Biography

Luca Enriques is Professor of Corporate Law, in association with Jesus College. He studied law at the University of Bologna before completing his LLM at Harvard Law School and working at the Bank of Italy while at the same time earning a Doctorate degree in Business Law at Bocconi University. He then became a member of the University of Bologna Faculty of Law (1999-2012). During that period, he was a consultant to Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and an adviser to the Italian Ministry of the Economy and Finance on matters relating to corporate, banking and securities law with a special focus on European Union policy initiatives. He was a Commissioner at Consob, the Italian Securities and Exchange Commission between 2007 and 2012 and Professor of Business Law at LUISS University, Department of Law, in Rome in 2013-14.

He has held visiting posts at various academic institutions including Harvard Law School, where he was Nomura Visiting Professor of International Financial Systems (2012-13), Cornell Law School (where he was a John Oling Fellow for short stays in 1999 and 2000), the Instituto de Impresa in Madrid (2005), the Radzyner School of Law at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (2013-14), the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law (2015), Columbia Law School (2016 and 2019), and the University of Sydney Law School (2019).  

He has published widely in the fields of company law, corporate governance and financial regulation. He is a European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) Research Fellow, a member of ECGI's board, the chair of its Research Committee, a Fellow Academic Member of the European Banking Institute, where he co-chairs its FinTech Task Force, and one of the founding academic editors of the Oxford Business Law Blog.

