Faculty Bibliography

Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organizations: 2021-2022 Statutory Supplement

Numerous high profile cases across industries and jurisdictions, including Wells Fargo, Siemens, Volkswagen, BP or Google, indicate that legal compliance remains a significant corporate governance challenge around the world. Ever increasing fines have become the standard response to all types of misconduct by corporations and their agents. Are they the appropriate answer to the compliance challenge? Are there superiour ways to rein in corporations? What can academic research contribute to this debate? An international Roundtable among academics, regulators and practitioners, which was organized at Harvard Law School in May 2018, discussed these and several related questions. The conclusions from this debate suggest a three-pronged way forward: (i) Companies need to keep finetuning their compliance organizations and toolkits by, e.g., systematically measuring the effectiveness of compliance efforts and specifically linking compensation policies to compliance; (ii) regulators and prosecutors need to give more weight to incentivizing corporate compliance around the world by, e.g., adding a properly-designed compliance defense to their fining policies; and (iii) academics need to put compliance as a serious topic on their research agendas with a view to developing meaningful guidance to companies and governments, as they have been doing for some time in other corporate governance areas.

The Supreme Court has looked to the rights of corporate shareholders in determining the rights of union members and non-members to control political spending, and vice versa. The Court sometimes assumes that if shareholders disapprove of corporate political expression, they can easily sell their shares or exercise control over corporate spending. This assumption is mistaken. Because of how capital is saved and invested, most individual shareholders cannot obtain full information about corporate political activities, even after the fact, nor can they prevent their savings from being used to speak in ways with which they disagree. Individual shareholders have no “opt out” rights or practical ability to avoid subsidizing corporate political expression with which they disagree. Nor do individuals have the practical option to refrain from putting their savings into equity investments, as doing so would impose damaging economic penalties and ignore conventional financial guidance for individual investors.Most individual shareholders cannot obtain full information about a corporation’s speech or political activities, even after the fact, nor can most shareholders prevent their savings from being used for political activity with which they disagree. More generally, the Court's focus on whether union non-members are effectively forced to fund political speech or activity with which they disagree should reflect the fact that most Americans must routinely fund speech with which they disagree. While some of this compulsion is from practical reality rather than law there are numerous examples outside the union context of laws that require individuals to fund expressive activities. There is, simply put, very little way for most individuals in modern America to avoid subsidizing speech with which they disagree.

This paper is the first chapter of the third edition of The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, by Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry Hansmann, Gerard Hertig, Klaus Hopt, Hideki Kanda Mariana Pargendler, Georg Ringe, and Edward Rock (Oxford University Press, 2017). This paper is the first chapter of the third edition of The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, by Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry Hansmann, Gerard Hertig, Klaus Hopt, Hideki Kanda Mariana Pargendler, Georg Ringe, and Edward Rock (Oxford University Press, 2017). The book as a whole provides a functional analysis of corporate (or company) law in Europe, the U.S., and Japan. Its organization reflects the structure of corporate law across all jurisdictions, while individual chapters explore the diversity of jurisdictional approaches to the common problems of corporate law. In its third edition, the book has been significantly revised and expanded. As the introductory chapter to the book, this paper introduces the book’s analytic framework, which focuses on the common structure of corporate law across different jurisdictions as a response to fundamentally similar legal and economic problems. It first details the economic importance of the corporate form’s hallmark features: legal personality, limited liability, transferable shares, delegated management, and investor ownership. The major agency problems that attend the corporate form and that, therefore, must be addressed, are identified. The chapter next considers the role of law and contract in structuring corporate affairs, including the function of mandatory and default rules, standard forms, and choice of law, as well the debate about the proper role of corporate law in promoting overall social welfare. While almost all legal systems retain the core features of the corporate form, individual jurisdictions have made distinct choices regarding many other aspects of their corporate laws. The forces shaping the development of corporate law, including evolving patterns of share ownership, are examined.

