limited partnership
Recently Published Documents

Globally the developed countries economies exist in conditions of ever-increasing competition. In recent decades, the states whose economy is based on modern technologies, the introduction of innovations and the creation of a favorable environment for their emergence has gained some advantage. Venture investment is an important component of the innovation economy, without which it is difficult to imagine the rapid development of new technologies. Under these conditions, the task of the legal systems of developed countries has become to create a legal framework for venture investment: convenient, transparent and understandable for national and international investors.In Russia, an important stage in the creation of a legal infrastructure for investment was the adoption of the Federal Law “On Investment Partnership” in 2011, designed to provide the investment community with contractual organizational and legal forms of collective investment activity, taking into account the specifics of the implementation of venture (especially risky) business projects. The Russian investment partnership is a direct analogue of the American limited partnership (limited partnership).The paper considers the main advantages of an investment partnership over other forms of collective investment activity, as well as analyzes some aspects of the regulation of investment partnerships in Russia and limited partnerships in the United States. The author concludes that an investment partnership is the optimal form of collective investment activity provided for by Russian legislation. There is no doubt that the general proximity of the construction of an investment partnership and a limited partnership, common in the United States (and other common law countries), makes an investment partnership the most attractive form of attracting foreign investment to the Russian market.

Due to the lack of regulations in the hedge fund industry and the great discretion given to hedge fund managers during the daily operations, limited partnership agreements are the most important if not the only tool for investors to incentivize and monitor hedge fund managers and protect their own interests. This chapter reviews the current literature on hedge funds contractual terms and their implications for fund performance and risk taking, before discussing the variation of the contracts conditional on the jurisdiction of the hedge fund. Finally, the development of hedge funds limited partnership agreements is investigated as many jurisdictions have imposed new regulations on hedge funds after the 2008 financial crisis.

This introduction reviews recent research on hedge funds. The Handbook of Hedge Funds comprises 21 chapters from authors around the world. The chapters describe hedge fund industry governance, flows, limited partnership contracts, compensation, fund strategies, performance, activism, effects on investee firms, misconduct, misreporting, fraud, and financial regulation. Further, the chapters highlight differences with other types of intermediaries, such as private equity funds and mutual funds. The chapters feature both US and international analyses. This introductory chapter summarizes papers that appear in the handbook, provide a theoretical framework for research on hedge funds, and highlight research trends on topic.

I review the research on master limited partnerships (“MLPs”) in the accounting, economics, and finance literature. I begin by outlining the scope of the review and providing a brief background on the structure, taxation, and governance of master limited partnerships. Next, I describe the various sources from which MLP data is derived. I then review the research, aggregating it into four broad categories: (1) taxes and organizational form; (2) taxes, capital structure, and payout policy; (3) valuation; and (4) governance research. Within each section, I present possible avenues for future research in accounting, economics, and finance.

<p><em>Farmer group cooperation is one of the condition to achievement of agricultultural development in an area. Farmer group cooperation can be a combination of farmer groups. This research uses a qualitative basic method with the inductive data analysis method of interactive records. The research site was conducted by Dalangan village, Tawangsari District, Sukoharjo Regency. The determination of informant is done purposive sampling. The number of informant in this study is 10 informant. Data validity is obtained using data triangulation. The results of the research came to the conclusion that the farmer group's perception of agricultural extension role in the development of the farmer group combined in Sukoharjo district has been optimal, it is demonstrated by the presence of extension in the first and Various training, mentoring and providing information submitted by the extension is already implemented by members of the farmer group. The obstacles in the development of the gapoktan village of Dalangan are two kinds of internal and external, barriers that are internal in the time of routine meeting Gapoktan schedule often the bustle of each caretaker and members of gapoktan, Financial administration in its details. The external obstacles faced are in the limited partnership of gapoktan with outside parties or agribusiness actors. Impact of agricultural extension role in the development of gapoktan namely gapoktan Village Dalangan experienced increased development with the involvement of agricultural extension from the beginning of the formation to the developing stage at the moment.</em></p>