Publications

Displaying 1 - 65 of 65. Sorted by year, then title.
Filter by
  • A Romano, L Enriques and JR Macey, 'Extended Shareholder Liability for Systemically Important Financial Institutions' (2020) 69 American University Law Review 967
    Regulators generally have tried to address the problems posed by the excessive risk-taking of Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) by placing restrictions on the activities in which SIFIs engage. However, the complexity of these institutions makes such attempts necessarily imperfect. This Article proposes to address the problem at its very source, which is the incentives that SIFI owners have to push for excessive risk-taking by managers. Building on the traditional rule of “double liability,” we propose to modify the current (general) rule limiting the liability of SIFI shareholders to the amount of their initial investments in such companies. We propose replacing the extant limited liability regime with a new system that imposes additional liability over and above what SIFI shareholders already have invested in a preset amount that varies with a SIFI’s centrality in the financial network. Our liability regime has a number of advantages. First, by increasing shareholder exposure to downside risk, it discourages excessive risk-taking. At the same time, by placing a clearly defined ceiling on shareholders’ total liability exposure, it will not obliterate shareholders’ incentives to invest in the first place. Second, the liability to which shareholders are exposed is carefully tailored to the level of systemic risk that their institution creates. Thus, our rule induces shareholders to account for the negative externality SIFIs can impose without unduly stifling such financial institutions’ role within the financial system and in the wider economy. Third, as the amount of liability is clearly defined ex ante using the rigorous tools of network theory, our rule minimizes the influence of interest groups and the impact of idiosyncratic government decisions. Last, as markets know in advance the amount of liability to which shareholders are exposed, our rule favors the creation of a vibrant insurance and derivative market so that the risk of SIFIs defaults can be allocated to those who can better bear it.
  • L Enriques, Alessandro Romano and T Wetzer, 'Network-Sensitive Financial Regulation' (2020) 45 The Journal of Corporation Law 351
    Shocks that hit part of the financial system, such as the subprime mortgage market in 2007, can propagate through a complex network of interconnections among financial and non-financial institutions. As the financial crisis of 2007-2009 has shown, the consequences for the entire economy of such systemic risk materializing can be catastrophic. Following the crisis, economists and policymakers have become increasingly aware that the structure of the financial system is a key determinant of systemic risk. A wide consensus now exists among them that network theory is the natural framework for studying systemic risk. Yet, most of the existing rules in financial regulation are still “atomistic,” in that they fail to incorporate the fact that each individual institution is part of a wider network. This Article shows that policies building upon insights from network theory (network-sensitive policies) can address systemic risk more effectively than traditional atomistic policies, also in areas where an atomistic approach would seem natural, such as the corporate governance of systemically important financial institutions. In particular, we consider four prescriptions for the governance of systemically important institutions (one on directors’ liability, two on executive compensation and one on failing financial institutions’ shareholders appraisal rights in mergers) and show how making them network-sensitive would both increase their effectiveness in taming systemic risk and better calibrate their impact on individual institutions.
    ISBN: 0360-795X
  • L Enriques, 'Pandemic-Resistant Corporate Law: How to Help Companies Cope with Existential Threats and Extreme Uncertainty During the Covid-19 Crisis' (2020) European Company and Financial Law Review 257
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2020-0014
    This essay argues that, to address the Covid-19 crisis, in addition to creating a special temporary insolvency regime, relaxing provisions for companies in the vicinity of insolvency, and enabling companies to hold virtual meetings, policymakers should tweak company law to facilitate equity and debt injections and address the consequences of the extreme uncertainty firms are facing. After some general reflections upon the type of rules that are needed in these exceptional times, examples of temporary corporate law interventions for the emergency are provided. Specifically, rules to facilitate injections of equity capital and shareholder loans are suggested, together with relaxations of directors’ liability rules and measures to protect firms against hostile takeovers. All of these measures should apply merely by default and only for so long as the emergency lasts. The essay concludes with some thoughts about how to make normal-times corporate law ready for similar emergencies in the future. The goal is both to reduce the risk that the temporary extreme measures enacted for this crisis are made permanent under the pretence that another crisis may hit again and to have quick adaptation mechanisms already in place to respond to such a crisis.