This paper is the third chapter of the third edition of The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, by Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry Hansmann, Gerard Hertig, Klaus Hopt, Hideki Kanda Mariana Pargendler, Georg Ringe, and Edward Rock (Oxford University Press, 2017). The book as a whole provides a functional analysis of corporate (or company) law in Europe, the U.S., and Japan. Its organization reflects the structure of corporate law across all jurisdictions, while individual chapters explore the diversity of jurisdictional approaches to the common problems of corporate law. In its third edition, the book has been significantly revised and expanded. Chapter 3 examines legal strategies employed in representative “core jurisdictions” to mitigate manager-shareholder conflicts. Agency problems arise from two of the core features of the corporate form: investor ownership, which often results in ultimate control being held by shareholders far removed from the firm’s day-to-day operations; and delegated management, which opens up the possibility for opportunistic behavior. This chapter describes how legal strategies outlined in Chapter 2 of the book are utilized to solve the trade-offs resulting from the interaction of investor ownership with delegated management. It describes the use of appointment rights, by which shareholders retain the right to appoint and remove directors. Next, it focuses on core decision rights and how their effectiveness is related to the problem of shareholder coordination costs. It then considers reward strategies and independent directors as a popular trusteeship strategy, while also highlighting differences in and commonalities in the regulation of executive compensation. The chapter briefly reviews legal rules and standards and disclosure as additional tools, before reflecting upon why some divergence in the basic corporate governance structure persists across our sample jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court has looked to the rights of corporate shareholders in determining the rights of union members and non-members to control political spending, and vice versa. The Court sometimes assumes that if shareholders disapprove of corporate political expression, they can easily sell their shares or exercise control over corporate spending. This assumption is mistaken. Because of how capital is saved and invested, most individual shareholders cannot obtain full information about corporate political activities, even after the fact, nor can they prevent their savings from being used to speak in ways with which they disagree. Individual shareholders have no “opt out” rights or practical ability to avoid subsidizing corporate political expression with which they disagree. Nor do individuals have the practical option to refrain from putting their savings into equity investments, as doing so would impose damaging economic penalties and ignore conventional financial guidance for individual investors.

Compared to the worldwide financial carnage that followed the Subprime Crisis of 2007–2008, it may seem of small consequence that it is also said to have demonstrated the bankruptcy of an academic financial institution: the Efficient Capital Market Hypothesis (“ECMH”). Two things make this encounter between theory and seemingly inconvenient facts of consequence. First, the ECMH had moved beyond academia, fueling decades of a deregulatory agenda. Second, when economic theory moves from academics to policy, it also enters the realm of politics, and is inevitably refashioned to serve the goals of political argument. This happened starkly with the ECMH. It was subject to its own bubble—as a result of politics, it expanded from a narrow but important academic theory about the informational underpinnings of market prices to a broad ideological preference for market outcomes over even measured regulation. In this Article we examine the Subprime Crisis as a vehicle to return the ECMH to its information cost roots that support a more modest but sensible regulatory policy. In particular, we argue that the ECMH addresses informational efficiency, which is a relative, not an absolute measure. This focus on informational efficiency leads to a more focused understanding of what went wrong in 2007–2008. Yet informational efficiency is related to fundamental efficiency—if all information relevant to determining a security’s fundamental value is publicly available and the mechanisms by which that information comes to be reflected in the security’s market price operate without friction, fundamental and informational efficiency coincide. But where all value-relevant information is not publicly available and/or the mechanisms of market efficiency operate with frictions, the coincidence is an empirical question both as to the information efficiency of prices and their relation to fundamental value. Properly framing market efficiency focuses our attention on the frictions that drive a wedge between relative efficiency and efficiency under perfect market conditions. So framed, relative efficiency is a diagnostic tool that identifies the information costs and structural barriers that reduce price efficiency which, in turn, provides part of a realistic regulatory strategy. While it will not prevent future crises, improving the mechanisms of market efficiency will make prices more efficient, frictions more transparent, and the influence of politics on public agencies more observable, which may allow us to catch the next problem earlier. Recall that on September 8, 2008, the Congressional Budget Office publicly stated its uncertainty about whether there would be a recession and predicted 1.5 percent growth in 2009. Eight days later, Lehman Brothers had failed, and AIG was being nationalized.