Family-run enterprises are business organisations in which the reins of control are concentrated in the hands of a single family or an individual who for the enterprise aims to continue operation through successive generations of the family. In Serbia, family-run companies usually begin as an individual entrepreneurship, a form of closed company (general and limited partnership) or relatively closed company (limited liability company). The legal difficulties that arise following the death of an individual entrepreneur (natural person) differ from those following the death of a member in a company (legal entity). Companies are imbued with rights and responsibilities separate from the personal rights and responsibilities of their members. Members of a company, including the head, are not considered owners of the company’s property in legal terms. Instead, they have shares in the company, and those shares entitle them to membership (management and proprietary) rights. Thus, when a member dies, the company’s property, in whole or in part, is not subject to inheritance (although that deceased member’s share is). This differs from the situation following an individual entrepreneur’s death. The law does not recognise a natural person conducting business as an individual entrepreneur as having two legal personalities (personal and business); everything is treated as personal. Therefore, all the assets and debts of a deceased individual entrepreneur are subject to inheritance, regardless of whether or not they were accrued in the course of business. The succession of a share following a member’s death is regulated separately for each company form, and all issues not governed by the Companies Act or a company’s incorporation document are subject to the rules of Serbia’s Law of Inheritance. Inheritance rules differ greatly for a share in a personal company (general or limited partnership) and a share in a capital company (limited liability or joint-stock company). In principle, whether or not a deceased member’s rights and responsibilities can be passed through inheritance depends on the company’s form, its incorporation document, and the relevance of the heirs’ connection to the deceased and the company. The less complicated these are, the fewer the legal obstacles to inheritance.

Based on Article 23 of the KUHD, registration of the deed of establishment of Limited Partnership (CV) is carried out at the secretariat of the district court where the CV is established. However, since the enactment of the Regulation of Ministry of Law and Human Rights (Permenkumham) No.17/2018, registration of the deed of establishment Limited has been carried out through SABU which is under the auspices of the Directorate General of General Legal Administration, Ministry of Law and Human Rights. The position of Permenkumham No.17/2018 in the hierarchy of legislation in Indonesia is under the KUHD, so the purpose of this study was to determine the legality of the registration deed of CV from the district court to the ministry of law and human rights. This research uses normative research, with a statutory approach method and the level of legal synchronization, with qualitative analysis. Based on Article I of the Transitional Rules of the 1945 Constitution, the position of the KUHD is still a law, this is emphasized in Article 7 Paragraph (1) of Law No.12 of 2011. So that based on the principle of lex superior derogat legi inferior, then the authorities to carry out and receive registration deed of incorporation CV is the clerk of the district court where CV is located

A limited partnership or CV is a non-legal entity that is widely used in running a company which can be declared bankrupt. This paper aims to investigate further regarding the consequences of the end of bankruptcy on the existence of CV as a non-legal entity company where there is no separation of assets between CV and its partners. The research method used is juridical normative, using secondary data consisting of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials, analyzed descriptively analytically. The results of the study reveal that in CV bankruptcy, CV, complementary and limited partners, as for the bankruptcy board, are CV's assets, allies 'original assets and allies' original assets if bound in marriage without a marriage agreement, and joint assets. CV can operate again if the bankruptcy ends in peace or insolvency followed by a grant of rehabilitation. It is based on the current procedure that bankruptcy against the debtor can end because of peace or insolvency which further entitles the debtor to rehabilitation through a process that does not regulate how long the process is and the requirements for a bankruptcy declaration can result in a solvent company being declared bankrupt resulting in general confiscation of the debtor's and debtor's assets no longer operational, it is very detrimental to the debtor. On the other hand, the existence of general confiscation of the debtor's assets which becomes a guarantee for the repayment of the creditors' receivables requires certainty about who can be requested to be declared bankrupt.