Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Danish term or phrase:
lovlig skønt ikke vedtægtsmæssigt indvarslet
English translation:
lawfully called/ duly convened, albeit not in accordance with the Articles of Association (or Partnership)
Danish term
lovlig skønt ikke vedtægtsmæssigt indvarslet
It is from a document describing changes made to a company's articles of association at an extraordinary general meeting:
Til dirigent valgtes XXX der konstaterede, at alle kapitalandele var repræsenteret.
Generalforsamlingen vedtog enstemmigt og med samtlige stemmer, at den var lovlig skønt ikke vedtægtsmæssigt indvarslet.
Feb 17, 2020 08:07: Adrian MM. Created KOG entry
Feb 17, 2020 08:07: Adrian MM. changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/2688125">Adrian MM.'s</a> old entry - "lovlig skønt ikke vedtægtsmæssigt indvarslet"" to ""lawfully called/ duly convened, albeit not in accordance with the Articles of Association or Partnership)""
Non-PRO (1): Christopher Schröder
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
lawfully called, albeit not in accordance with the Articles of Association (vs. of Partnership)
Longer version: lovlig .... indvarslet; lawful vs. legal notice had been given of..
Note that - as in so many languages - selskab can also mean a partnership or (Bailey: society) that, in UK & Irish law, has Partnership Articles or a Partnership Deed.
Query: whether, in US Am. a corporation's or constitution is Articles of Incorporation a.k.a. of Association (Black's Handbook of US-Am. Business Law Terms), a Charter or Bylaws.
legal although not legally notified
it was legally effected even though not by the legally prescribed procedure
it [(the amendment)] was legally adopted even though not by the prescribed procedure
Problem 2: If "lovliv indsvarslet" refers to the special quorum requirement, then a more accurate translation would be:
it [(the quorum for adopting the amendment)] was [(deemed to be)] legally satisfied even though not according to the prescribed criteria.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2020-02-03 16:07:03 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Upon reflection, but still depending on context, vedtægtsmæssigt might better be translated "according to the Articles of Association".
Thus my 3 suggested translations might better alternatively be as follows:
-- it was legally effected even though not by the prescribed procedure according to the Articles of Association;
and
-- it [(the amendment)] was legally adopted even though not by the prescribed procedure according to the Articles of Association;
and
-- it [(the quorum for adopting the amendment)] was [(deemed to be)] legally satisfied even though not according to the prescribed criteria according to the Articles of Association.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2020-02-03 16:10:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Alternative (among possible similar alternatives) to "was [(deemed to be)]":
"was [(ruled to be)]".
Something went wrong...