This paper examines capital increase by credit compensation in stock corporations, regulatedby article 202 LGS, in terms of one of the most controversial issues that Spanishdoctrine has raised: its legal status. This issue brings significant legal consequences inour system. This paper has a brief introduction about the functionality and the structureof the operation, a preliminary issue about what we actually look for when we ask forthe legal status of a phenomenon, an analysis of the theories proposed to determinethis in credit compensation and, finally, an opinion about it.

From a dogmatic perspective, the public limited company is viewed as an intuitu pecuniaecorporate. Although this view is taken until today for most of the Peruvian doctrineand jurisprudence, a review of our corporate law allow us to discard that characterfrom this corporate type. This has major implications for the admissibility of certainconditions in statutes, not expressly provided in Peruvian law, insofar as that theyare not incompatible with its legal status. This paper defends the non-essentiality ofintuitu pecuniae characteristic of public limited companies, by treating about essentialelements of corporate forms in Peruvian law.

This paper analyzes the current debtor default regime contained in the Peruvian Civil Code, in order to determine whether, despite the many voices against it, its applicable and appropriate for negative obligations. Based on a brief review of the debtor default regime and the nature of negative obligations, the authors scrutinize from a phenomenological and functional approach the opposing opinions to make these institutions compatible. Furthermore, based on an examination of the current status of the Peruvian Civil Code the authors argue that the application of the debtor default regime to negative obligations is not only possible but appropriate through an analog application of the current regime. Finally, they examine the regime proposed by the 2020 Draft Reform of the Peruvian Civil Code on the subject.

This paper analyzes the current debtor default regime contained in the Peruvian Civil Code, in order to determine whether, despite the many voices against it, its applicable and appropriate for negative obligations. Based on a brief review of the debtor default regime and the nature of negative obligations, the authors scrutinize from a phenomenological and functional approach the opposing opinions to make these institutions compatible. Furthermore, based on an examination of the current status of the Peruvian Civil Code the authors argue that the application of the debtor default regime to negative obligations is not only possible but appropriate through an analog application of the current regime. Finally, they examine the regime proposed by the 2020 Draft Reform of the Peruvian Civil Code on the subject.

This paper analyzes the current debtor default regime contained in the Peruvian Civil Code, in order to determine whether, despite the many voices against it, its applicable and appropriate for negative obligations. Based on a brief review of the debtor default regime and the nature of negative obligations, the authors scrutinize from a phenomenological and functional approach the opposing opinions to make these institutions compatible. Furthermore, based on an examination of the current status of the Peruvian Civil Code the authors argue that the application of the debtor default regime to negative obligations is not only possible but appropriate through an analog application of the current regime. Finally, they examine the regime proposed by the 2020 Draft Reform of the Peruvian Civil Code on the subject.