Working paper / Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität, Institut for Law and Finance
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (96)
Has Fulltext
- yes (96)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (96)
Keywords
- Berichtspflicht des Vorstands (1)
- European Takeover Directive (1)
- European law (1)
- Feststellungsklage (1)
- Rechtsschutz der Aktionäre (1)
- UCITS (1)
- asset management (1)
- break-through rule (1)
- company law (1)
- corporate insolvency (1)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (96) (remove)
18
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.
102
It has become popular for journalists who are trying to sell newspapers, and politicians who are trying to solicit votes, to refer to this financial crisis as the worst since the Great Depression or WWII. I don’t know whether it is the worst or not so will leave that question to the historians and economists of the future once the storm has past. But it is indeed a “storm” as described by Vince Cable, Member of Parliament in his UK bestselling book entitled “The Storm – The World Economic Crisis and What it Means”. He describes this “storm” as a very destructive one displacing jobs, businesses, banks and whole economies from Iceland to the United Kingdom to the United States. I propose to offer a short chronology and summary of the causes of the current economic crisis. Then I will review several of the regulatory responses to the crisis focusing on the Turner Report, the de Larosière Group and certain US Treasury statements. I will offer my critiques of these proposals and then make some predictions of what the financial services industry may look like in the future.
81
91
105
Das „Gesetz zur Umsetzung der Aktionärsrechterichtlinie“ (ARUG) wurde am 28. Mai 2009 vom Bundestag beschlossen und wird diesen Sommer in Kraft treten. Mit dem ARUG werden zwei Richtlinien umgesetzt, die neuen GmbH-Regeln zur verdeckten Sacheinlage für Aktiengesellschaften nachgezeichnet, das Depotstimmrecht wiederbelebt und das Beschlussmängelrecht reformiert. Diese erneute Novelle des Anfechtungs- und Freigaberechts ist Gegenstand folgenden Beitrags. Es wird auch beschrieben, wie eine gewisse Sorge vor unvorhersehbaren Gerichtsbeschlüssen das Beschlussmängelrecht des ARUG stark geprägt hat.
72
Zum Ordnungswert des § 136 InsO „Reform besteht in der Entfernung des Überflüssigen“. Das ist der Wahlspruch des Entwurfes zum MoMiG. Unsere unzeitgemäße GmbH soll eine Neugestalt erhalten, damit sie den aufkommenden Wettbewerb mit ihren europäischen Verwandten aushalte. Die Ära regionaler Sonderwege habe zu enden und das ist ein Verdikt vor allem über das national-eigensinnige Eigenkapitalersatzrecht: Dieses soll, vereinfacht gesagt, in seiner Sanktionsschärfe gemäßigt, in die InsO überführt und von dem unsicheren Krisenbegriff befreit werden. Wer so großräumig denkt, verliert sich über dem scheinbar Kleinen. Niemand fragt nach der Zukunft des § 136 InsO. Es wäre Unrecht zu glauben, hier werde nur die Rückgewähr stiller Einlagen für anfechtbar erklärt und das stehe neben dem Reformthema. Der Beitrag wird zeigen: dass erstens auch § 136 InsO in Wahrheit die heute mit dem Wort „Eigenkapitalersatz“ bezeichnete Ordnungsaufgabe zu lösen sucht und zweitens mit dem neuen Recht scharfe Wertungswidersprüche entstehen; diese sind drittens nur auf einem Weg zu beheben: durch Streichung des § 136 InsO.
47
In this paper, I tackle the question whether one share - one vote should become a European law rule. I examine, first of all, the economic theory concerning one share - one vote and its optimality, and the law and economics literature on dual class recapitalizations and other deviations from one share - one vote. I also consider the agency costs of deviations from one share - one vote and examine whether they justify regulation. I subsequently analyze the rules implementing the one share - one vote standard in the US and Europe. In particular, I analyze the self-regulatory rules of US exchanges, the relevant provisions of the European Takeover Directive (including the well known break-through rule), and the European Court of Justice's position as to golden shares (which also are deviations from the one share - one vote standard). I conclude that one share - one vote is not justified by economic efficiency, as also confirmed by comparative law. Also the European breakthrough rule, which ultimately strikes down all deviations from one share - one vote, does not appear to be well grounded. Only transparency rules appear to be justified at EU level as disclosure of ownership and voting structures serves a pricing and governance function, while harmonisation of the relevant rules reduces transaction costs in integrated markets.