From the authors of Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organization, this comprehensive yet concise Statutory Supplement provides relevant excerpts from state and federal statutes, SEC rules and regulations, restatements and ...

Our essay on The End of History for Corporate Law was originally written for a conference at Columbia University in 1997 that was organized to address a question that was then just beginning to attract substantial attention: “Are Corporate Governance Systems Converging?” There can of course be as many answers to that question as there are interpretations of the question itself. At a macro level, however, it seemed to us that there was an important sense in which the answer to this question was clearly "yes." In our essay -- with its hyperbolic title and somewhat more modulated text -- we sought to expound that view. We now ask whether, 15 years after the End of History essay was written, the claims it makes still hold up.

Two empirical literatures tie the displacement of CEOs of widely-held companies to the poor performance of their firms - the turnover and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) literatures. In this paper we demonstrate a strong link between CEO turnover and friendly acquisitions of target firms in the S&P 500 between 1992 and 2004. We find that acquisitions and internal CEO turnover are most likely to occur at the same point in a CEO’s tenure, roughly five years after her initial appointment. We conjecture that deals are potential alternatives to CEO dismissal by the board or imminent CEO retirement. We explore interactions among CEO dismissals, retirements and resignations, and acquisitions on the one hand, and firm performance and CEO tenure on the other. We also investigate more specific hypotheses relating tenure to a CEO’s age, status as an inside or outside appointee, and the level of deal activity in the M&A market. Among our key findings is that the probability of a deal remains constant over the upper half of the age distribution of our sample CEOs, even though their probability of retiring increases sharply. This suggests that - contrary to our conjecture - impending retirement is not among the stronger incentives driving the management of target firms to seek friendly buyers. Finally, this paper contributes on the methodological level by comparing multinomial logistic regression - the traditional methodology of turnover research - to competing risk regression, a methodology adapted from epidemiological and medical research and recently introduced into the empirical finance literature.

This article is the second chapter of the second edition of "The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach," by Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry Hansmann, Gerard Hertig, Klaus Hopt, Hideki Kanda and Edward Rock (Oxford University Press 2009). The book as a whole provides a functional analysis of corporate (or company) law in Europe, the U.S., and Japan. Its organization reflects the structure of corporate law across all jurisdictions, while individual chapters explore the diversity of jurisdictional approaches to the common problems of corporate law. In its second edition, the book has been significantly revised and expanded. "Agency Problems and Legal Strategies" establishes the analytical framework for the book as a whole. After further elaborating the agency problems that motivate corporate law, this chapter identifies five legal strategies that the law employs to address these problems. Describing these strategies allows us to more accurately map legal similarities and differences across jurisdictions. Some legal strategies are "regulatory" insofar as they directly constrain the actions of corporate actors: for example, a standard of behavior such as a director's duty of loyalty and care. Other legal strategies are "governance-based" insofar as they channel the distribution of power and payoffs within companies to reduce opportunism. For example, the law may accord direct decision rights to a vulnerable corporate constituency, as when it requires shareholder approval of mergers. Alternatively, the law may assign appointment rights over top managers to a vulnerable constituency, as when it accords shareholders - or in some jurisdictions, employees - the power to select corporate directors. We then consider the relationship between different enforcement mechanisms - public agencies, private actors, and gatekeeper control - and the basic legal strategies outlined. We conclude that regulatory strategies require more extensive enforcement mechanisms - in the form of courts and procedural rules - to secure compliance than do governance strategies. However, governance strategies, for efficacy, require shareholders to be relatively concentrated so as to be able to exercise their decisional rights effectively. In addition to Chapter 2, Chapter 1, "What is Corporate Law?," is available in full text on the SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1436551

