Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (402) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (402)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (402)
Keywords
- Deutschland (63)
- Aktienrecht (17)
- Kapitalmarktrecht (16)
- Börsenrecht (12)
- Corporate Governance (12)
- Börsenordnung (11)
- Urheberrecht (10)
- USA (9)
- Aktionärsstruktur (7)
- Aktiengesellschaft (6)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (402) (remove)
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.
When parties present divergent econometric evidence, the court may view such evidence as contradictory and thus ignore it completely, without conducting closer analysis. We develop a simple method for distinguishing between actual and merely apparent contradiction based on the statistical concept of the “severity” of the furnished evidence. Again using “severity”, we also propose a method for reconciling divergent findings in instances of mere seeming contradiction. Our chosen application is that of damage estimation in follow-on cases.
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.
Venture capital-backed firms, unavoidable value-destroying trade sales, and fair value protections
(2020)
This paper investigates the implications of the fair value protections contemplated by the standard corporate contract (i.e., the standard contract form for which corporate law provides) for the entrepreneur–venture capitalist relationship, focusing, in particular, on unavoidable value-destroying trade sales. First, it demonstrates that the typical entrepreneur–venture capitalist contract does institutionalize the venture capitalist’s liquidity needs, allowing, under some circumstances, for counterintuitive instances of contractually-compliant value destruction. Unavoidable value-destroying
trade sales are the most tangible example. Next, it argues that fair value protections can prevent the entrepreneur and venture capitalist from allocating the value that these transactions generate as they would want. Then, it shows that the reality of venture capital-backed firms calls for a process of adaptation of the standard corporate contract that has one major step in the deactivation or re-shaping of fair value protections. Finally, it argues that a standard corporate contract aiming to promote social welfare through venture capital should feature flexible fair value protections
We study the design features of disclosure regulations that seek to trigger the green transition of the global economy and ask whether such regulatory interventions are likely to bring about sufficient market discipline to achieve socially optimal climate targets.
We categorize the transparency obligations stipulated in green finance regulation as either compelling the standardized disclosure of raw data, or providing quality labels that signal desirable green characteristics of investment products based on a uniform methodology. Both categories of transparency requirements can be imposed at activity, issuer, and portfolio level.
Finance theory and empirical evidence suggest that investors may prefer “green” over “dirty” assets for both financial and non-financial reasons and may thus demand higher returns from environmentally-harmful investment opportunities. However, the market discipline that this negative cost of capital effect exerts on “dirty” issuers is potentially attenuated by countervailing investor interests and does not automatically lead to socially optimal outcomes.
Mandatory disclosure obligations and their (public) enforcement can play an important role in green finance strategies. They prevent an underproduction of the standardized high-quality information that investors need in order to allocate capital according to their preferences. However, the rationale behind regulatory intervention is not equally strong for all categories and all levels of “green” disclosure obligations. Corporate governance problems and other agency conflicts in intermediated investment chains do not represent a categorical impediment for green finance strategies.
However, the many forces that may prevent markets from achieving socially optimal equilibria render disclosure-centered green finance legislation a second best to more direct forms of regulatory intervention like global carbon taxation and emissions trading schemes. Inherently transnational market-based green finance concepts can play a supporting role in sustainable transition, which is particularly important as long as first-best solutions remain politically unavailable.
The article traces and analyzes the negative globality of pandemic fears. It follows them through literary texts, psychological theories of individual and collective fears as well as legal documents. Rather than treating fears as law’s other, notably pandemic fears are included in the controversial discussion on how law protects (or should protect) peoples’ freedom in a pandemic. In closing, the article presents different forms of fear defense and fear denial such as conspiracy myths.
In diesem Text werden, ausgehend von der Unterscheidung von Autorität und Autoritarismus, zunächst Entwicklungen im Gefahrenabwehrrecht (Polizeirecht) rekonstruiert, die sich autoritär kennzeichnen lassen. Die Entfesselung des (rechtsstaatlich gebändigten) Leviathan wird dann weiterverfolgt im Recht des Infektionsschutzes. Der Fokus liegt hier auf den anti-corona Gesetzen zum Schutz der Bevölkerung der Jahre 2020 und 2021. In einer Art Gegenprobe wird der infektionsschutzrechtliche Autoritarismus daraufhin überprüft, ob er alternativlos war, problemlos auf die rechtsstaatliche Spur zurückgeführt werden oder sich als demokratisches Gemeinschaftsprojekt interpretieren lassen könnte.
Das LG Mannheim hat in einer Entscheidung einen sog. Faktencheck auf Facebook für lauterkeitsrechtlich unbedenklich erklärt. Die folgende Urteilsbesprechung zeigt jedoch, dass die Entscheidung weder in der Begründung noch im Ergebnis zu überzeugen vermag. Denn der konkrete Faktencheck ist geeignet, den Wettbewerb zwischen Nachrichtenseiten zu verfälschen.
This article provides a novel explanation for the global intellectual property (IP) paradox, i.e. the consistent growth of the multilateral IP system in spite of mounting evidence that its effects are at best neutral if not disadvantageous for low-income and most middleincome countries and thus the majority of contracting states. It demonstrates that the multilateral IP system is deliberately structured as a virtual network that exhibits network effects similar to a social media platform, for example. The more members an IP treaty has, the more IP protection acceding states can secure for their nationals. Conversely, every accession enlarges the territory in which nationals of previous members can enjoy protection. Due to these increasing returns to adoption, signing up to and remaining part of the global IP network is attractive, irrespective of the immediate effects of a treaty.
Der Beitrag erläutert die Fragestellung, die Kernthesen und den juristischen Erkenntniswert einer „Ontologie des Immaterialgüterrechts“. Ihr Untersuchungsgegenstand ist die Frage, auf welchem Verständnis der Wirklichkeit, genauer: seines Schutzgegenstands, das IP-Recht beruht. Nicht die Seinsweise des Rechts wird analysiert, sondern die hiervon zu unterscheidende Seinsweise einer bestimmten Klasse von Rechtsobjekten, nämlich Immaterialgütern und insbesondere urheberrechtlichen Werken. Die diesbezügliche ontologische und historische Betrachtung ergibt, dass es sich beim abstrakt-unkörperlichen Werk um eine sprachbasierte Konstruktion handelt, die als sozial-institutionelle Tatsache wirkmächtig ist, weil und soweit Menschen seit ca. 200 Jahren so sprechen und denken, als gäbe es unkörperliche Werke – obwohl diese metaphysische Annahme nicht plausibel ist. Der Beitrag erläutert weiter, dass sich das Urheber- und IP-Recht auf der Basis dieser Einsichten und einer alternativen, handlungs- und artefaktbasierten IP-Theorie besser erklären lässt als auf dem Boden des herrschenden Paradigmas vom abstrakten Immaterialgut bzw. Werk. Dies gilt sowohl im Hinblick auf die Dogmatik und Anwendungspraxis des geltenden Rechts als auch im Hinblick auf die ökonomische Analyse und den Rechtsvergleich. Die normativen Implikationen dieser deskriptiven Erkenntnisse sind hingegen begrenzt und richten sich vor allem an die Urheberrechtswissenschaft. Diese sollte tunlichst nicht mehr so reden und argumentieren, als existierten abstrakte Werke, die dem Berechtigten wie Sachen exklusiv zugeordnet sind.