Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (400) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (400)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (400) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutschland (63)
- Aktienrecht (17)
- Kapitalmarktrecht (16)
- Börsenrecht (12)
- Corporate Governance (12)
- Börsenordnung (11)
- Urheberrecht (10)
- USA (9)
- Aktionärsstruktur (7)
- Aktiengesellschaft (6)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (400) (remove)
Vorstandsvergütungen
(2002)
After the pioneering German “Aktiengesetz” of 1965 and the Brazilian “Lei das Sociedades Anónimas” of 1976, Portugal has become the third country in the world to enact a specific regulation on groups of companies. The Code of Commercial Companies (“Código das Sociedades Comerciais”, abbreviately hereinafter CSC), enacted in 1986, contains a unitary set of rules regulating the relationships between companies, in general, and the groups of companies, in particular (arts. 481° to 508°-E CSC). With this set of rules, the Portuguese legislator has dealt with one of the major topics of modern Company Law. While this branch of law is traditionally conceived as the law of the individual company, modern economic reality is characterized by the massive emergence of large-scale enterprise networks, where parts of a whole business are allocated and insulated in several legally independent companies submitted to an unified economic direction. As Tom HADDEN put it: “Company lawyers still write and talk as if the single independent company, with its shareholders, directors and employees, was the norm. In reality, the individual company ceased to be the most significant form of organization in the 1920s and 1930s. The commercial world is now dominated both nationally and internationally by complex groups of companies”. This trend, which is now observable in any of the largest economies in the world, holds also true for small markets such as Portugal. Although Portuguese economy is still dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises, the organizational structure of the group has always been extremely common. During the 70s, it was estimated that the seven largest groups of companies owned about 50% of the equity capital of all domestic enterprises and were alone responsible for 3/4 of the internal national product. Such a trend has continued and even highlighted in the next decades, surviving to different political and economic scenarios: during the 80s, due to the process of state nationalization of these groups, an enormous public group with more than one thousand controlled companies has been created (“IPE - Instituto de Participações do Estado”); and during the 90s until today, thanks to the reprivatisation movement and the opening of our national market, we assisted to the re-emergence of some large private groups, composed of several hundred subsidiaries each, some of which are listed in foreign stock exchange markets (e.g., in the banking sector, “BCP – Banco Comercial Português”, in the industrial area, “SONAE”, and in the media and communication area, “Portugal-Telecom”).
This paper makes a case for the future development of European corporate law through regulatory competition rather than EC legislation. It is for the first time becoming legally possible for firms within the EU to select the national company law that they wish to govern their activities. A significant number of firms can be expected to exercise this freedom, and national legislatures can be expected to respond by seeking to make their company laws more attractive to firms. Whilst the UK is likely to be the single most successful jurisdiction in attracting firms, the presence of different models of corporate governance within Europe make it quite possible that competition will result in specialisation rather than convergence, and that no Member State will come to dominate as Delaware has done in the US. Procedural safeguards in the legal framework will direct the selection of laws which increase social welfare, as opposed simply to the welfare of those making the choice. Given that European legislators cannot be sure of the ‘optimal’ model for company law, the future of European company law-making would better be left with Member States than take the form of harmonized legislation.
Cryptocurrencies provide a unique opportunity to identify how derivatives impact spot markets. They are fully fungible, trade across multiple spot exchanges at different prices, and futures contracts were selectively introduced on bitcoin (BTC) exchange rates against the USD in December 2017. Following the futures introduction, we find a significantly greater increase in cross-exchange price synchronicity for BTC--USD relative to other exchange rate pairs, as demonstrated by an increase in price correlations and a reduction in arbitrage opportunities and volatility. We also find support for an increase in price efficiency, market quality, and liquidity. The evidence suggests that futures contracts allowed investors to circumvent trading frictions associated with short sale constraints, arbitrage risk associated with block confirmation time, and market segmentation. Overall, our analysis supports the view that the introduction of BTC--USD futures was beneficial to the bitcoin spot market by making the underlying prices more informative.