39
"In this paper, I analyse the conduct of business rules included in the Directive on Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFID) which has replaced the Investment Services Directive (ISD). These rules, in addition to being part of the regulation of investment intermediaries, operate as contractual standards in the relationships between intermediaries and their clients. While the need to harmonise similar rules is generally acknowledged, in the present paper I ask whether the Lamfalussy regulatory architecture, which governs securities lawmaking in the EU, has in some way improved regulation in this area. In section II, I examine the general aspects of the Lamfalussy process. In section III, I critically analyse the MiFID s provisions on conduct of business obligations, best execution of transactions and client order handling, taking into account the new regime of trade internalisation by investment intermediaries and the ensuing competition between these intermediaries and market operators. In sectionIV, I draw some general conclusions on the re-regulation made under the Lamfalussy regulatory structure and its limits. In this section, I make a few preliminary comments on the relevance of conduct of business rules to contract law, the ISD rules of conduct and the role of harmonisation."
22
This Article concerns the duty of care in American corporate law. To fully understand that duty, it is necessary to distinguish between roles, functions, standards of conduct, and standards of review. A role consists of an organized and socially recognized pattern of activity in which individuals regularly engage. In organizations, roles take the form of positions, such as the position of the director. A function consists of an activity that an actor is expected to engage in by virtue of his role or position. A standard of conduct states the way in which an actor should play a role, act in his position, or conduct his functions. A standard of review states the test that a court should apply when it reviews an actor’s conduct to determine whether to impose liability, grant injunctive relief, or determine the validity of his actions. In many or most areas of law, standards of conduct and standards of review tend to be conflated. For example, the standard of conduct that governs automobile drivers is that they should drive carefully, and the standard of review in a liability claim against a driver is whether he drove carefully. Similarly, the standard of conduct that governs an agent who engages in a transaction with his principal is that the agent must deal fairly, and the standard of review in a claim by the principal against an agent, based on such a transaction, is whether the agent dealt fairly. The conflation of standards of conduct and standards of review is so common that it is easy to overlook the fact that whether the two kinds of standards are or should be identical in any given area is a matter of prudential judgment. In a corporate world in which information was perfect, the risk of liability for assuming a given corporate role was always commensurate with the incentives for assuming the role, and institutional considerations never required deference to a corporate organ, the standards of conduct and review in corporate law might be identical. In the real world, however, these conditions seldom hold, and in American corporate law the standards of review pervasively diverge from the standards of conduct. Traditionally, the two major areas of American corporate law that involved standards of conduct and review have been the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. The duty of loyalty concerns the standards of conduct and review applicable to a director or officer who takes action, or fails to act, in a matter that does involve his own self-interest. The duty of care concerns the standards of conduct and review applicable to a director or officer who takes action, or fails to act, in a matter that does not involve his own self-interest.
9
While hedge funds have been around at least since the 1940's, it has only been in the last decade or so that they have attracted the widespread attention of investors, academics and regulators. Investors, mainly wealthy individuals but also increasingly institutional investors, are attracted to hedge funds because they promise high “absolute” returns -- high returns even when returns on mainstream asset classes like stocks and bonds are low or negative. This prospect, not surprisingly, has increased interest in hedge funds in recent years as returns on stocks have plummeted around the world, and as investors have sought alternative investment strategies to insulate them in the future from the kind of bear markets we are now experiencing. Government regulators, too, have become increasingly attentive to hedge funds, especially since the notorious collapse of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) in September 1998. Over the course of only a few months during the summer of 1998 LTCM lost billions of dollars because of failed investment strategies that were not well understood even by its own investors, let alone by its bankers and derivatives counterparties. LTCM had built up huge leverage both on and off the balance sheet, so that when its investments soured it was unable to meet the demands of creditors and derivatives counterparties. Had LTCM’s counterparties terminated and liquidated their positions with LTCM, the result could have been a severe liquidity shortage and sharp changes in asset prices, which many feared could have impaired the solvency of other financial institutions and destabilized financial markets generally. The Federal Reserve did not wait to see if this would happen. It intervened to organize an immediate (September 1998) creditor-bailout by LTCM’s largest creditors and derivatives counterparties, preventing the wholesale liquidation of LTCM’s positions. Over the course of the year that followed the bailout, the creditor committee charged with managing LTCM’s positions effected an orderly work-out and liquidation of LTCM’s positions. We will never know what would have happened had the Federal Reserve not intervened. In defending the Federal Reserve’s unusual actions in coming to the assistance of an unregulated financial institutions like a hedge fund, William McDonough, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, stated that it was the Federal Reserve’s judgement that the “...abrupt and disorderly close-out of LTCM’s positions would pose unacceptable risks to the American economy. ... there was a likelihood that a number of credit and interest rate markets would experience extreme price moves and possibly cease to function for a period of one or more days and maybe longer. This would have caused a vicious cycle: a loss of investor confidence, lending to further liquidations of positions, and so on.” The near-collapse of LTCM galvanized regulators throughout the world to examine the operations of hedge funds to determine if they posed a risk to investors and to financial stability more generally. Studies were undertaken by nearly every major central bank, regulatory agency, and international “regulatory” committee (such as the Basle Committee and IOSCO), and reports were issued, by among others, The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), the Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group, the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Many of these studies concluded that there was a need for greater disclosure by hedge funds in order to increase transparency and enhance market discipline, by creditors, derivatives counterparties and investors. In the Fall of 1999 two bills were introduced before the U.S. Congress directed at increasing hedge fund disclosure (the “Hedge Fund Disclosure Act” [the “Baker Bill”] and the “Markey/Dorgan Bill”). But when the legislative firestorm sparked by the LTCM’s episode finally quieted, there was no new regulation of hedge funds. This paper provides an overview of the regulation of hedge funds and examines the key regulatory issues that now confront regulators throughout the world. In particular, two major issues are examined. First, whether hedge funds pose a systemic threat to the stability of financial markets, and, if so, whether additional government regulation would be useful. And second, whether existing regulation provides sufficient protection for hedge fund investors, and, if not, what additional regulation is needed.
