst countries. In Finland, the legislation requires the existence of one deputy member, if there is only one member (mandatory if less than three members) in the board of directors. Could the before mentioned requirement concerning the existence of deputy board member be replaced by other means (e.g. by requiring written documentation on issues relating to the company operations or ownership and by other types of arrangements to ensure that any necessary actions will take place despite or in case of sudden changes)? The existing operating environment highlights the role of private money and especially private investments as a source of growth. It seems quite obvious that restricting the ways to acquire funding can increase the risk of losing viable business potential. In addition, it is much more difficult to engage others in business or identify the attractiveness of one's business, in case there is no possibility to provide shares. Other related issues to contemplate may include the following: 1. Involving others in the business only because law requires: managing issues alone would probably lead to better result than engaging somebody not familiar with or not interested in the business. 2. It is not always entirely indifferent whose name appears in the company data: the impact of board member's private credentials to business and vice versa. 3. Some other legislation and practices in Finland pay regard to entrepreneurial status: one can find cases in which the opportunities provided by law or related processes differ if one is considered an entrepreneur or not. These matters can, in some situations, concern also family members, not only the entrepreneur him- or herself. 4. Considerations concerning the responsibility of deputy members of the board in certain circumstances. 4. tammikuuta 2016, 21:24 Johanna Sandman