    ISBN: 1613-2556
  • H Eidenmüller, L Enriques, G Helleringer and K van Zwieten (eds), 'Centros at 20: Regulatory Arbitrage and Beyond' (2019) 20 European Business Organization Law Review 399
    ISBN: 1566-7529
  • M Bianchi, L Enriques and M Milic, 'Enforcing Rules on Related Party Transactions in Italy: One Securities Regulators’ Challenge' in L Enriques and T Tröger (eds), The Law and Finance of Related Party Transactions (Cambridge University Press 2019)
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108554442
    This paper is the introductory chapter of Luca Enriques and Tobias Tröger (eds.), The Law and Finance of Related Party Transactions (Cambridge University Press: forthcoming). Its goal is to sketch out the individual chapters’ contributions to the scholarly and policy debates on the adequate regulation of related party transactions (RPTs). For that purpose, we scope the issue by highlighting the principal costs and benefits of shareholder control, which allows both the implementation of entrepreneurial vision and various forms of rent-seeking. We next proceed by putting the challenges of regulating RPTs into the broader context of conflicts of interest and tunneling techniques. Against this background, we then turn to the main regulatory options available for legislators (independent/disinterested director approval, majority of the minority approval, ex post fairness review, and involvement of supervisory agencies), highlighting some of the key insights on each of them from individual chapters. Finally, we show how the chapters in the book can also inform European legislators who are currently in the process of implementing the revised Shareholder Rights Directive rules on RPTs.
  • J Armour and L Enriques, 'Equity Crowd Funding: An Acid Test for Securities Regulation' in Franklin Allen, Ester Faia, Michael Haliassos and Katja Langenbucher (eds), Capital Market Union and Beyond (MIT Press 2019)
    ISBN: 9780262042765
  • L Enriques and Alessandro Romano, 'Institutional Investor Voting Behavior: A Network Theory Perspective' (2019) University of Illinois Law Review 223
    This Article shows how network theory can improve our understanding of institutional investors’ voting behavior and, more generally, their role in corporate governance. The standard idea is that institutional investors compete against each other on relative performance and hence might not cast informed votes due to rational apathy and rational reticence. In other words, institutional investors have incentives to free ride instead of “cooperating” and casting informed votes. We show that connections of various nature among institutional investors, whether from formal networks, geographical proximity, or common ownership, and among institutional investors and other agents, such as proxy advisors, contribute to shaping institutional investors’ incentives to vote “actively.” They also create intricate competition dynamics: competition takes place not only among institutional investors (and their asset managers), but also at the level of their employees and among “cliques” of institutional investors. Employees, who strive for better jobs, are motivated to obtain more information on portfolio companies than may be strictly justified from their employer institution’s perspective, and to circulate it within their network. Cliques of institutional investors compete against each other. Because there are good reasons to believe that cliques of cooperators outperform cliques of noncooperators, the network-level competition might increase the incentives of institutional investors to collect information. These dynamics can enhance institutional investors’ engagement in portfolio companies and also shed light on some current policy issues such as the antitrust effects of common ownership and mandatory disclosures of institutional investors’ voting.
  • L Enriques and T Tröger, 'The Law and (Some) Finance of Related Party Transactions' in L Enriques and T Tröger (eds), The Law and Finance of Related Party Transactions (Cambridge University Press 2019)
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108554442
    This paper is the introductory chapter of Luca Enriques and Tobias Tröger (eds.), The Law and Finance of Related Party Transactions (Cambridge University Press: forthcoming). Its goal is to sketch out the individual chapters’ contributions to the scholarly and policy debates on the adequate regulation of related party transactions (RPTs). For that purpose, we scope the issue by highlighting the principal costs and benefits of shareholder control, which allows both the implementation of entrepreneurial vision and various forms of rent-seeking. We next proceed by putting the challenges of regulating RPTs into the broader context of conflicts of interest and tunneling techniques. Against this background, we then turn to the main regulatory options available for legislators (independent/disinterested director approval, majority of the minority approval, ex post fairness review, and involvement of supervisory agencies), highlighting some of the key insights on each of them from individual chapters. Finally, we show how the chapters in the book can also inform European legislators who are currently in the process of implementing the revised Shareholder Rights Directive rules on RPTs.
