discussed at great length, especially as overlapping powers seemed to have been conferred in article 100. The discussion was exacerbated by the fact that two different directorates general n charge of the implementation of each of the said articles. The discussion seems to have subsided mainly after the merger of the directorates According to one school, the Community had only limited powers to engage in co- ordinating company law, the remainder being left to action under article 100. Action under article 54 3)(g)would only be possible where existing regulations or practices would hamper companies to establish themselves in other states, provided also that the Community's intervention would lead to granting equivalent safeguards for the interests of members of these companies, and other parties affected The other tendency considered that all aspects of company law could come under the harmonisation powers the purpose was to ensure that companies could function in all states under equivalent conditions and that they would offer equivalent safeguards to shareholders, creditors, and Article 100 has never been invoked in company law directives, which were all based on art 54( 3(g). In the securities fields one can encounter various situations: art 100 A constitutes an often-invoked legal basis, along with art. 543 (g). But other articles have also been invoked:art 57(2)for the Ucits directive, art. 54(2)for the directive on mutual recognition of listing particulars, and so on Today, forty years later, very much of this debate has been superseded, also because under the broad harmonisation powers granted under article 100 A, all company law directives could be dopted with a qualified majority. Harmonisation would therefore be considered an instrument for the realisation of the general objectives of the treaty, more specifically the establishment of an internal market (art. 3, c and h). That means that all measures that can contribute to facilitating companies to establish themselves, but also to facilitate trade in the markets of other member states could be considered as coming under the harmonisation provisions. Even directives that would essentially affect domestic company life, might be warranted as useful in protecting creditors-eg in the case of the directive on the single member company -or facilitating later cross border ansactions-eg the third and sixth directives as a step-up for a later cross border merger directive 3. The issue of recognition of companies originating from other member states deserves some further development. On the basis of art. 220 of the treaty, the original six members states had reached an agreement in 1968 on the mutual recognition of companies and legal persons. This treaty which has been ratified by five out of the then six member states has never entered into force: the Netherlands refused to ratify largely because in the meantime it had changed its legislation from the seat theory to the incorporation technique. anyhow, the treaty built further on the already widely analysis: BUXBAUM, R.M. and HOPT, K., Legal harmonization and the Business Enterprise, de gruyter, l988.at204e.s. See for details, EDWARDS, V, EC Company law, at 5; referring to STEIN, E. Harmonization of Europ (1971) The terminology was rather confusing: AS LUTTER, nt. 1, p. 8 remarked, the use of the German word Angleichung", although equally opaque, sufficed to obtain the approval of the German legal writers to start working on the actual co-ordination or approximation Possibly referring to stakeholder e Financial Law institute. Universiteit Gent 2001© Financial Law Institute, Universiteit Gent, 2001 3 discussed at great length, especially as overlapping powers seemed to have been conferred in article 100. The discussion was exacerbated by the fact that two different directorates general were in charge of the implementation of each of the said articles. The discussion seems to have subsided mainly after the merger of the directorates4 According to one school, the Community had only limited powers to engage in co￾ordinating5 company law, the remainder being left to action under article 100. Action under article 54 (3) (g) would only be possible where existing regulations or practices would hamper companies to establish themselves in other states, provided also that the Community’s intervention would lead to granting equivalent safeguards for the interests of members of these companies, and other parties affected. The other tendency considered that all aspects of company law could come under the harmonisation powers: the purpose was to ensure that companies could function in all states under equivalent conditions and that they would offer equivalent safeguards to shareholders, creditors, and other parties alike6 . Article 100 has never been invoked in company law directives, which were all based on art. 54 (3) (g). In the securities fields one can encounter various situations: art 100 A constitutes an often-invoked legal basis, along with art. 54(3)(g). But other articles have also been invoked: art. 57(2) for the Ucits directive, art. 54(2) for the directive on mutual recognition of listing particulars, and so on. Today, forty years later, very much of this debate has been superseded, also because under the broad harmonisation powers granted under article 100 A, all company law directives could be adopted with a qualified majority. Harmonisation would therefore be considered an instrument for the realisation of the general objectives of the treaty, more specifically the establishment of an internal market (art. 3, c and h). That means that all measures that can contribute to facilitating companies to establish themselves, but also to facilitate trade in the markets of other member states could be considered as coming under the harmonisation provisions. Even directives that would essentially affect domestic company life, might be warranted as useful in protecting creditors - e.g. in the case of the directive on the single member company - or facilitating later cross border transactions - e.g. the third and sixth directives as a step-up for a later cross border merger directive. 3. The issue of recognition of companies originating from other member states deserves some further development. On the basis of art. 220 of the treaty, the original six members states had reached an agreement in 1968 on the mutual recognition of companies and legal persons. This treaty which has been ratified by five out of the then six member states has never entered into force: the Netherlands refused to ratify largely because in the meantime it had changed its legislation from the seat theory to the incorporation technique. Anyhow, the treaty built further on the already widely analysis: BUXBAUM, R.M. and HOPT, K.J., Legal harmonization and the Business Enterprise, de Gruyter, 1988, at 204 e.s.. 4 See for details, EDWARDS, V., EC Company law, at 5; referring to STEIN, E. Harmonization of European company law, (1971). 5 The terminology was rather confusing: As LUTTER, nt. 1, p. 8 remarked, the use of the German word “Angleichung”, although equally opaque, sufficed to obtain the approval of the German legal writers to start working on the actual co-ordination or approximation 6 Possibly referring to stakeholders