Concept and legal prohibition In the last years have been very frequent in denominated Spain " transactions apalancadas" , also known in the mercantile traffic like " leveraged buy-outs" (LBO). These operations are characterized for being acquisitions of a majority percentage in the share capital of an objective society (target company), financing such acquisition by means of obtained loans of a third party that are guaranteed with the assets of the own objective society or the patrimonial resources and waited for flows of box of the same collect at the expense of. Which even can happen that the price of the acquisition is paid aplazadamente to the salesmen by own target company, is fused after its acquisition – and of previous form to the payment of the price with a society vehicle formed by the investor (traditionally a risk capital bottom) to the single effects to buy the actions or participation at issue. That is to say, the LBO have like result that the buyer transfers on the patrimony of the own objective society or target company the cost of its acquisition. In this way, the operations of LBO would contravene the prohibition of financial attendance for the acquisition of action/own participation established in articles 81 of the Law of Joint-stock companies and 40 of the Law of Limited liability companies.
By means of this prohibition, the legislator tries to preserve the integrity of the share capital, preventing that this one, instead of to nourish itself of the external contributions of the partners, finances at the expense of the patrimony of the own society. The prohibition also persecutes to protect the interests of the deserving third parties, that can see harmed their legitimate rights of collection on the occasion of the high indebtedness that the operations of financial attendance can entail for the society. On the other hand, it is tried to protect to the minority partners in front of majority and the administrators. .
It is expected that this week Rafael Benitez will sign a new long term agreement with Liverpool. So believes Mirror. American club owners agreed to give the head coach of Liverpool full control over transfer policy. Co-owner Tom Hicks of the club arrived at Anfield last night to inform Benitez. In addition the club owners are willing to agree to the sale of Robbie Keane, who actually dropped from the team. Rafael Benitez month ago refused to renew his contract because of disagreements with CEO Rick Perry of the club, who declined to allocate 18 million pounds to buy from Aston Villa's Gareth Barry. Instead, a bought Robbie Keane for 20 million. Now Benitez will be able to determine the subject and value of transfers in the club's budget.
Continuing the theme of Liverpool, The Guardian columnist Rohl Wilson offers readers to ponder over the position of head coach of the club and quotes from an interview with Benitez: W: Robbie gets a request for a Sunday game? B: I do not know, we will have another workout. To decide to wait for its completion. G: If it does not hurt, can he get to claim? B: I can not guarantee it. I do not identify with the composition until the last moment. M: But many people find strange the fact that you spent 20m on striker, then he can not get out of the 18 players.
B: This club has spent his 20 million pounds. And then the price does not matter. If you think only about the price of players, you never could stand a good team. M: You said that this club has spent on Robbie 20 million pounds, but if you managed the transfer budget, you would have bought it for that amount? B: At the moment I'm concentrating only on the upcoming game with Chelsea.
It is unclear what caused this imbalance. More difficult to explain why, for example, skiing has been taken in 2362 test, and in the ski – just 92. Downhill skiing is not as popular, very widely represented in the Olympic Games, and the specifics of skiing involves the effectiveness of banned substances psycho-stimulant and anabolic plan. In our opinion, WADA in vain so much attention to competition testing, resorting to the pressure on athletes, going beyond the legal field.
According to anti-doping laboratories vnesorevnovatelny control reveals the use of prohibited substances and methods only 0.72% of cases, ie signs of doping are found in one out of 138 surveyed athletes. Given the uncertainty analysis, possible conflicts and trials, such activity could be, if not ignored, then surely do not put it in a number of critical sections, as is done in the Code. If, however, analyze the effectiveness of competition testing in terms of economy and determine how much it costs the IOC and governments that practice, then issues arise even more. Therefore, WADA should be in its early efforts to extend basic processing standards, objectification List prohibited substances and methods, and then deploy a large-scale work on the testing of athletes. Unfortunately, WADA has gone on exactly the opposite way – a dramatic expansion of testing and tougher sanctions on non- Deprived of their deficiencies and flawed standards of business organization. The one-sidedness of the anti-doping system strongly support the results of the survey of 100 high-class sportsmen – members of national teams Eastern European countries, we conducted in 2003, more than 75% of the athletes (and in some species, such as weightlifting – 100%) are convinced that without the use of doping is impossible to achieve victory in World Championships and Olympic games.