  • L Enriques and M Gatti, 'Creeping Acquisitions in Europe' in J Grant (ed), European Takeovers: The art of Acquisition (Global Law and Business 2018)
    ISBN: 9781787421769
  • L Enriques, J Armour and M Bengtzen, 'Globalization ' in M Fox, LR Goltsen, EF Greene, MS Patel (ed), Securities Markets Issues for the 21st Century (e-book 2018)
  • J Armour and L Enriques, 'Individual Investors’ Access to Crowdinvesting: Two Regulatory Models ' in Douglas Cumming and Lars Hornuf (eds), The Economics of Crowdfunding (Palgrave 2018)
    Crowdinvesting--raising many small contributions of capital from individual funders via specialized online platforms--is a burgeoning phenomenon. This Chapter first highlights the perils to which individual investors are exposed when they access these platforms. Next, it describes the legal regime in two sample jurisdictions, the US with its tradition of high-fixed-cost, disclosure-intensive securities laws that had to be tweaked to make equity crowdfunding viable, and the UK, which has early on provided for a nimble set of rules for the same. Finally, the Chapter offers some thoughts on the merits of introducing a lighter regime for equity crowdfunding.
    ISBN: 978-3-319-66119-3
  • L Enriques and G Hertig, 'Post-crisis Regulation of Asset Management' (2018) Annales des Mines – Réalités Industrielles 88
    While asset managers’ behavior has not been among the root causes of the financial crisis, their industry’s size and structure have generated financial stability concerns among policymakers. Global regulatory bodies nowadays agree that asset management activities are “systemically important”. On the other hand, the growth in retail activities has prompted regulatory and self-regulatory bodies to enact new rules relating to conduct of business, advice and best execution. Our essay briefly reviews global reforms affecting the asset management industry, focusing first on systemic interventions and then discussing investor protection reforms. To conclude, it addresses some emerging issues that we expect to be on policymakers’ agenda in the future.
  • John Armour, L Enriques, Ariel Ezrachi and John Vella, 'Putting technology to good use for society: the role of corporate, competition and tax law ' (2018) Journal of the British Academy 285
    Innovation and its main output, technology, are changing the way we work, socialise, vote, and live. New technologies have improved our lives and made firms more productive, overall raising living standards across the world. Thanks to progress in information technology, the rate of change is accelerating. Disruption and disequilibrium are the new normal. In this essay, prepared as a chapter for the first phase of the British Academy ‘The Future of the Corporation’ initiative, we reflect upon the role that corporate, competition and tax law can play both to facilitate innovation and simultaneously assuage emergent societal risks arising from new technologies. We consider means of enhancing investment in research and development (‘R&D’) and optimising corporate organisation. But we also reflect on the risks associated with innovation, such as the use of technology to exploit consumers, manipulate markets or distort, unwittingly or not, the political process. Finally, we consider the way in which the environment for business law reform is subject to new political risks following the challenge to the liberal order from populism and the rising power of dominant technology companies.
  • L Enriques, 'Related Party Transactions' in JN Gordon and G Ringe (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford University Press 2018)
    DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198743682.013.27
  • J Armour and L Enriques, 'The Promise and Perils of Crowdfunding: Between Corporate Finance and Consumer Contracts' (2018) The Modern Law Review 51
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12316
    ‘Crowdfunding’ is a burgeoning phenomenon. Its still-evolving status is reflected in diversity of contracting practices: for example, ‘equity’ crowdfunders invest in shares, whereas ‘reward’ crowdfunders get advance units of product. These practices occupy a hinterland between existing regimes of securities law and consumer contract law. Consumer protection law in the UK (but not the US) imposes mandatory terms that impede risk-sharing in reward crowdfunding, whereas US (but not UK) securities law mandates expensive disclosures that hinder equity crowdfunding. This article suggests that while crowdfunding poses real risks for funders, the classical regulatory techniques of securities and consumer law provide an ineffective response. Yet, a review of rapidly-developing market mechanisms suggests they may provide meaningful protection for funders. An initially permissive regulatory approach, open to learning from market developments yet with a credible threat of intervention should markets fail to protect consumers, is justified.
