Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (401)
- Working Paper (400)
- Review (260)
- Conference Proceeding (119)
- Part of Periodical (60)
- Part of a Book (58)
- Book (55)
- Doctoral Thesis (39)
- Contribution to a Periodical (38)
- Report (14)
Language
- German (1032)
- English (386)
- Italian (13)
- French (8)
- Multiple languages (8)
- Portuguese (5)
- Spanish (3)
- mis (1)
- Polish (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (1457) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutschland (72)
- Aktienrecht (17)
- Kapitalmarktrecht (16)
- Börsenrecht (12)
- Coronavirus (12)
- Corporate Governance (12)
- Börsenordnung (11)
- USA (11)
- Urheberrecht (11)
- Democracy (10)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (1457) (remove)
This paper contributes to the debate on the adequate regulatory treatment of non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI). It proposes an avenue for regulators to keep regulatory arbitrage under control and preserve sufficient space for efficient financial innovation at the same time. We argue for a normative approach to supervision that can overcome the proverbial race between hare and hedgehog in financial regulation and demonstrate how such an approach can be implemented in practice. We first show that regulators should primarily analyse the allocation of tail risk inherent in NBFI. Our paper proposes to apply regulatory burdens equivalent to prudential banking regulation if the respective transactional structures become only viable through indirect or direct access to (ad hoc) public backstops. Second, we use insights from the scholarship on regulatory networks as communities of interpretation to demonstrate how regulators can retrieve the information on transactional innovations and their risk-allocating characteristics that they need to make the pivotal determination. We suggest in particular how supervisors should structure their relationships with semi-public gatekeepers such as lawyers, auditors and consultants to keep abreast of the risk-allocating features of evolving transactional structures. Finally, this paper uses the example of credit funds as non-bank entities economically engaged in credit intermediation to illustrate the merits of the proposed normative framework and to highlight that multipolar regulatory dialogues are needed to shed light on the specific risk-allocating characteristics of recent contractual innovations.
n today’s world, the transfer of laws and regulations between different legal systems is commonplace. The global spread of stewardship codes in recent years presents a promising, but yet untested, terrain to explore the diffusion of such norms. This paper aims to fill this gap. Employing the method of content analysis and using information from 41 stewardship codes enacted between 1991 and 2019, we systematically examine the formal diffusion of these stewardship codes. While we find support for the diffusion story of the UK as a stewardship norm exporter, especially in former British colonies in Asia, we also find evidence of diffusion from transnational initiatives, such as the EFAMA and ICGN codes, as well as regional clusters. We also show that the UK Stewardship Code of 2020 now deviates from these current models; thus, it remains to be seen how far a second round of exportation of the revised UK model into the transnational arena will follow.
We present novel evidence on the value of cross-border political access. We analyze data on meetings of US multinational enterprises (MNEs) with European Commission (EC) policymakers. Meetings with Commissioners are associated with positive abnormal equity returns. We study channels of value creation through political access in the areas of regulation and taxation. US enterprises with EC meetings are more likely to receive favorable outcomes in their European merger decisions and have lower effective tax rates on foreign income than their peers without meetings. Our results suggest that access to foreign policymakers is of substantial value for MNEs.
In times of crisis, governments have strong incentives to influence banks’ credit allocation because the survival of the economy depends on it. How do governments make banks “play along”? This paper focuses on the state-guaranteed credit programs (SGCPs) that have been implemented in Europe to help firms survive the COVID 19 crisis. Governments’ capacity to save the economy depends on banks’ capacity to grant credit to struggling firms (which they would not be inclined to do spontaneously in the context of a global pandemic). All governments thus face the same challenge: How do they make sure that state guaranteed loans reach their desired target and on what terms? Based on a comparative analysis of the elaboration and implementation of SGCPs in France and Germany, this paper shows that historically-rooted institutionalized modes of coordination between state and bank actors have largely shaped the terms of the SGCPs in these two countries.