99
Auf dem 67. Deutschen Juristentag (DJT) in Erfurt wurde über eine Grundfrage des deutschen Aktienrechts diskutiert. Gefordert wurde eine stärkere Differenzierung zwischen börsennotierten und nichtbörsennotierten Aktiengesellschaften. Einzelne Deregulierungsvorschläge bezogen sich in diesem Zusammenhang auf die Reichweite des Prinzips der Satzungsstrenge, die Vinkulierung von Aktien und das Mehrstimmrecht. Die folgende Ausarbeitung beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, ob eine Differenzierung zwischen börsennotierten und nichtbörsennotierten Aktiengesellschaften insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund einer rechtsvergleichenden und empirischen Betrachtung überzeugt. Im Einzelnen wird zunächst kurz der Vorschlag Bayer an dem 67. DJT dargestellt (II.). Weiter wird die Bedeutung des außerbörslichen Handels in Deutschland untersucht (III.). Im Anschluss werden das deutsche, englische und – kursorisch – das US-amerikanische Aktien- und Kapitalmarktrecht rechtsvergleichend betrachtet (IV.). Dem folgt eine Stellungnahme zum Reformvorschlag Bayer (V.). Ein Fazit schließt die Untersuchung ab (VI.).
73
Befristete Anstellungsverhältnisse enden, sofern keine andere vertragliche Vereinbarung getroffen wurde, mit Ende der Laufzeit nach § 620 Abs. 1 BGB oder durch außerordentliche Kündigung gemäß § 626 BGB. Liegt kein wichtiger Grund im Sinne des § 626 BGB vor, kann allenfalls die erfolglose Abmahnung eine vorzeitige Beendigung des Anstellungsverhältnisses ermöglichen. Es sprechen keine zwingenden Gründe dafür, die Abmahnung nicht auch auf einen Geschäftsführer anzuwenden. Etwas anderes ergibt sich auch nicht aus § 14 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 KSchG und der mittlerweile gefestigten Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes. Diese Rechtsprechung bezieht sich nicht auf den hier erörterten Fall der Pflichtverletzung unterhalb der Schwelle des § 626 BGB. Bei der Frage nach der konkreten Anwendung müssen grundsätzlich zwei Fallkonstellationen unterschieden werden: Im ersten Fall, in dem der Geschäftsführer zunächst nach § 38 GmbHG abberufen wurde, sein Anstellungsverhältnis jedoch weiterhin fortbesteht, kann der Geschäftsführer nur dann abgemahnt werden, wenn dieser nach seiner Abberufung gegen eine nachwirkende Pflicht verstößt und diese Pflichtverletzung nicht ausreicht, um ihn gemäß § 626 BGB fristlos zu kündigen. Wird der Geschäftsführer im Zusammenhang mit der Beendigung seines Organverhältnisses auf eine Stelle unterhalb der Geschäftsführerebene versetzt, findet die Abmahnung nach den allgemeinen Grundsätzen auf zukünftige Pflichtverstöße Anwendung. Wird ein Geschäftsführer trotz einer Pflichtverletzung im Organverhältnis belassen, steht einer Abmahnung ebenfalls kein Hinderungsgrund entgegen. Bei der durch die Abwägung nach § 314 Abs. 2 Satz 2 i. V. m. § 323 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 BGB vorgeschriebenen Berücksichtigung der beiderseitigen Interessen zeigt sich, dass das Rechtsinstitut der Abmahnung in der angesprochenen Konstellation ein geeignetes Instrument des Interessenausgleichs darstellt, auf das im Interesse beider Parteien zunächst zurückgegriffen werden sollte.