Introduction to the law of enterprise organization -- Acting through others : the law of agency -- The problem of joint ownership : the law of partnership -- The corporate form -- Debt, equity, and economic value -- The protection of creditors -- Normal governance : the voting system -- Normal governance : the duty of care -- Conflict transactions : the duty of loyalty -- Shareholder lawsuits -- Transactions in control -- Fundamental transactions : mergers and acquisitions -- Public contests for corporate control -- Trading in the corporation's securities.

This article is the first chapter of the second edition of The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, by Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry Hansmann, Gerard Hertig, Klaus Hopt, Hideki Kanda and Edward Rock (Oxford University Press, 2009). The book as a whole provides a functional analysis of corporate (or company) law in Europe, the U.S., and Japan. Its organization reflects the structure of corporate law across all jurisdictions, while individual chapters explore the diversity of jurisdictional approaches to the common problems of corporate law. In its second edition, the book has been significantly revised and expanded. As the book's introductory chapter, this article describes the functions and boundaries of corporate law. We first detail the economic importance of the corporate form's hallmark features: legal personality, limited liability, transferable shares, delegated management, and investor ownership. We then identify the major agency problems that attend the corporate form, and that, therefore, corporate law must address: conflicts between managers and shareholders, between controlling and minority shareholders, and between shareholders as a class and non-shareholder constituencies of the firm such as creditors and employees. In our view, corporate law serves in part to accommodate contract and property law to the corporate form and, in substantial part, to address the agency problems that are associated with this form. We next consider the role of law in structuring corporate affairs so as to achieve these goals: whether, and to what extent standard forms - as opposed, on the one hand, to private contract, and on the other, to mandatory rules - are needed, and the role of regulatory competition. Whilst the ‘core’ features of corporate law are present in all - or almost all - legal systems, different systems have made different choices regarding the form and content of many other aspects of their corporate laws. To assist in explaining these, we review a range of forces that shape the development of corporate law, including domestic share ownership patterns. These forces operate differently across countries, implying that in some cases, complementary differences in corporate laws are functional. However, other such differences may be better explained as a response to purely distributional concerns. In addition to Chapter 1, Chapter 2 of the Anatomy of Corporate Law (2nd ed.), Agency problems, Legal Strategies, and Enforcement is also available (full text) on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1436555.

The centrality of the CEO is reflected in the empirical literature linking CEO turnover to poor firm performance. However, less is known about the institutional and personal correlates of CEO turnover. In this study, we find two CEO characteristics interact with turnover: tenure and ownership. We interpret our results as indicating that CEOs of S&P 500 firms divide into two groups with different tenure patterns – “owners” (who have large personal shareholdings) and “managers” (who have smaller holdings). The tenure of manager-CEOs (as opposed to owner-CEOs) exhibits a term structure loosely similar to the one produced by the tenure process at academic institutions. Turnover significantly depends on firm performance during a CEO’s first four years on the job. In particular, external turnover by sale of the firm peaks a year 4 during a CEO tenure. By contrast, external turnover peaks at years 5 – 6, and plateaus at relatively high levels until year 9 of tenure. These term effects are strongest for relatively young CEOs. We also find that forced exit, retirement, and deals covary rather than substitute for one another as modes of CEO turnover. However, forced exits and deals both relate to poor performance by the firm on different metrics. Our evidence suggests that most internal turnover, particularly after a CEO’s first five years, is unrelated to firm performance.