    ISBN: 1468-2230
  • L Enriques, 'A Harmonised European Company Law: Are We There Already?' (2017) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 763
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589317000239
    To what extent is EU company law harmonized? This article first makes the point that little progress has been made in the direction of company law uniformity within the EU. It then argues that, even leaving aside the question of whether it would be desirable to have a uniform EU company law, that outcome is simply impossible to achieve, due to interest group resistance and the variety in national meta-rules. Yet it concludes that, in a narrow meaning, European company laws have indeed been harmonized: European Member States company laws fit together, which may well be what harmonization, not only etymologically, is all about.
    ISBN: 0020-5893
  • L Enriques, 'Empty Threats – Why the UK Has Currently No Chance to Become a Tax or Regulatory Haven' in J Armour and H Eidenmueller (eds), Negotiating Brexit (Beck 2017)
  • L Enriques, 'Società per azioni' (2017) X Giuffrè Editore Enciclopedia del diritto. Annali. 958
  • R Kraakman, J Armour, P Davies and L Enriques and others, The Anatomy of Corporate Law (3rd edn Oxford University Press 2017)
    ISBN: 9780198724315
  • L Enriques and M Gargantini, 'The Expanding Boundaries of MiFID’s Duty to Act in the Client’s Best Interest: The Italian Case' (2017) The Italian Law Journal 485
    MiFID requires investment firms to act in accordance with the best interests of their clients. This overarching principle shapes firms’ professional conduct in at least two ways. First, it sets a general standard firms have to comply with when dealing with their clients, and its breach may lead to civil remedies for clients or administrative sanctions for investment firms. Second, the duty is the backbone of the detailed conduct of business rules within the body of MiFID II and its implementing measures, playing a role in their interpretation. In this paper, we analyse the duty to act in the clients’ best interest within the MiFID II framework, and illustrate its practical relevance by looking at its role in Italian financial markets law. More specifically, after recalling how the duty came to be an essential part of the ISD/MiFID framework, we map how the duty is spelt out, at various junctures, in the Directive and highlight its functions. Next, we look into how the duty operates with reference to different investment services and activities covered by MiFID II, claiming that the duty is quite difficult to reconcile with services characterized by at-arms’-length relationships between the investment firm and the client. Then, we focus on the use of the duty in the law in action of one member state, Italy, where retail investors have suffered from egregious cases of mis-selling of bonds issued by the banks acting as their investment services providers. We conclude that the MiFID II regime falls short of clarifying with sufficient precision the implications of the best interest duty and, at least in the civil law jurisdiction we focus on (Italy), significantly expands the scope for judicial review of purely arms-length firms-clients relationships.
    ISBN: 2421-2156
  • L Enriques and M Gargantini, 'Form and Function in Doing Business Ratings: Is Investor Protection in Italy Still So Bad?' (2016) University of Bologna Law Review 1
    DOI: 10.6092/issn.2531-6133/5583
    The World Bank’s Doing Business Report (DBR) ranks every year numerous jurisdictions across the globe according to their ability to facilitate business activities. Among the indexes contributing to the definition of the global competitiveness of the legislations, the “Protecting investors index” (PII) measures the protection of minority shareholders in listed companies. In this paper, we analyse the DBR’s assessment of the Italian regulatory framework on investor protection. We find that the PII falls short of properly evaluating the applicable rules. First, it underrates Italy because the DBR evaluation falls short of properly evaluating the role performed by independent directors under Italian rules on related party transactions. In particular, the DBR fails to properly account for independent directors’ power to veto unfair transactions before they are submitted to the board, a safeguard that ensures minority investors’ protection at least as well as mandatory abstention by conflicted directors. Second, past DBR overrated the PII, so that subsequent reforms that substantially improved investor protection have not been grasped by more recent assessments, giving the misleading impression that no relevant changes have occurred. Far from representing one of the multiple coding errors reported in the literature, these flaws aptly show that the DBR methodology, while correctly attempting to preserve consistency in the evaluation of different jurisdictions, adopts an excessively formalistic approach and disregards the function of the rules it scrutinizes. In light of the influence that the DBR exerts on national policymakers, this approach is detrimental because it might induce window-dressing reforms. Moreover, it may rule out experimentation, which is key to ensuring that the applicable rules keep pace with the variety of techniques adopted to expropriate minority shareholders.
