Thanks for bringing this analysis up Lie!
I wonder what the difference between Mark’s solution and Triodos’ blocked account is. The latter employ this by default as a security package in their co-housing offering, to ensure that amounts deposited are not being misused and the way I understand it is that this is not a choice but we are mandated to use blocked accounts. As such I am not sure we need to reference it any further in our statutes or accord préalable but no issue if we actually do in which case I would say the best way is to evolve our accord préalable which we’ll update a few more times in any case. 100 k per cash call seems problematic to me as the very last cash call will be likely overpaying what we are due and would result in unnecessary cash transfers.
Injecting cash following our current statutes follows below logic :
-the management board makes a cash call, given their powers in paragraph 6.11.
-the board are the only members of the SoSim that can access the blocked accounts.
-Associates comply as laid out in 7.1., else they can get excluded from the group by judgement of the board within 8 days (7.2). Given we have invested a lot of time in group building and working methods, I would however think that an associate who is struggling to pay the next tranche will always come forward to the board in case of a liquidity issue; solidarity is a key value of our project (3.1)
Admittedly, this mechanism gives a lot of power to the management board and should work very efficiently if there is basic trust in the group and the board represents our different work groups. As a power balance the GA can replace members of the board at any time upon calling an assembly. If we now decide to give budgetary powers to the GA then we should be very precise to avoid confusion of competencies, e.g. 10% budget overshoot of the architect’s FS or a 10% increase in a bill of the enterprise generale?
We have a similar clause, see discussion here: Société simple: figuring out the statutes - #58 by Sarah