While they often rely on the threat of penalties to produce deterrence, legal systems rarely use the promise of rewards. In this Paper, we consider the use of rewards to motivate director vigilance. Measures to enhance director liability are commonly perceived to be too costly. We, however, demonstrate that properly designed reward regimes could match the behavioral incentives offered by negligence-based liability regimes but with significantly lower costs. We further argue that the market itself cannot implement such a regime in the form of equity compensation for directors. We conclude by providing preliminary sketches of two alternative reward regimes. While this paper focuses on outside directors, the implications of our analysis extend to other gatekeepers as well.

Introduction to the law of enterprise organization -- Acting through others: the law of agency -- The problem of joint ownership: the law of partnership -- The corporate form -- Debt, equity, and economic value -- The protection of creditors -- Normal governance: the voting system -- Normal governance: the duty of care -- Conflict transactions: the duty of loyalty -- Shareholder lawsuits -- Transactions in control -- Fundamental transactions: mergers and acquisitions -- Public contests for corporate control -- Trading in the corporation's securities.

The many legal forms for business organisations that first appeared in the United States during the last thirty years — the limited liability company (LLC), the limited liability partnership (LLP), the limited liability limited partnership (LLLP) and the statutory business trust — all combine the pattern of creditors’ rights, or asset partitioning, that is traditional to the business organisation with the freedom of contract among investors and managers that is traditional to the partnership. To view these new entities as partnership-like is to treat the degree of freedom of contract as the essential difference between the traditional corporation and partnership forms; to view them as corporation-like is to treat the pattern of creditors’ rights as the essential difference. While recent scholarship often takes the former view, the latter seems more accurate. History shows that much of the contractual inflexibility in the traditional corporation served merely to buttress its pattern of creditors’ rights and that this inflexibility fell away upon the development of substitute sources of investor protection. The new forms are thus better understood as part of the continuing development of the corporate form rather than as entities more akin to the traditional partnership, which has in fact been evolving in a different direction. This article first develops this argument in terms of the trade-off between contractual freedom and the form of asset partitioning that to date has received the most scholarly attention, that is, limited liability. It then explores the evolution of the new forms from a less familiar perspective, focusing on the entity shielding component of asset partitioning.

Presents observations on the principal themes of the symposium on Efficient Creditor Protection in European Company Law, held at the Max Planck Institute in Munich from December 1 to December 3, 2005. Explores the development of creditor protection through corporate and insolvency law. Considers whether a single regime of regulation will successfully provide adequate protection for creditors.

Organizational law empowers firms to hold assets and enter contracts as entities that are legally distinct from their owners and managers. Legal scholars and economists have commented extensively on one form of this partitioning between firms and owners: namely, the rule of limited liability that insulates firm owners from business debts. But a less-noticed form of legal partitioning, which we call "entity shielding," is both economically and historically more significant than limited liability. While limited liability shields owners' personal assets from a firm's creditors, entity shielding protects firm assets from the owners' personal creditors (and from creditors of other business ventures), thus reserving those assets for the firm's creditors. Entity shielding creates important economic benefits, including a lower cost of credit for firm owners, reduced bankruptcy administration costs, enhanced stability, and the possibility of a market in shares. But entity shielding also imposes costs by requiring specialized legal and business institutions and inviting opportunism vis-à-vis both personal and business creditors. The changing balance of these benefits and costs illuminates the evolution of legal entities across time and societies. To both illustrate and test this proposition, we describe the development of entity shielding in four historical epochs: ancient Rome, the Italian Middle Ages, England of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, and the United States from the nineteenth century to the present.