    ISBN: 2531-6133
  • M Belcredi and L Enriques, 'Institutional Investor Activism in a Context of Concentrated Ownership and High Private Benefits of Control: The Case of Italy' in JG Hill and RS Thomas (eds), Research Handbook on Shareholder Power (Edgar Elgar 2015)
    This chapter describes the experience with activist institutional investors in an apparently unfavorable corporate environment (Italy), commonly depicted as one of concentrated ownership, notoriously inadequate legal protection for minority shareholders and an apparent disregard for their interests by controlling shareholders. We document a non-negligible volume of “core” active institutional investment, together with some idiosyncratic forms of activism (the appointment of “minority” directors on the boards of Italian listed companies). We attempt to evaluate whether what we see is genuine shareholder-value oriented activism or a strategy to engage in a privileged relationship with controlling shareholders, in order to share in private benefits of control extraction. We find no sufficient evidence to support a “dark side” view of shareholder activism, at least as a general explanation. Instead, we provide recent anecdotal evidence of initiatives effectively aimed to curb the extraction of private benefits by dominant shareholders.
    ISBN: 978 1 78254 684 9
  • L Enriques and D Zetzsche, 'Quack Corporate Governance, Round III? Bank Board Regulation Under the New European Capital Requirement Directive ' (2015) Theoretical Inquiries in Law 211
    After a crisis, broad and sweeping reforms are enacted to restore trust. Following the 2007-2008 Great Financial Crisis, the European Union has engaged in an ambitious overhaul of banking regulation. One of its centrepieces, the 2013 Fourth Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV), tackles, amongst other things, the perceived pre-crisis failings in the governance of banks. We focus on the provisions that are aimed at reshaping bank boards’ composition, functioning, and their members’ liabilities, and argue that they are unlikely to improve bank boards’ effectiveness or prevent excessive risk-taking. We criticize some of them for mandating solutions, like board diversity and the separation of chairman and CEO, that may be good for some banks but are bad for others, in the absence of any convincing argument that their overall effect is positive. We also criticize enhanced board liability by showing that it may increase the risk of herd behaviour and lead to more serious harm in the event of managerial mistakes. We also highlight that the push towards unfriendly boards may negatively affect board dynamics and make boards as dysfunctional as when the CEO dominates them. We further argue that limits on directorships and diversity requirements will worsen the shortage of bank directors, while requirements for induction and training and board evaluation exercises will more likely lead to tick-the-box exercises than under the current situation in which they are just best practices. We conclude that European policymakers and supervisors should avoid using a heavy hand, respectively, when issuing rules implementing CRD IV provisions with regard to bank boards and when enforcing them.
    ISBN: 1565-3404
  • L Enriques, 'Related Party Transactions: Policy Options and Real-World Challenges (with a Critique of the European Commission Proposal) ' (2015) 16 European Business Organization Law Review 1
    This paper provides a legal and policy analysis of transactions between a corporation and one of its ‘related parties’. It first highlights the reasons why related party transactions (RPTs) are so common around the world. Next, it better identifies the phenomenon as a specific form of potentially abusive behaviour by dominant shareholders and managers, i.e., as an instrument for tunneling, asking why many jurisdictions provide for specific regulations on RPTs in addition to general rules or standards on tunneling. Then, it describes the main legal tools available to prevent corporate agents from diverting value from the corporation via RPTs. Further, it provides a (partially) critical assessment of the measures put forth by the European Commission to harmonise rules on RPTs within the EU, based on the previous analysis of individual legal tools. Finally, it shows that no regulation of RPTs (or tunneling) can succeed in preventing minority shareholder expropriation in the absence of sophisticated enforcement actors (specialised courts and/or active and committed securities regulators) and non-legal supporting institutions, like independent financial media and anti-tunneling social norms.
    ISBN: 1566-7529

