The Economics of Bankrupcy, Reorganisation and Liquidation: Lessons for East European Transitional Economies

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the economic implications of the bankruptcy procedures in Western market economies with a view to draw appropriate lessons for the transitional economies of Central and Eastern Europe. In Section II, we shall discuss the bankruptcy procedures in four major market eocnomies, emphasising the conditions under which the financially distressed firms are reorganised or liquidated. Section III focuses on the relative efficacy of the 'reorganisation' option in comparison with the 'liquidation' option of the bankruptcy procedures. Section IV highlights the lessons that East European transitional economies may learn from the experience of market economies, drawing attention to a number of important areas of concern in any discussion of the design and implementation of bankruptcy procedures.Eastern Europe, transition, bankrupcy, reorganisation, liquidation

The Legal Framework for Effective Corporate Governance: Comparative Analysis of Provisions in Selected Transition Economies

The development of market economies in Central and Eastern Europe, and the imminent accession of some of these countries to EU membership, has only strengthened the view that corporate governance is of fundamental importance to the process of transition and to the economic regeneration and growth of former socialist countries. The paper identifies the differences between the systems of corporate governance existing in various transition countries. It aims at comparing the legal framework for corporate governance in selected transition economies in order to highlight the progress made so far as well as the shortcomings of the existing framework.Corporate governance, transition economy, joint-stock company, property rights

The emergence of large shareholders in mass privatized firms: Evidence from Poland and the Czech Republic

Mass privatization offers a particularly suitable framework to study the change in ownership concentration as the extent of change is unusual for a stable market economy. Focusing on two different mass privatization schemes in two transition economies, Poland and the Czech Republic, we find that despite important differences in the design of the two programmes and despite different quality of legal and regulatory framework, ownership structure in the two countries has rapidly evolved and the emerging ownership patterns are remarkably similar. This suggests that private benefits of control are large and the quality of investor protection regime is low in both countries. However, looking at the relationship between the change in ownership concentration and firm performance, we find an interesting difference between the two countries: in the Czech Republic the increase in ownership concentration seems to be less likely in poorly performing firms while in Poland the quality of past performance does not affect investors' willingness to increase their holdings. This effect may be interpreted in the light of the theory stressing the importance of the quality of investors' protection. It could be argued that if Czech investors are more risk averse and more concerned with diversification this is largely due to the weakness of the legal protection they face.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/40104/3/wp718.pd

Mass Privatisation, Corporate Governance and Endogenous Ownership Structure

We compare the change in ownership concentration in firms privatized through two different programs of mass privatization: the Czech voucher scheme and the Polish program of National Investment Funds. Despite important differences in ownership structure at the start of the process and in the quality of legal and regulatory environments, the emerging ownership patterns are remarkably similar: in the two groups of firms we observe high concentration and the emergence of industrial corporations and individuals as important dominant shareholders. Given the important evolution of ownership, we take ownership structure as endogenous and look at its determinants. We find in particular that ownership concentration depends on the degree of uncertainty in the firm's environment. In a more risky environment firms tend to have more dispersed ownership. We interpret this result in the light of the recent theories of the firm stressing the trade-off between managerial initiative and shareholder control.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39982/3/wp596.pd

The emergence of large shareholders in mass privatized firms: Evidence from Poland and the Czech Republic

Focusing on two different mass privatization schemes in two transition economies, Poland and the Czech Republic, we show that the ownership structure in the two countries has rapidly evolved since the initial distribution of property rights Ownership concentration has significantly increased and we can observe an important reallocation of ownership claims between different groups of shareholders. This evidence goes against the main argument of the critics of mass privatization concerned with the dispersed ownership structure these programs were supposed to generate. The fact that the degree of ownership concentration is similar in Poland and in the Czech Republic suggests that private benefits of control are large in both countries. However, when we consider the determinants of ownership concentration we find an interesting difference: in the Czech Republic the increase in ownership concentration is less likely in poorly performing firms while in Poland the quality of past performance does not affect investors' willingness to increase their holdings. This contrasting effect may be interpreted in the light of the theory stressing the importance of the quality of the legal system for investors' behaviour: Poland is usually praised for high standards of its regulation while the Czech Republic, especially in the early and mid-1990s, has been blamed for its weaknesses. So, although direct comparison of ownership concentration in the two countries does not provide confirmation of the main prediction of "law matters" theory, we find indirect evidence in its favour.ownership concentration ; mass privatization ; corporate gouvernance ; transition

The Emergence of Large Shareholders in Mass Privatized Firms: Evidence from Poland and the Czech Republic

Mass privatization offers a particularly suitable framework to study the change in ownership concentration as the extent of change is unusual for a stable market economy. Focusing on two different mass privatization schemes in two transition economies, Poland and the Czech Republic, we find that despite important differences in the design of the two programmes and despite different quality of legal and regulatory framework, ownership structure in the two countries has rapidly evolved and the emerging ownership patterns are remarkably similar. This suggests that private benefits of control are large and the quality of investor protection regime is low in both countries. However, looking at the relationship between the change in ownership concentration and firm performance, we find an interesting difference between the two countries: in the Czech Republic the increase in ownership concentration seems to be less likely in poorly performing firms while in Poland the quality of past performance does not affect investors' willingness to increase their holdings. This effect may be interpreted in the light of the theory stressing the importance of the quality of investors' protection. It could be argued that if Czech investors are more risk averse and more concerned with diversification this is largely due to the weakness of the legal protection they face.Ownership concentration, Mass privatisation, Corporate governance, Transition

The emergence of large shareholders in mass privatized firms: Evidence from Poland and the Czech Republic

Mass privatization offers a particularly suitable framework to study the change in ownership concentration as the extent of change is unusual for a stable market economy. Focusing on two different mass privatization schemes in two transition economies, Poland and the Czech Republic, we find that despite important differences in the design of the two programmes and despite different quality of legal and regulatory framework, ownership structure in the two countries has rapidly evolved and the emerging ownership patterns are remarkably similar. This suggests that private benefits of control are large and the quality of investor protection regime is low in both countries. However, looking at the relationship between the change in ownership concentration and firm performance, we find an interesting difference between the two countries: in the Czech Republic the increase in ownership concentration seems to be less likely in poorly performing firms while in Poland the quality of past performance does not affect investors' willingness to increase their holdings. This effect may be interpreted in the light of the theory stressing the importance of the quality of investors' protection. It could be argued that if Czech investors are more risk averse and more concerned with diversification this is largely due to the weakness of the legal protection they face.ownership concentration, mass privatisation, corporate governance, transition

The Evolution of Ownership Structure in Firms Privatized through Wholesale Schemes in the Czech Republic and Poland

We compare the change in ownership concentration in firms privatized through two different programs of mass privatization: the Czech voucher scheme and the Polish program of National Investment Funds. Despite important differences in ownership structure at the start of the process and in the quality of legal and regulatory environments, the emerging ownership patterns are remarkably similar in the two groups of firms: high concentration and the emergence of industrial corporations and individuals as important dominant shareholders. Given the important evolution of ownership, we take ownership structure as endogenous and look at its determinants. We find in particular that ownership concentration depends on the degree of uncertainty in the firm's environment. In a more risky environment firms tend to have more dispersed ownership. We interpret this result in the light of the recent theories of the firm stressing the trade-off between managerial initiative and shareholder control.privatization, secondary transactions, corporate governance, transition economies, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Poland