This article, written on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Martin Upton's 1979 article, Takeover Bids in the Target's Boardroom expresses the view that Takeover Bids is a Burkean take on a messy Schumpeterian world that, during 1980s, reached its apex in Drexel Burnham's democratization of finance through the junk bond market. The authors of this article reflect on the irony that today, long after the Delaware Supreme Court has adopted many of Upton's views, there is a new market for corporate control that no longer poses the threats—or supports the opportunities— that the market of the 1980s created. Today's strategic bidders and their targets share the same boardroom views. And for precisely this reason, "just say no" is no longer the battle cry that it once was. It stirred the crowds in the past precisely because hostile takeovers could be credibly depicted as a sweeping threat to the status quo—a claim that no one would make about today's strategic bidders. The market for corporate control now is a process of peer review, rather than an instrument of systemic change. What is lost as a result is just what, in the conservative view, has been gained: the capacity of the market for corporate control to ignite the dynamism that in our view has served the U. S. economy so well. Although Lipton may still lose today's battle to allow targets to just say no to intra-establishment takeovers, he will still have won the larger war. The authors of this article conclude that for now, at least, boardrooms are insulated from much of the force of a truly Schumpeterian market in corporate control of the sort we briefly glimpsed during the 1980s.

Two decades ago, the Virginia Law Review published our article "The Mechanisms of Market Efficiency" (MOME), in which we tried to discern the institutional underpinnings of financial market efficiency. We concluded that the level of market efficiency with respect to a particular fact depends on which of several market mechanisms - universally informed trading, professionally informed trading, derivatively informed trading, and uninformed trading operates to reflect that fact in market price. Revisiting our article is particularly appropriate today. A new framework for evaluating the efficiency of the stock market, called "behavioral finance," and a growing number of empirical studies pose a serious challenge to the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. Twenty years have made us appropriately more skeptical of the efficiency of those institutions.

This article is the first chapter of a book authored by R. Kraakman, P. Davies, H. Hansmann, G. Hertig, K. Hopt, H. Kanda, and E. Rock, "The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach," (Oxford University Press 2004). The book as a whole provides a functional analysis of corporate (or company) law in Europe, the U.S., and Japan. Its organization reflects the structure of corporate law across all jurisdictions, while individual chapters explore the diversity of jurisdictional approaches to the common problems of corporate law. As the introductory chapter to the book, this paper introduces the book’s analytic framework, which focuses on the common structure of corporate law across different jurisdictions as a response to fundamentally similar legal and economic problems. It first details the economic importance of the corporate form’s hallmark features: legal personality, limited liability, transferable shares, delegated management, and investor ownership. The major agency problems that attend the corporate form and that, therefore, must be addressed, are identified. The chapter next considers the role of law and contract in structuring corporate affairs, including the function of mandatory and default rules, standard forms, and choice of law, as well the debate about the proper role of corporate law in promoting overall social welfare. While almost all legal systems retain the core features of the corporate form, individual jurisdictions have made distinct choices regarding many other aspects of their corporate laws. The forces shaping the development of corporate law, including evolving patterns of share ownership, are examined.

This article offers a brief, tentative assessment of the fit of behavioral finance with the framework developed twenty years ago in Mechanisms of Market Efficiency (MOME), and an even briefer and more tentative evaluation of the policy implications arising from the behavioral finance framework. It first puts market efficiency in an intellectual context - as part of the shift of finance from description to applied microeconomics that also included the development of the Capital Asset Pricing Model and the Miller-Modigliani Irrelevancy Propositions. It briefly recounts the MOME thesis, and describes the challenge of behavioral finance. It then offers an assessment of the central principles that drive behavioral finance, and evaluates how the MOME thesis stands up to the challenge. It next offers some MOME-based predictions about where it is likely that behavioral finance will and will not have significant policy implications, followed by a conclusion.

