Showing key publications in this field, as selected by the author
Change to sort them by title | name | type OR
Show All 32 | Recent publications

Negative risk-decoupling, otherwise known as empty voting, is a popular strategy amongst hedge funds and other activist investors. In short, it is the attempt to decouple the economic risk from the share’s ownership position, retaining in particular the voting right without risk. This paper uses three perspectives to analyse the problems created by negative risk-decoupling: an agency costs approach, an analysis of information costs, and a perspective from corporate finance. It shows how risk-decoupling is a type of market behaviour that creates significant costs for market participants, in particular existing shareholders and potential investors. The paper then develops regulatory responses, envisaged particularly for EU level lawmaking, but also raises underlying issues on a more general level. Whilst several proposed regulatory tools are rejected, the paper prefers a solution that uses continuous transparency as the cornerstone. In addition, it suggests that in certain individual cases, national regulators should be empowered to suspend activists’ voting rights. The paper concludes by offering a concrete legislative proposal, amending the European Transparency Directive.

This paper explores the benefit of using menu structures for regulatory purposes in private law. Menus have been used rarely by regulators and lawmakers in the past. Insofar as they are used, they address situations where market participants have relatively heterogeneous preferences, where the subject matter of regulation itself is heterogeneous, or where a political consensus appears difficult. This paper addresses a number of benefits that reach beyond the traditional perception of menu lawmaking. Benefiting from insights from economics and behavioural science, several benefits can be identified that exploit the full potential of menu lamaking. Central to these benefits is the notion of endowment effect (or status quo bias) involved with traditional default rules: where the law provides just one default rule, market participants will mostly stick to this rule out of pure convenience. This means that simple default rules are frequently inappropriate to identify the preference of market participants. This problem can be overcome by using menus, giving consumers a choice between different options, each of which is endorsed by the authority and impartiality of the parliamentary lawmaker. But menus have many other advantages than traditional black-or-white legal rules.

ISBN: 0003-8997

The rules on assignment and transfer of rights and obligations are currently outside the scope of the proposed CESL. In contrast, the original DCFR from 2009 includes a chapter on these issues. Questions outside the scope of CESL are left to be solved by the ‘domestic’ provisions of the national law that is applicable under the relevant conflict-of-laws provisions. This paper is part of the larger CFR Context research project and explores interactions of the system of assignment of receivables under a future European contract instrument with both English and German national laws. This concerns above all other areas of law, for example the rules that apply upon the insolvency of one of the parties (in particular that of the assignor) and the rules on public policy. Key differences between the jurisdictions include, inter alia, the proprietary aspects of the assignor’s insolvency where the assignor is paid by the debtor, the priority rule for competing assignments, and the effects of a non-assignment clause. Here, the choice of the optional instrument rather than either English or German law will lead to diverging results and may therefore prejudice any of the parties involved.

In capital markets around the world, calls for greater transparency regarding holdings of cash-settled equity derivatives (in particular Contracts for Difference, CfDs) have arisen due to the increased use of CfDs to gain control or to influence the management of prominent companies on all major European stock exchanges. They have been used in this manner due to an emerging practice that permits a CfD holder to capture the shares to which the CfD arrangement relates (without entering into any further express or implied agreements to do so), thereby acquiring a de facto control position in the target company. The UK was among the first countries to extend its shareholder disclosure regime to cover CfDs. Positions above the trigger threshold of 3 per cent must be disclosed as if they were shares enti-tling the holder to voting rights in the target company. Two alternatives were considered when pre-paring this new regulation: firstly, a general disclosure obligation of all economic long positions and secondly, a safe harbour regulation with exemptions from the requirement to disclose certain CfD transactions. Ultimately, the first option was preferred, yet not on the basis of its own merits but be-cause the safe harbour alternative was considered too complicated and difficult to enforce. This paper evaluates disclosure regulation of cash-settled equity derivatives and assesses the ef-fectiveness and suitability of the disclosure regulation under chapter 5 of Disclosure and Transparency Rules (DTR) in the UK with comparison to the relevant US rules and case law. We argue that the UK made the wrong choice of disclosure regime for CfDs. It fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the underlying problem relating to CfDs. As this article explains, the key problem related to CfDs is not the economic interest which CfDs convey per se, but rather the hedging structures that market participants have developed to facilitate the use of CfDs to acquire control of companies by stealth. This particular mischief would have been better targeted by an intentions-based disclosure regulation requiring disclosure of CfD positions only in cases where the CfD holder intends to launch a takeover or to otherwise influence the target company’s strategy and operations. Instead, the UK market is saddled with a general disclosure obligation with only very limited exceptions. This disclosure obligation is too wide in scope, places an undue burden on market partici-pants and ultimately acts as a deterrent to CfD transactions. This article argues that the UK should move away from the current general disclosure obligation towards intentions-based disclosure to re-move the current fetter on the CfD market, while still tackling the underlying mischief.

