Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (31) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (31) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (31)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (31)
Keywords
- Deutschland (5)
- Corporate Governance (3)
- Abschlussprüfer (1)
- Aktienrecht (1)
- Anteilseigner (1)
- Außerbörslicher Wertpapierhandel (1)
- Bankrecht (1)
- Cash Management (1)
- Finanzplatz (1)
- Haftung (1)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (31) (remove)
Revised Draft: January 2005, First Draft: December 8, 2004 The picture of dispersed, isolated and uninterested shareholders so graphically drawn by Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means in 19321 is for the most part no longer accurate in today's market, although their famous observations on the separation of control and ownership of public corporations remain true.
Der vorliegende Aufsatz befasst sich mit Fragen, die auftreten, wenn die an einer deutschen Börse notierten Aktien einer deutschen Gesellschaft auch an der New York Stock Exchange (im Folgenden “NYSE”) notiert werden und zwar ohne Zwischenschaltung von Hinterlegungsscheinen (American Depositary Receipts, im Folgenden “ADR”). Der Aufsatz behandelt dagegen nicht die Rechtsfragen, die sowohl bei einer Börsennotierung von Aktien als auch bei einer Börsennotierung von ADR einer deutschen Gesellschaft gelöst werden müssen, z.B. Rechtsfragen, die sich auf das US-amerikanische Kapitalmarktrecht, insbesondere das Bilanzrecht, die US-amerikanischen Anforderungen an die Corporate Governance, das Insiderverbot und Verhaltensregeln im Umgang mit der Presse beziehen.
Taking shareholder protection seriously? : Corporate governance in the United States and Germany
(2003)
The attitude expressed by Carl Fuerstenberg, a leading German banker of his time, succinctly embodies one of the principal issues facing the large enterprise – the divergence of interest between the management of the firm and outside equity shareholders. Why do, or should, investors put some of their savings in the hands of others, to expend as they see fit, with no commitment to repayment or a return? The answers are far from simple, and involve a complex interaction among a number of legal rules, economic institutions and market forces. Yet crafting a viable response is essential to the functioning of a modern economy based upon technology with scale economies whose attainment is dependent on the creation of large firms.
With the Council regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, that came into effect May 31, 2002 the European Union has introduced a legal framework for dealing with cross-border insolvency proceedings. In order to achieve the aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of insolvency proceedings having cross-border effects within the European Community, the provisions on jurisdiction, recognition and applicable law in this area are contained in a Regulation, a Community law measure which is binding and directly applicable in Member States. The goals of the Regulation, with 47 articles, are to enable cross-border insolvency proceedings to operate efficiently and effectively, to provide for co-ordination of the measures to be taken with regard to the debtor’s assets and to avoid forum shopping. The Insolvency Regulation, therefore, provides rules for the international jurisdiction of a court in a Member State for the opening of insolvency proceedings, the (automatic) recognition of these proceedings in other Member States and the powers of the ‘liquidator’ in the other Member States. The Regulation also deals with important choice of law (or: private international law) provisions. The Regulation is directly applicable in the Member States3 for all insolvency proceedings opened after 31 May 2002.
Lassen Sie mich einleitend mit fünf Thesen zu Basel II beginnen: 1. Basel II stellt einen flexiblen Regulierungsansatz dar, welcher auf einem Mix von privater Selbstregulierung und einer ständigen Überwachung durch staatliche Aufsichtsbehörden beruht. Möglicherweise repräsentiert Basel II einen Prototyp für einen neuartigen Regulierungsansatz im 21. Jahrhundert. 2. An dem Prozess bei Basel II auf internationaler Ebene nehmen neben staatlichen Stellen auch Marktteilnehmergruppen teil. Die Verhandlungen, die derzeit noch nicht abgeschlossen sind, erfolgen außerhalb der etablierten Regierungszirkel. Die Regelungen werden in unterschiedlich zusammengesetzten Unter- und Nebengruppen beim Basler Ausschuss für Bankenaufsicht vorbereitet. 3. Basel II reflektiert den Fakt der sich rasch wandelnden Finanzmärkte und anhaltender Fortentwicklungen bei den Bankgeschäften. Insoweit bildet Basel II eher einen Prozess als einen festen Zustand ab. 4. Stärker als die bisherigen Aufsichtsregularien bewirkt Basel II einen Anpassungsdruck in Richtung eines globalen Standards, im Zuge dessen eine Nivellierung der bestehenden, historisch gewachsenen und national geprägten Finanzierungsformen latent einhergehen dürfte. 5. Basel II verlangt eine aufwendige Betreuung –sowohl im Hinblick auf dessen Ausgestaltung als Regelungswerk als auch auf dessen praktische Anwendung. Expertise gewinnt an Bedeutung. Daraus könnten möglicherweise Verunsicherungen oder gar ein latentes Unbehagen bei den Bankkunden resultieren. Hier erscheint eine Aufklärung über die sachlichen Zusammenhänge bei Basel II angebracht.
