Development of German and Russian Corporate Law in the Hostile Take- over Environment
https://doi.org/10.24833/2073-8420-2018-3-48-44-52
Abstract
Introduction. Speculative behavior is common for modern stock markets. It leads to corporate short-termism and therefore has negative systemic implications for the states’ economies. In an attempt to mitigate this trend, the German lawmaker developed national legislation aiming, inter alia, to provide company management with additional powers it could potentially use to prevent hostile takeovers. This experience needs to be critically studied in terms of both German and Russian doctrine and legal practice.
Materials and methods. This paper uses the following general and specifc scientifc methods: structure-function analysis, comparative law method, Aristotelian method, statistical method, historical method, systemic method and hermeneutic method.
Results of the research. Reacting towards a number of transactions affecting the German corporate landscape, the German legislature developed the Law on Acquisition of Securities and Change of Corporate Control. This Law contains protectionist provisions potentially entitling the board of directors of a joint-stock company to undertake measures to prevent hostile takeovers either subject to consent of the supervisory board or in cases where it is authorized to do so according to the corporate charter. Nevertheless, the impact these powers have in practice is very limited, which can be mostly attributed to practical considerations of the German judiciary and legislature.
Discussion and conclusions. The article contains analysis of the German and Russian legal doctrine and court practice pertaining to joint-stock companies, as well as the scope of authorities of their management, analysis of the basic advantages and disadvantages of the German regulatory approach, conclusions as to applicability of the German approach in Russia.
About the Author
E. К. Zotova
MGIMO-University under the MFA of Russia
Russian Federation
Elizaveta Zotova,
Research Student with the Department of Private International and Civil Law
Russian Federation
Elizaveta Zotova,
Research Student with the Department of Private International and Civil Law
References
1. Glazunov A.Yu., 2017. Pravo na poluchenie dividendov: ekonomicheskij analiz i pravovoe regulirovanie [Right to receive dividends: economic analysis and legal framework]. Zakon [The Law]. No. 7.
2. Engibaryan R.V., Tadevosyan E.V., 2000. Konstitucionnoe pravo: Uchebnik [Constitutional Law: A Textbook]. Мoscow.
3. Ionova D.Yu., 2018. Kosvennyje iski kak sposob zashchity interesov uchastnikov kommerchekih korporacij [Derivative claim as a remedy for corporate stakeholders]. Rossijskij sudya [The Russian judge]. No. 7.
4. Kluyuchareva E.M., 2017. Doktrinalnye i istoricheskie osobennosti opredeleniya obyazannostei i otvetstvennosti chlenov organov upravleniya yuridicheskogo lica v raznyh yurisdikciyakh [Doctrinal and historical peculiarities of duties and liabilities of company management in different jurisdictions], Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossijskoj Federacii [Russian Federation Economic Justice Reporter]. No. 10.
5. Kulagin M.I., 2004. Izbrannye trudy po akcionernomu i torgovomu pravu [Selected works on corporate law and law of trade]. 2nd edition, amended. Moscow.
6. Mejer D.I., 2003. Russkoe Grazhdanskoe Pravo [Russian Civil Law] (2 parts). 3rd edition, amended. Moscow.
7. Stepanov D.I., 2015. Interesy juridicheskogo lica i ego uchastnikov [Interests of an entity and its shareholders]. Vestnik jekonomicheskogo pravosudija Rossijskoj Federacii [Russian Federation Economic Justice Reporter]. No. 1.
8. Suhanov E.A., 2015. Amerikanskie korporacii v rossijskom prave (o novoj redakcii gl. 4 GK RF) [American corporations in Russian law (on the new editition of Chaper 4 of the Russian Civil Code]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava [Civil Law Reporter]. No. 5.
9. Yarkov V.V., 1997. Zashchita prav akcionerov po Zakonu “Ob akcionernyh obshchestvah” s pomoshchju kosvennyh iskov [Remedies available for shareholders according to the Law “On joint-stock companies” within a derivative claim]. Hozyajstvo i pravo [Economy and Law]. No. 11, 12.
10. Armour J., Deakin S., Konzelmann S.J., 2003. Shareholder Primacy and the Trajectory of UK Corporate Governance. British Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol. 41:3.
11. Fang V. W., Tian X., Tice S., 2014. Does Stock Liquidity Enhance or Impede Firm Innovation? Journal of Finance. Vol. No. 69 (5).
12. Fisher D., 2009. The enlightened shareholder - leaving stakeholders in the dark: will section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006 make directors consider the impact of their decisions on third parties? International Company and Commercial Law Review. Vol. No. 20(1).
13. German and Nordic Perspectives on Company Law and Capital Markets Law / еdited by Holger Fleischer, Lau Hansen and Wolf-Georg Ringe. Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2015.
14. Gierke O., 1887. Die Genossenschaftstheorie und die deutsсhe Rechtssprechung [Theory of a legal entity and German legal practice].
15. Haussmann F., 1928. Vom Aktienwesen und vom Aktienrecht [On the nature of shares and company law]. Bensheimer.
16. Höpner M., Streeck W., 2003. Alle Macht dem Markt? Fallstudien zur Abwicklung der Deutschland AG [Everything is on Market?: Case Study of Liquidation of Germany JSC]. Campus Verlag.
17. Nyombi C., 2015. A critique of shareholder primacy under UK takeover law and the continued imposition of the board neutrality rule. International Journal of Law & Management. Vol. No. 57(4).
Review
For citations:
Zotova E.К. Development of German and Russian Corporate Law in the Hostile Take- over Environment. Journal of Law and Administration. 2018;(3):44-52. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2073-8420-2018-3-48-44-52
Views:
471
Email this article 