Die Europäische Aktiengesellschaft (SE) gestattet es bekanntlich, die Mitbestimmung der Arbeitnehmer im Wege einer Vereinbarungslösung zu regeln und die Größe des Aufsichtsrats zu reduzieren. Zahlreiche deutsche Unternehmen haben aus diesem Grund die Rechtsform der AG verlassen und diejenige der SE gewählt. Um dieser „Flucht aus der AG” zu begegnen, hat der aus sieben unabhängigen Hochschullehrern bestehende Arbeitskreis „Unternehmerische Mitbestimmung” einen Gesetzesvorschlag entwickelt, der eine Verhandlungslösung auch für die AG und die GmbH zulässt und eine arbeitsfähige Aufsichtsratsgröße vorsieht. Der im Folgenden abgedruckte Vorschlag ist in ZIP/Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2009, S. 885 ff veröffentlicht.
Dieser Beitrag ist ein Besprechungsaufsatz zu Beatrice Brunhöbers 2010 erschienener Dissertation Die Erfindung „demokratischer Repräsentation“ in den Federalist Papers (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen: Grundlagen der Rechtswissenschaft, Bd. 14), in der Brunhöber die innovative – und auch die Verfassungsentwicklung andernorts prägende – Kraft der Verbindung von Demokratie, politischer Repräsentation und Föderalismusidee durch die amerikanischen Verfassungsväter herausarbeitet. Auf der Basis von Brunhöbers Untersuchung geht es insbesondere darum, wie sich das von Hamilton, Madison und Jay entworfene ‚alte‘ Konzept zur Gestaltung eines starken Gemeinwesens (eingeschlossen das vertrauensbildende Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung) für einen integrativen Umgang mit den ‚modernen‘ Gegebenheiten pluralistischer Gesellschaften nutzbar machen läßt, im Blick die Gesamtheit (und Vielfalt) des Staatsvolkes als Geltungsfundament legitimer Herrschaft. Im Hintergrund steht die Frage nach Möglichkeiten zur Nutzbarmachung historischer Vergewisserungen für heutige Debatten überhaupt.
This paper aims at an improved understanding of the relationship between monetary policy and racial inequality. We investigate the distributional effects of monetary policy in a unified framework, linking monetary policy shocks both to earnings and wealth differentials between black and white households. Specifically, we show that, although a more accommodative monetary policy increases employment of black households more than white households, the overall effects are small. At the same time, an accommodative monetary policy shock exacerbates the wealth difference between black and white households, because black households own less financial assets that appreciate in value. Over multi-year time horizons, the employment effects are substantially smaller than the countervailing portfolio effects. We conclude that there is little reason to think that accommodative monetary policy plays a significant role in reducing racial inequities in the way often discussed. On the contrary, it may well accentuate inequalities for extended periods.
Im Normalfall, in dem Vorstand und Aufsichtsrat den Jahresabschluß feststellen (vgl. § 172 AktG), können sie einen Teil des Jahresüberschusses, höchstens jedoch die Hälfte, in „andere Gewinnrücklagen“1 einstellen (§ 58 Abs. 2 S. 1 AktG). Die Satzung kann Vorstand und Aufsichtsrat zur Einstellung eines größeren oder kleineren Teils des Jahresüberschusses ermächtigen; allerdings darf die Verwaltung aufgrund einer solchen Satzungsbestimmung keine Beträge in andere Gewinnrücklagen einstellen, wenn die anderen Gewinnrücklagen die Hälfte des Grundkapitals übersteigen oder soweit sie nach der Einstellung die Hälfte übersteigen würden (§ 58 Abs. 2 S. 2, 3 AktG). Nach § 58 Abs. 3 AktG kann die Hauptversammlung sodann in ihrem Beschluß über die Verwendung des Bilanzgewinns (vgl. § 174 AktG) weitere Beträge in Gewinnrücklagen einstellen oder als Gewinn vortragen. Im Folgenden werden nach einer Sichtung wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Erwägungen zu Thesaurierung und Ausschüttung (unten II.) die Pflichten und die Kontrolle der Entscheidungen über die Gewinnverwendung von Vorstand und Aufsichtsrat einerseits (unten III.) und der Hauptversammlung andererseits (unten IV.) erörtert. V. faßt die Ergebnisse zusammen. Die besonderen Rechtsfragen, die sich bei Rücklagenbildung in abhängigen Gesellschaften ergeben, werden nicht behandelt.