Mika J Lehtimäki works in the field of private equity, financial law and corporate transactions. More specifically he focuses on combining financial law with game theory and economics. He does also coding, primarily in Python, Java and R.
He is currently carrying out research on leveraged buy-outs and corporate restructuring. His work involves also both quantitative and qualitative empirical research.
He is also involved in combining financial law and regulation with game theory and computer science. Mika has been an associate editor of the Oxford Business Law Blog. He has also earlier acted as the Co-govenor of the Oxford Financial Law discussion Group.
He completed his masters degree in the University of Helsinki in 1999. He has an M.Jur (2003, Distinction) degree and an M.St (2006) degree from the University of Oxford. His M.St thesis was titled 'Debt Subordination in Corporate Liquidation' and his DPhil topic focuses on 'Intercreditor Agreement as a Contractual Solution to Restructuring Leveraged Buy-Outs'.
Mika has extensive experience of M&A and financial transactions, deal structuring and assisting funds and institutional investors in cross-border transactions. He has been listed several times as a leading financial and M&A lawyer in the Nordic region by Chambers Global, IFLR1000 and Legal500 and lectures on a continues basis, mostly to institutional investors.
He can also be found on LinkedIn.
- DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3390484Legal theory is essentially an inquiry into the nature of law, its fundamental features and institutions. Such theories are also inherently linked with human communities and especially communities that have acquired institutionalised features and practices that we commonly call ‘legal’. As such, law and legal system is often an aspect of a political system. Theories of the state, on the other hand, deal essentially with questions on the possibilities of legitimate structure of domination in our political societies, often in territorial states centralized for collective and exclusive exercise of power over our lives and fortunes. This paper evaluates two apparently opposing views on the necessary connections of theories of law and state. I argue in the paper that the question is a fundamental one and results directly from the underlying objectives a legal or a political theorists sets as his or her agenda. For example setting as the fundamental objective of law as providing normative reasons for action of its subjects, remaining true to the agenda does not require inquiry into moral or equivalent justifications. The opposite is true is if the fundamental objective of law were constraining the government from atrocities against its subjects.Despite the significant growth of the global structured product market in recent years, very few books on legal and regulatory issues related to structured products are available. The publication will contribute to the knowledge base of legal practitioners and other structured product market participants. For our purposes, the term structured product refers to a pre-packaged investment that combines derivatives with other financial instruments to provide a return based on the performance of one or more underlying assets, including equity securities, indices, commodities, interest rates, currencies and, in some jurisdictions, credit risks.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3390486The paper examines two different views of understanding the content of law and truth of our legal propositions, arguing that this largely depends on our point of view on law. However, furthering our understanding of the nature of law also depends on our ability to elucidate law’s relation to morality, the nature of normative claims made by law and the relationship between validity of legal norms and their justification. These factors determine and restrict the way we can ascertain the content of law. I examine in the paper, on the one hand, Joseph Raz’s statement on the scope of justifiable implication of the content on authoritative directives and intentions on law-makers and, on the other hand, Ronald Dworkin’s account on the role of integrity in identification and justification of legal norms. This means comparing Raz's argument that identification of law cannot rely on substantive political or moral argumentation and Dworkin’s account of law as integrity, which relies inherently on political morality, understanding the content of law as transparent to the scheme of principles justifying our authoritative directives. I argue in this paper that Raz’s and Dworkin’s views are incompatible concerning their relationships to morality, their justificatory aspects and ascertainment of legal content. However, they show that conceptual truths about law should correspond to our actual legal practices and that there may be space for refinements in their respective theories. But this leads to pluralistic views on law that remain to be explored.Alternative Investment Funds covers common issues - including regulatory frameworks, fund structures and marketing - in 29 jurisdictions.The section discusses regulatory aspects of carrying out public takeovers under Finnish and EU takeover legislation and regulation.
Corporate finance, banking law and regulation, M&A, hedge funds, private equity funds, corporate restructuring, derivatives, game theory, financial economics, computer science, programming, artificial intelligence