The long-standing battle between economic nationalism and globalism has again taken center stage in geopolitics. This article applies this dichotomy to the law and policy of international intellectual property (IP). Most commentators see IP as a prime example of globalization. The article challenges this view on several levels. In a nutshell, it claims that economic nationalist concerns about domestic industries and economic development lie at the heart of the global IP system. To support this argument, the article summarizes and categorizes IP policies adopted by selected European countries, the European Union, and the U.S. Section I presents three types of inbound IP policies that aim to foster local economic development and innovation. Section II adds three versions of outbound IP policies that, in contrast, target foreign countries and markets. Concluding section III traces a dialectic virtuous circle of economic nationalist motives leading to global legal structures and identifies the function and legal structure of IP as the reason for the resilience and even dominance of economic nationalist motives in international IP politics. IP concerns exclusive private rights that are territorially limited creatures of (supra-)national statutes. These legal structures make up the economic nationalist DNA of IP.
Angesichts der in Deutschland und anderswo präzedenzlosen Eingrenzung des rechtlich Erlaubten stehen die begrenzenden Rechtsverordnungen, Allgemeinverfügungen und vollziehenden Maßnahmen des Staates im Zentrum grundrechtlicher Aufmerksamkeit. Freiheitsschonendere Alternativen werden in erster Linie durch das Prisma der Erforderlichkeit in den Blick genommen. Sich in einer Pandemielage gegen Beschränkungen zu entscheiden, erscheint grundrechtlich unverdächtig. Doch wäre es das tatsächlich? Im Folgenden werden zwei unterschiedliche Szenarien einer solchen Entscheidung vorgestellt und es wird ein näherer Blick auf die Folgen für den individuellen Grundrechtsgebrauch geworfen. Es zeigen sich Grundrechtsfragen, die im Ergebnis auch für die Beurteilung des beschränkenden Staates aufgeworfen sind.
This paper shows that judicial enforcement has substantial effects on firms’ decisions with regard to their employment policies. To establish causality, I exploit a reorganization of the court districts in Italy involving judicial district mergers as a shock to court productivity. I find that an improvement in enforcement, as measured by a reduction in average trial length, has a large, positive effect on firm employment. These effects are stronger in firms with high leverage, or that belong to industries more dependent on external finance and characterized by higher complementarity between labor and capital, consistent with a financing channel driving the results. Moreover, in presence of stronger enforcement, firms can raise more debt to dampen the impact of negative shocks and, in this way, reduce employment fluctuations.
Die zunehmende Durchdringung nahezu aller Lebensbereiche der Gesellschaft mit neuen digitalen Technologien, insbesondere mit künstlicher Intelligenz, hat zur Entstehung von smarten Ordnungen geführt. Darunter werden Ordnungen verstanden, die darauf ausgerichtet sind, durch intelligentes Design und mit Hilfe algorithmischer Operationen Abweichungen von ihren Normen zu minimieren oder ganz unmöglich zu machen. Der Beitrag erläutert einige Beispiele smarter Ordnungen und zeigt auf, dass zumindest im Grundsatz zwischen einer algorithmisch optimierten, normadressatenorientierten Prävention und einer adressatensubstituierenden Präemption abweichenden Verhaltens durch digitale Technologien unterschieden werden kann. Den Schwerpunkt des Beitrags bildet sodann die Frage ob und, gegebenenfalls, in welchem Sinne, smarte Ordnungen überhaupt noch normative Ordnungen sind. Im Verlauf der Analyse zeigt sich, dass Rechtsordnungen und andere normative Ordnungen zwar das Ziel einer effektiven Durchsetzung ihrer Normen verfolgen, aber nicht das Ideal vollständiger Nicht-Abweichung. Es wird deutlich, dass es zu den wesentlichen Aspekten normativer Ordnungen gehört, dass sie an Personen adressiert sind, die sie sich als autonome und zugleich fehlbare Personen zu eigen machen müssen und dabei unvermeidlich über die faktische Freiheit zur Normabweichung verfügen. Smarte Ordnungen hingegen erfüllen diese Kriterien nicht oder nur in geringem Maße. Letztlich sind sie nur in einem schwachen Sinne normativ, soweit die in technischen Prozessen implementierte Normativität für die Betroffenen noch präsent ist. In dem Maße jedoch, wie Normativität und ihre technische Realisation sich vermischen, bis ihre erfahrbare Präsenz abnimmt, verlieren sie ihren normativen Charakter.