The law of every jurisdiction defines a set of well-recognized forms that property rights can take, and burdens the creation of property rights that deviate from those conventional forms. In this respect, property law differs from contract law, which generally leaves parties free to craft contractual rights in any form they wish. The law's restrictions on the forms of property rights have recently been rationalized as establishing an "optimal standardization" of property rights into a limited number of discrete forms to facilitate communication of the content of those rights to third parties. We argue, in contrast, that the law's limitations on property rights take the form, not of standardization, but rather of regulation of the notice required to establish different types of property rights. These limitations serve, not to facilitate communication of the content of rights, but to facilitate verification of ownership of the rights offered for conveyance. Property law generally addresses this verification problem by presuming that all property rights in an asset are held by a single owner, subject to the exception that a division of rights is enforceable if there is adequate notice to subsequent owners. Because the benefits of divided property rights are often low and the costs of verifying those rights are often high, property law takes an unaccommodating approach to all but a few basic categories of partial property rights. In the course of developing our analysis, we offer a simple and clear characterization of the distinction between property rights and contract rights. We explore the varieties of verification rules by which the law establishes the forms of notice required to establish property rights, and illustrate the close relationship between verification rules and the forms of property rights that those rules support. We set out conditions for assessing the efficiency of alternative property rights regimes, and discuss the extent to which that efficiency calculus is actually reflected in property law. We survey some of the principal categories of partial property rights - including security interests, legal entities, coordinating rights in real and personal property, and intellectual property - showing how the structure of those rights reflects limits on the feasible verification rules. We also seek to clarify the relationship between property rights and contract rights, the connection between property rights and property rules, and the limits on specific performance as a remedy in contract.

It is easy sport to criticize the Delaware takeover cases as inconsistent with the empirical evidence, each other, and a sensible allocation of power between managers and shareholders. We in fact believe all of these things. Here, however, we offer a more sympathetic account of the core Delaware takeover cases. We argue that they reflect an often unstated "hidden value" model, in which a firm's true value is visible to corporate directors but not to shareholders or potential acquirers. We explore the assumptions needed to make the hidden value model internally consistent, and contrast those assumptions to those that underlie to a "visible value" model in which shareholders and potential acquirers are well informed about firm value or can be made so through disclosure by the target's board. (One outcome of carefully stating the hidden value model's assumptions is to expose the model's problems.) We also address and reject a "control premium" theory, sometimes invoked by the Delaware courts, in which control is a corporate asset that the law protects by imposing Revlon duties on the target's board. Assuming that the Delaware courts continue to embrace hidden value, we argue that takeover decisions should, at a minimum, be governed by a bilateral decision-making structure, in which a target board's initial decision to approve an acquisition, block a takeover bid, or choose one bidder over another must be approved or rejected by shareholders. Under this approach, target boards could adopt modest deal protections and say "no" to a takeover bid by adopting a poison pill, but could not say "never" by using a staggered board to block a bid after the bidder wins a proxy contest. The courts must also strictly limit efforts by target boards to stuff the ballot box or otherwise alter shareholder vote outcomes.

Despite the apparent divergence in institutions of governance, share ownership,capital markets, and business culture across developed economies, the basic law of the corporate form has already achieved a high degree of uniformity, and continued convergence is likely. A principal reason for convergence is a widespread normative consensus that corporate managers should act exclusively in the economic interests of shareholders, including non controlling shareholders. This consensus on a shareholder-oriented model of the corporation results in part from the failure of alternative models of the corporation, including the manager-oriented model that evolved in the U.S. in the 1950'sand 60's, the labor-oriented model that reached its apogee in German co-determination,and the state-oriented model that until recently was dominant in France and much of Asia. Other reasons for the new consensus include the competitive success of contemporary British and American firms, the growing influence worldwide of the academic disciplines of economics and finance, the diffusion of share ownership in developed countries, and the emergence of active shareholder representatives and interest groups in major jurisdictions. Since the dominant corporate ideology of shareholder primacy is unlikely to be undone, its success represents the “end of history” for corporate law. The ideology of shareholder primacy is likely to press all major jurisdictions toward similar rules of corporate law and practice. Although some differences may persist as a result of institutional or historical contingencies, the bulk of legal development worldwide will be toward a standard legal model of the corporation. For the most part, this development will enhance the efficiency of corporate laws and practices. In some cases,however, jurisdictions may converge on inefficient rules, as when the universal rule ofl imited shareholder liability permits shareholders to externalize the costs of corporate torts.

