One share - one vote : a european rule?

In this paper, I tackle the question whether one share - one vote should become a European law rule. I examine, first of all, the economic theory concerning one share - one vote and its optimality, and the law and economics literature on dual class recapitalizations and other deviations from one share - one vote. I also consider the agency costs of deviations from one share - one vote and examine whether they justify regulation. I subsequently analyze the rules implementing the one share - one vote standard in the US and Europe. In particular, I analyze the self-regulatory rules of US exchanges, the relevant provisions of the European Takeover Directive (including the well known break-through rule), and the European Court of Justice's position as to golden shares (which also are deviations from the one share - one vote standard). I conclude that one share - one vote is not justified by economic efficiency, as also confirmed by comparative law. Also the European breakthrough rule, which ultimately strikes down all deviations from one share - one vote, does not appear to be well grounded. Only transparency rules appear to be justified at EU level as disclosure of ownership and voting structures serves a pricing and governance function, while harmonisation of the relevant rules reduces transaction costs in integrated markets

Varieties of Capitalism and the Learning Firm: Contemporary Developments in EU and German Company Law - A Comment on the Strine-Bainbridge Debate About Shared Values of Corporate Management and Labor

Research in corporate governance and in labour law has been characterized by a disjuncture in the way that scholars in each field are addressing organizational questions related to the business enterprise. While labour has eventually begun to shift perspectives from aspirations to direct employee involvement in firm management, as has been the case in Germany, to a combination of \u27exit\u27 and \u27voice\u27 strategies involving pension fund management and securities litigation, it remains to be seen whether this new stream will unfold as a viable challenge to an otherwise exclusionary shareholder value paradigm. At the same time, recent suggestions made by Delaware Chancery Court Vice Chancellor Strine, to dare think about potentially shared commitments between management and labor - and UCLA\u27s Stephen Bainbridge\u27s response - underline the viability - and, the contestedness - of attempts at moving the corporate governance debate beyond the confines of corporate law proper. While such a wider view had already famously been encouraged by Dean Clarke in his 1986 treatise on Corporate Law (p. 32), mainstream corporate law does not seem to have endorsed this perspective. This paper takes the questionable divide between management and labor within the framework of a limiting corporate governance concept as starting point to explore the institutional dynamics of the corporation, hereby building on the theory of the innovative enterprise, as developed by management theorists Mary O\u27Sullivan and William Lazonick. Largely due to the sustained distance between corporate and labour law scholars, neither group has effectively addressed their common blind spot: a better understanding of the business enterprise itself. In midst of an unceasing flow of affirmations of the finance paradigm of the corporation on the one hand and \u27voice\u27 strategies by labour on the other, it seems to fall to management theorists to draw lessons from the continuing co-existence of different forms of market organization, in which companies appear to thrive. Exploring the conundrum of \u27risky\u27 business decisions within the firm, management theorists have been arguing for the need to adopt a more sophisticated organizational perspective on companies operating on locally, regionally and transnationally shaped, often highly volatile market segments. Research by comparative political economists has revealed a high degree of connectivity between corporate governance and economic performance without, however, arriving at such favourable results only for shareholder value regimes. Such findings support the view that corporate governance regimes are embedded in differently shaped regulatory frameworks, characterized by distinct institutions, both formal and informal, and enforcement processes. As a result of these findings, arguments to disassociate issues of corporate governance from those of the firm\u27s (social) responsibility [CSR] have been losing ground. Instead, CSR can be taken to be an essential part of understanding a particular business enterprise. It is the merging of a comparative political economy perspective on the corporation with one on the organizational features, structures and processes of the corporation, which can help us better understand the distribution of power and knowledge within the \u27learning firm\u27

Reshaping order execution in the EU and the role of interest groups under MiFID II

The controversial and long-awaited Commission Proposals to revise the cornerstone Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004 (MiFID I) were presented in October 2011. The Proposals are currently going through the Council and Parliament negotiation process, and final agreement is expected sometime in 2013. This article places these important reforms (together, MiFID II) in context by examining the impact of MiFID I since its application to EU financial markets in November 2007, and by considering what MiFID I's impact suggests for the design of MiFID II. It considers how MiFID I reshaped the EU share trading marketplace and how the dominant interests which shaped MiFID I's regulatory design fared. It also examines how those interest groups are seeking to shape MiFID II, and the implications. It suggests that the influence of interest groups may have led to overly ambitious MiFID II Proposals which are excessively concerned with investment firm and trading platform interests, and not sufficiently focused on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of EU share trading markets. It calls for a more modest approach to reform, based on fine-tuning MiFID I

European Company Law Experts' Response to the European Commission’s Green Paper 'The EU Corporate Governance Framework'

This paper constitutes the European Company Law Experts' response to the European Commission's Green Paper "The EU Corporate Governance Framework". The paper contains responses to the individual questions put forward by the Commission as well as an introductory statement. In this statement we first set out briefly the rationale for having rules on corporate governance, whether those rules are determined at national or EU level and whether they are contained in hard or soft law. We then consider the rationale for taking action at EU level. Thirdly, we make a suggestion as to how the choice between hard and soft law should be made. Fourth, we consider the overall implications of the previous arguments for the division of rule-making between the EU and Member States

Corporate Governance Reforms in Continental Europe

The fundamental problem of corporate governance in the United States isto alleviate the conflict of interest between dispersed small shareownersand powerful controlling managers. Classic works like Berle and Means (1932) and Jensen and Meckling (1976) discussed this separation of ownership and control and its consequences. Although some companies in the United States are controlled by large blockholders—for instance, Microsoft, Ford, and Wal-Mart— such firms are relatively few and have thus drawn less attention in the corporate governance debate (Anderson and Reeb, 2003). In contrast, the fundamental problem of corporate governance in continental Europe and in most of the world is different. There, few listed companies are widely held. Instead, the typical firm in stock exchanges around the world has a dominant shareholder, usually an individual or a family, who controls the majority of votes. Often, the controlling shareholder exercises control without owning a large frac-tion of the cash flow rights by using pyramidal ownership, shareholder agreements, and dual classes of shares (La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, and Shleifer, 1999). These differences in ownership structure have two obvious consequences for corporate governance, as surveyed in Morck, Wolfenzon, and Yeung (2005). On the one hand, dominant shareholders have both the incentive and the power to discipline management. On the other hand, concentrated ownership can create conditions for a new agency problem, because the interests of controlling and minority shareholders are not aligned. In this essay, we begin by describing the differences in the ownership structure of companies in the three main economies of continental Europe—Germany