Increasingly, alternative investments via hedge funds are gaining importance in Germany. Just recently, this subject was taken up in the legal literature, too; this resulted in a higher product transparency. However, German investment law and, particularly, the special division "hedge funds" is still a field dominated by practitioners. First, the present situation shall be outlined. In addition, a description of the current development is given, in which the practical knowledge of the author is included. Finally, the hedge fund regulation intended by the legislator at the beginning of the year 2004 is legally evaluated against this background.
In response to recent developments in the financial markets and the stunning growth of the hedge fund industry in the United States, policy makers, most notably the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), are turning their attention to the regulation, or lack thereof, of hedge funds. U.S. regulators have scrutinized the hedge fund industry on several occasions in the recent past without imposing substantial regulatory constraints. Will this time be any different? The focus of the regulators’ interest has shifted. Traditionally, they approached the hedge fund industry by focusing on systemic risk to and integrity of the financial markets. The current inquiry is almost exclusively driven by investor protection concerns. What has changed? First, since 2000, new kinds of investors have poured capital into hedge funds in the United States, facilitated by the “retailization” of hedge funds through the development of funds of hedge funds and the dismal performance of the stock market. Second, in a post-Enron era, regulators and policy makers are increasingly sensitive to investor protection concerns. On May 14 and 15, 2003, the SEC held for the first time a public roundtable discussion on the single topic of hedge funds. Among the investor protection concerns highlighted were: an increase in incidents of fraud, inadequate suitability determinations by brokers who market hedge fund interests to individual investors, conflicts of interest of managers who manage mutual funds and hedge funds side-by-side, a lack of transparency that hinders investors from making informed investment decisions, layering of fees, and unbounded discretion by managers in pricing private hedge fund securities. Although there has been discussion about imposing wide-ranging restrictions onhedge funds, such as reining in short selling, requiring disclosure of long/short positions and limiting leverage, such a response would be heavy-handed and probably unnecessary. The existing regulatory regime is largely adequate to address the most flagrant abuses. Moreover, as the hedge fund market further matures, it is likely that institutional investors will continue to weed out weak performers and mediocre or dishonest hedge fund managers. What is likely to emerge from the newest regulatory focus on investor protection is a measured response that would enhance the SEC’s enforcement and inspection authority, while leaving hedge funds’ inherent investment flexibility largely unfettered. A likely scenario, for example, might be a requirement that some, or possibly all, hedge fund sponsors register with the SEC as investment advisers. Today, most are exempt from registration, although more and more are registering to provide advice to public hedge funds and attract institutions. Registration would make it easier for the SEC to ferret out potential fraudsters in advance by reviewing the professional history of hedge fund operators, allow the SEC to bring administrative proceedings against hedge fund advisers for statutory violations and give the agency access to books and records that it does not have today. Other possible initiatives, including additional disclosure requirements for publicly offered hedge funds, are discussed below. This article addresses the question whether U.S. regulation of hedge funds is really taking a new direction. It (i) provides a brief overview of the current U.S. regulatory scheme, from which hedge funds are generally exempt, (ii) describes recent events in the United States that have contributed to regulators’ anxiety, (iii) examines the investor protection rationale for hedge fund regulation and considers whether these concerns do, in fact, merit increased regulation of hedge funds at this time, and (iv) considers the likelihood and possible scope of a potential regulatory response, principally by the SEC.