4
Bei der Regulierung und Aufsicht auf den internationalen Wertpapiermärkten gibt es immer noch viele Unterschiede bei den Regelungsinhalten und in der Prioritätensetzung. Die steigende weltweite Verflechtung der Finanzsektoren und deren Akteure sowie die hohe Kapitalmobilität machen es jedoch zunehmend erforderlich, auch die Aufsicht zunehmend zu internationalisieren. Internationale Aufsichtsstandards wiederum können grenzüberschreitende Aktivitäten von Marktteilnehmern erleichtern und sicherer machen. Es ist inzwischen anerkannt, dass eine gute und effiziente Regulierung einen Finanzplatz gerade im internationalen Umfeld attraktiv macht und so dessen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit erhöht. Es ist daher von großer Bedeutung, die nationale Aufsicht internationalen Standards folgen zu lassen. Eine wichtige Funktion bei der Aufstellung dieser Standards haben die internationalen Organisationen wie IOSCO im Wertpapierhandel, die IAIS im Versicherungs- und der Baseler Ausschuss im Bankenbereich inne. In vielfältiger Weise ist deren Arbeit für den Finanzplatz Deutschland richtungsweisend. Das sind wichtige Gründe, weshalb die Teilnahme an Aktivitäten der IOSCO, Mitarbeit an Berichten, Standards und Resolutionen der IOSCO dem deutschen Kapitalmarkt und insbesondere dem Wertpapierhandel in Deutschland nützen kann. Um näher verständlich machen zu können, auf welche Weise IOSCO dem deutschen Kapitalmarkt in diesem Sinne nützlich sein kann, und Arbeiten in der IOSCO von Bedeutung für das deutsche Recht im Bereich des Wertpapierhandels sind, ist es zunächst wichtig, die Organisation IOSCO (1) , ihre Zielsetzung (2) und Struktur (3) zu verstehen, und die Bereiche zu kennen, in denen IOSCO arbeitet (4) sowie die Formen und jeweilige Bindungswirkung der Produkte der IOSCO (5). Wichtig in diesem Zusammenhang sind auch Art und Weise, auf die in IOSCO Beschlossenes unser Finanzsystem tangieren kann und bereits tangiert hat.
40
This paper has shown that some of the principal arguments against shareholder voice are unfounded. It has shown that shareholders do own corporations, and that the nature of their property interest is structured to meet the needs of the relationships found in stock corporations. The paper has explained that fiduciary and other duties restrain the actions of shareholders just as they do those of management, and that critics cannot reasonably expect court-imposed fiduciary duties to extend beyond the actual powers of shareholders. It has also illustrated how, although corporate statutes give shareholders complete power to structure governance as they will, the default governance structures of U.S. corporations leaves shareholders almost powerless to initiate any sort of action, and the interaction between state and federal law makes it almost impossible for shareholders to elect directors of their choice. Lastly, the paper has recalled how the percentage of U.S. corporate equities owned by institutional investors has increased dramatically in recent decades, and it has outlined some of the major developments in shareholder rights that followed this increase. I hope that this paper deflated some of the strong rhetoric used against shareholder voice by contrasting rhetoric to law, and that it illustrated why the picture of weak owners painted in the early 20th century should be updated to new circumstances, which will help avoid projecting an old description as a current normative model that perpetuates the inevitability of "managerialsm", perhaps better known as "dirigisme".
42
21
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.
71
Die Übertragung von Kapitalmarktpapieren nach dem US-amerikanischen Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
(2007)
77
This paper identifies some common errors that occur in comparative law, offers some guidelines to help avoid such errors, and provides a framework for entering into studies of the company laws of three major jurisdictions. The first section illustrates why a conscious approach to comparative company law is useful. Part I discusses some of the problems that can arise in comparative law and offers a few points of caution that can be useful for practical, theoretical and legislative comparative law. Part II discusses some relatively famous examples of comparative analysis gone astray in order to demonstrate the utility of heeding the outlined points of caution. The second section offers a framework for approaching comparative company law. Part III provides an example of using functional definition to demarcate the topic "company law", offering an "effects" test to determine whether a given provision of law should be considered as functionally part of the rules that govern the core characteristics of companies. It does this by presenting the relevant company law statutes and related topical laws of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, using Delaware as a proxy for the 50 states. On the basis of this definition, Part IV analyzes the system of legal functions that comprises "company law" in the United States and the European Union. It selects as the predominant factor for consideration the jurisdictions, sub-jurisdictions and rule-making entities that have legislative or rule-making competence in the relevant territorial unit, analyzes the extent of their power, presents the type of law (rules) they enact (issue), and discusses the concrete manner in which the laws and rules of the jurisdictions and sub-jurisdictions can legally interact. Part V looks at the way these jurisdictions do interact on the temporal axis of history, that is, their actual influence on each other, which in the relevant jurisdictions currently takes the form of regulatory competition and legislative harmonization. The method of the approach outlined in this paper borrows much from system theory. The analysis attempts to be detailed without losing track of the overall jurisdictional framework in the countries studied.