This paper examines common arrangements for separating control from cash flow rights: stock pyramids, cross-ownership structures, and dual class equity structures. We describe the ways in which such arrangements enable a controlling shareholder or group to maintain a complete lock on the control of a company while holding less than a majority of the cash flow rights associated with its equity. Next, we analyze the consequences and agency costs of these arrangements. In particular, we show that they have the potential to create very large agency costs -- costs that are an order of magnitude larger than those associated with controlling shareholders who hold a majority of the cash flow rights in their companies. The agency costs of these structures, we suggest, are also likely to exceed the agency costs of attending highly leveraged capital structures. Finally, we put forward an agenda for research concerning structures separating control from cash flow rights.

This book is the Russian language version of our treatise on the Russian Law on Joint Stock Companies, which we participated in drafting. You can download either the entire book at http://ssrn.com/abstract=246670 or one or more of its parts. It contains three parts: (1) a general overview of the theory (a "self enforcing model of corporate law") behind the law. You can download this part of the book from http://ssrn.com/abstract=263141 (2) a detailed section-by-section analysis and critique of the law. You can download this part of the book from the download button below. (3) appendices containing the text of the law, a model Russian joint stock company law drafted by Bernard Black and Anna Tarassova, relevant excerpts from the Russian civil Code, and an important judicial interpretation of the law. You can download this part of the book from http://ssrn.com/abstract=263143 Please note: The downloadable book is written in Russian. The English language version is available from Kluwer Law International. Contact sales@kluwerlaw.com The concept of a self-enforcing corporate law is developed in Bernard Black & Reinier Kraakman, A Self-Enforcing Model of Corporate Law, Harvard Law Review, vol. 109, pp. 1911-1982, 1996, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=10037

Corporations have historically been held to a standard of strict vicarious liability for the wrongdoing of their employees. However, several areas of federal and state law have shifted to new duty-based schemes that mitigate liability for companies that have implemented compliance programs or reported wrongdoing to the government. Some states even grant privilege to environmental audit reports. Professors Arlen and Kraakman compare the norm of vicarious liability with various types of duty-based liability regimes, analyzing the benefits and costs of each approach. They conclude that social welfare is maximized by a mixed regime that includes elements of both strict and duty-based liability. The authors find that the mixed liability regime with the widest application is a composite regime, which imposes high penalties subject to mitigation for firms that engage in compliance activities. Under this regime, firms that satisfy all enforcement duties would nonetheless face substantial residual liability equal to the harm caused by wrongdoing divided by its probability of detection. They then examine the existing composite liability regimes embodied in the United States Sentencing Guidelines for corporate defendants and the evidentiary privileges that many states have adopted for companies’ environmental audit reports. They conclude that both current approaches are flawed, as they do not adequately create proper incentives for companies to monitor, investigate, and report employee wrongdoing.

This paper develops a "self-enforcing" approach to drafting corporate law for emerging capitalist economies, based on a case study: a model statute that we helped to develop for the Russian Federation, which formed the basis for the recently adopted Russian law on joint-stock companies. The paper describes the contextual features of emerging economies that make importing statutes from developed countries inappropriate, including the prevalence of controlled companies and the weakness of institutional, market, cultural, and legal constraints. Against this backdrop, we argue that the best legal strategy for protecting outside investors in emerging economies while simultaneously preserving the discretion of companies to invest is a self-enforcing model of corporate law. The self-enforcing model structures decisionmaking processes to allow large outside shareholders to protect themselves from insider opportunism with minimal resort to legal authority, including the courts. Among the examples of self-regulatory statutory provisions are a mandatory cumulative voting rule for the selection of directors, which assures that minority blockholders in controlled companies have board representation, and dual shareholder- and board-level approval procedures for self-interested transactions. The paper also examines how one can induce voluntary compliance and structure remedies in emerging economies, as well as the implications of the self-enforcing model for the ongoing debate over the efficiency of corporate law in developed economies.