1 / 4

Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law

Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law. Assessing Corporate Law Reform in a Transatlantic Context Conference Corporate Restructuring and Mobility Gerard Hertig (ETH Zurich) Paris, October 21, 2003. 2 Points. Revising EU law is of marginal importance

sulwyn
Download Presentation

Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law Assessing Corporate Law Reform in a Transatlantic Context ConferenceCorporate Restructuring and Mobility Gerard Hertig (ETH Zurich) Paris, October 21, 2003

  2. 2 Points Revising EU law is of marginal importance EU law may have a facilitation role  opt-in/opt-out default rulesrather than mandatory approach

  3. Revising EU corporate/takeover law is of marginal importance • Not yet adopted = cannot be that important • Unclear benefits of EU regulation • Evidence of link Corporate Governance – Performance BUT • Governance Indexes less reliable than Tobin’s q (survey bias, do not cover behavioral aspects and circumvention of rules) • IPO puzzle • Role of mandatory rules debatable (only best practices counts) • Large mergers and takeovers often end in failures, M&A activity slowing down for smaller firms • ECJ case law has eliminated many if not most restrictions to cross-border mobility • Main mobility driver: Taxes • Main restructuring driver: Near Insolvency Cases

  4. EU Facilitation Role = Default rather than Mandatory LawSource: Hertig & McCahery, An Agenda for EU Reform(in Ferrarini, Hopt, Winter, Wymeersch (eds), Modern Company and Takeover Law in Europe, OUP, forthcoming) • Benefits unclear + Impact for smaller firms  Providing choices rather than imposing them  Regulatory competition top down • Default approach • Opting out of EU law • Core provisions for all firms (e.g. squeeze-out and sell-out rights, mandatory takeover bid, shareholder standing to sue) • Additional provisions for new firms (e.g. one share/one vote, no staggered boards, no voting caps, no pyramid structures) • Opting into EU law • Established firms, MS resistance (e.g. board neutrality in takeover situations and employee participation structures) • Signaling provisions, especially for new MS (e.g. approval procedures for related party transactions, including for compensation agreements) • Is there room left for a EU mandatory approach? • Votingprocedures (special majorities, minority approval) • Disclosure (e.g. MS audit supervision) • Standardization (MS law is overly complex/diverse) • Facilitating litigation (reducing barriers to collective action)

More Related