ISBN: 1859789781

The integration of the European capital markets makes progress and has led both issuers and investors being active on various markets on both sides of the Atlantic. In times of financial crises, this brings one question into the centre of attention which had not been discussed exhaustively before: In the situation of a securities liability towards investors in an international context, which is the applicable law to the liability claim? The harmonisation of private international law rules in Europe gives rise to new reflections on the problem of international issuer liability. In the United States, on the other hand, the Supreme Court has just granted certiorari in a ‘foreign-cubed’ securi-ties class action case and will thus rule for the first time on matters relating to the inter-national application of the US securities regulation soon. This paper understands the role of issuer liability in a broader context as a ‘corporate governance’ device and, from this starting point, develops a new approach to the legal problem of cross-border securities liability.

European corporate law has enjoyed a renaissance in the past decade. Fifteen years ago, this would have seemed most implausible. In the mid-1990s, the early integration strategy of seeking to harmonise substantive company law seemed to have been stalled by the need to reconcile fundamental differences in approaches to corporate governance. Little was happening, and the grand vision of the early pioneers appeared more dream than ambition. Yet since then, a combination of adventurous decisions by the Court of Justice, innovative approaches to legislation by the Commission, and disastrous crises in capital markets has produced a headlong rush of reform activity. The volume and pace of change has been such that few have had time to digest it: not least policymakers, with the consequence that the developments have not always been well coordinated. The recent 2007/08 financial crisis has yet again thrown many - quite fundamental - issues into question. In this article, we offer an overview that puts the most significant developments of this decade into context, alongside each other and the changing patterns of corporate structure in European countries.

The case-law of the European Court of Justice in the field of company law has repeatedly touched on the question of abuse, most notably in the situation where a company was set up in a Member State only to do business exclusively in another. Starting with the landmark case of Centros in 1999, the Court has repeatedly stressed that it employs a liberal approach towards abuse in this field. According to the Court, making use of the disparities of different legal standards when setting up a company is not abuse, but explicit use of the freedom of establishment. This paper analyses the Court’s approach towards abusive behaviour in company law and assesses the impact that the leading cases since 1999 have had both on business behaviour in the EU and on the national law-makers who have responded to the opening of the markets. It is shown that the Court has provoked a sizeable entrepreneurial migration from various countries towards the UK. This in turn has led to regulatory competition, in that other Member States in continental Europe have been forced to adapt their company law to make it more attractive for businesses. It is argued that at least so far, the (limited) competition between Member States has been beneficial and has reduced both registration time and costs. Questions remain as to the relevance of any comparison with the United States and the future developments for corporate re-incorporations.

DOI: 10.1017/S0008197310000516

Company law has long been in conflict with European Union law. Whereas the traditional approach of the European Court of Justice was to challenge national company law rules that were applied to foreign companies under the freedom of establishment (Centros and its progeny), recent case-law suggests that the Court might embark on a general assessment of domestic company law rules. This tendency is based on an extended interpretation of the free movement of capital, which became most prominently relevant in the recent Volkswagen case. A systematic analysis of the latter fundamental freedom and its relationship to company law demonstrates that this tendency is not without risk and might well end up in a ‘quality control’ of national company law through the ECJ. However, differentiated outcomes will be found depending on the actor in question (private party or State), and depending on the beneficiary of the measure at stake. It is argued that State measures potentially will always trigger the scope of application of the free movement of capital, irrespective of their nature or objective. Hence, even general statutory company law can be caught by this fundamental freedom. However, the decisive test will be identified as whether the measure has a ‘deterring effect’ on potential investors from other Member States. Special rights for the State are one extreme example which are surely caught by EC law, and purely private arrangements within the articles of association, are the other extreme. This test is recommended to serve the Court as guidance in future cases.

DOI: 10.1017/S156675290800579X

Cross-border forum shopping for the benefit of a different insolvency law regime has become popular within the European Union in recent years. Yet legislators, courts and legal scholarship react with suspicion when debtors cross the border only to profit from a different insolvency law system. The most prominent legal tool, the European Insolvency Regulation, is based on the assumption that forum shopping is bad for the functioning of the European Internal Market. This paper questions the hostile attitude towards the phenomenon of forum shopping. It is argued that forum shopping can have beneficial effects both for the company and for its creditors, and that strong safeguards for creditors who oppose the migration are in place. Furthermore, the validity of the COMI approach of the Regulation under the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty is questioned; it is suggested that the current regime needs to be amended. The proposed new system would enable more corporate mobility within the European Union and create more legal certainty for all constituencies at the same time.