specifics of doing
The third rule for building a group of companies without signs of artificial fragmentation.
Let’s turn to business process notation again. Earlier we decided on the inputs, the activity itself, and the outputs (goals). However, in arbitration practice on artificial fragmentation of a business, there are several criteria at once for charges related to management and ownership. Rule # 3 is about management and owners.
What’s wrong here:
in order to avoid interdependence between the companies of the group, so-called proxies are introduced into the ownership structure – nominal, that is, they do not really participate in business processes, packaged in a specific legal entity. Continue reading
Opportunities for mutual funds for financing in a group of companies
All this is really applicable to mutual funds. A mutual fund, as a tool, has unique properties. However, the high cost of “maintenance” due to the need to comply with a number of mandatory procedures makes mutual funds inaccessible and inappropriate for mass use.
Having rich experience in structuring a business using bold decisions and non-standard combinations of various organizational and legal forms, we will make a small remark – the effects achieved with the help of mutual funds are purely individual. Continue reading
When you can’t do without an agency agreement
We have repeatedly talked about the pros and cons of an agency agreement (see, for example, here), pointing out the need for a deliberate approach to the use of the tool, having a strong justification for the business purpose. Indeed, as practice shows, the use of the agency model of building relationships in a group of companies is mentioned in more than 10% of all cases related to the artificial fragmentation of a business.
However, there are situations when the specifics of doing business and the industry do not leave a chance to avoid an agency agreement. Continue reading