Blog posts by Luca Enriques

25 Sep 2020

Missing in Friedman’s Shareholder Value Maximization Credo: The Shareholders

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
08 Jul 2020

Fintech Startups and Incumbent Players Series - Bank-Fintech Partnerships, Outsourcing Arrangements, and the Case for a Mentorship Regime

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | Wolf-Georg Ringe, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
22 Apr 2020

GCGC/ECGI Global Webinar Series - Extreme times, Extreme Measures: Pandemic-Resistant Corporate Law

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
17 Apr 2020

COVID-19: A Global Moratorium for Corporate Bonds?

By Kristin van Zwieten, Harris Manchester College | Horst Eidenmüller, St Hugh's College | Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Commercial Law Centre
30 Mar 2020

Corporate Technologies and the Tech Nirvana Fallacy

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | Dirk A. Zetzsche

Oxford Business Law Blog
25 Mar 2020

Enhancing Private Donations in the Fight Against COVID-19

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
23 Mar 2020

COVID-19: A Global Moratorium for Corporate Bonds?

By Kristin van Zwieten, Harris Manchester College | Horst Eidenmüller, St Hugh's College | Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
12 Mar 2020

Stock Exchange Shutdowns in the Time of Coronavirus

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
18 Dec 2019

Extended Shareholder Liability for Systemically Important Financial Institutions

By Alessandro Romano | Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | Jonathan R. Macey

Oxford Business Law Blog
22 Oct 2019

Welcome to Vilnius: Regulatory Competition in the EU Market for E-Money

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
03 Oct 2019

The Law and Finance of Related Party Transactions

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | Tobias H. Tröger

Oxford Business Law Blog
18 Sep 2019

Call for Papers: Fintech Startups and Incumbent Players. Policy Challenges and Opportunities

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | Wolf-Georg Ringe, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
12 Sep 2019

The Business Roundtable CEOs’ Statement: Same Old, Same Old

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
10 Jul 2019

Centros@20 Series: Two Comments on Elizabeth Pollman’s 'Tech, Regulatory Arbitrage, and Limits'

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
03 Jun 2019

Network-Sensitive Financial Regulation

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | Alessandro Romano | Thom Wetzer, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
22 May 2019

Introducing the Centros@20 Series

By Horst Eidenmüller, St Hugh's College | Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
06 Feb 2019

Putting Technology to Good Use for Society: The role of corporate, competition and tax law

By John Armour, Faculty of Law | Ariel Ezrachi, Pembroke College | Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | John Vella, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog
22 Oct 2018

Enforcing Rules on Related Party Transactions in Italy: One Securities Regulator’s Challenge

By Marcello Bianchi | Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | Mateja Milič

Oxford Business Law Blog
07 May 2018

Institutional Investor Voting Behavior: A Network Theory Perspective

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law | Alessandro Romano

Oxford Business Law Blog
26 Jan 2018

What should qualify as a 'SME Growth Market'?

By Luca Enriques, Faculty of Law

Oxford Business Law Blog

Pages

Events organised by Luca Enriques

Past events

17 Jun 2020

Wednesday - 12:30PM

Business Law Workshop

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

Clara Natividade Martins Pereira & Nikita Aggarwal

Venue

Zoom Webinar

10 Jun 2020

Wednesday - 12:30PM

Katrien Morbee - 'A role for governance in the current prudential framework'; Jon Chan -‘The Dynamics of Rule Evolution and Stock Exchange Self-Regulation’

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

Katrien Morbee, Jon Chan

Venue

Zoom Webinar

05 Jun 2020

Friday - 8:45AM

The COVID-19 Crisis: Legal, Policy and Ethical Challenges

Venue

LIVE ONLINE SEMINAR

03 Jun 2020

Wednesday - 12:30PM

Covid-19, Public Policy and Commercial Law

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

Kristin van Zwieten, Horst Eidenmueller & Oren Sussman

Speaker Affiliation

Oxford Law Faculty & Said Business School

Venue

Zoom

27 May 2020

Wednesday - 12:30PM

The Covid-19 Crisis and Business Law

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

Abi Adams-Prassl & Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Judith Freedman, Alice Pirlot (with Richard Collier & John Vella), Luca Enriques

Venue

Zoom

20 May 2020

Wednesday - 5:00PM

The Power of the Narrative in Corporate Law

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

Mark Roe

Speaker Affiliation

Harvard Law School

Venue

Zoom

13 May 2020

Wednesday - 12:30PM

Securities lending, the right to use, and financial trusts: Lessons (imperfectly learned) from the Lehman insolvency

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

Joshua Getzler

Speaker Affiliation

Oxford Law Faculty

Venue

Zoom

06 May 2020

Wednesday - 12:30PM

Codetermination: A Poor Fit for U.S. Corporations

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

Horst Eidenmüller & Jens Dammann

Speaker Affiliation

Oxford Law Faculty & University of Texas Law School

Venue

Zoom

29 Apr 2020

Wednesday - 12:30PM

Augmented Lawyering

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

John Armour

Speaker Affiliation

Oxford Law Faculty

Venue

Zoom

11 Mar 2020

Wednesday - 12:30PM

A New Deal for Consumers and Business

Business Law Workshops

Speaker

Susanne Augenhofer

Speaker Affiliation

Yale Law School

Venue

Law Board Room - St Cross Building

Research projects