DOCSLIB.ORG

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/05/2021 04:28:56PM Via Free Access

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/05/2021 04:28:56PM Via Free Access 1. Directors’ liability and disqualification 1.1 INTRODUCTION This part of the study deals with the liability of directors and their pos- sible disqualification from acting as directors, or in some other capacity. Directors, whether a one-tier board or a two-tier board approach is embraced by a jurisdiction, are critical to the lives of companies. One- tier boards involve a single board of directors consisting of both executive and non- executive directors, and with a two- tier board system there are two boards, a Board of Management and a Board of Supervision. Both types of approach are used across the European Union. Some Member States prescribe the use of two- tier boards,1 some prescribe the use of one- tier boards,2 and others permit either approach to be employed.3 The direc- tors will oversee the management of the company’s affairs and make the most important decisions for the company, including designing strategy for the businesses the company owns; entering into transactions that involve the borrowing of funds; the sale of assets; the purchase of property necessary for the carrying on of business and the sale of what the company produces whether it be goods, services, technical advice or a combina- tion of these. Importantly, directors formulate a particular strategy and then commit the company to it as well as determining how that is to be achieved. If the company has setbacks or experiences financial difficul- ties, the directors are the ones initially who have to decide what course of action needs to be adopted. When a company is in financial difficulties then, as a matter of practical necessity, directors usually have to take some action to address the issues 1 Such as Germany and Austria. 2 Such as Ireland and the United Kingdom. 3 Such as France and the Netherlands. For further discussion of the types of boards and their structure, see C. Gerner-Beuerle, P. Paech and E. Schuster, Study on Directors’ Duties and Liability (prepared for the European Commission, London, LSE, April 2013), pp. 211–12 available at http://daccess-dds- ny.un.org/ doc/UNDOC/LTD/V13/807/89/PDF/V1380789.pdf?OpenElement. 24 Gerard McCormack, Andrew Keay and Sarah Brown - 9781786433312 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/05/2021 04:28:56PM via free access McCORMACK_9781786433305_t.indd 24 12/12/2016 10:49 Directors’ liability and disqualification 25 facing the company. Directors will have to engage in robust management and often have to make difficult decisions to ensure that the company survives.4 Legal systems have prescribed, in different ways, what directors should do when a company is near to or actually insolvent and this report explores these various approaches. The World Bank, in its report titled Principles for Effective Insolvency and Creditor Rights System,5 made it plain that laws governing director and officer liability for decisions det- rimental to creditors made when an enterprise is in financial distress or insolvent should promote responsible corporate behaviour while fostering reasonable risk taking. At a minimum, standards should hold manage- ment accountable for harm to creditors resulting from wilful, reckless or grossly negligent conduct. We can see a response to these concerns in the laws of the EU Member States. If they are involved in an insolvent company or precipitated the insol- vency of the company, the directors might be disqualified from holding office as a director in existing and/or future companies or other offices in society. The disqualification might be seen as a protection of creditors and also, in some Member States, as a further penalty for a criminal offence. Regimes seem to exist in order to protect creditors by seeking to deter directors from acting wrongly and ensuring that miscreants are not, during the term of the disqualification, able to cause harm to other creditors.6 In its 2003 Action Plan, the European Commission stated its intention to propose a Directive to increase the responsibilities of directors which would include director disqualification.7 But this did not occur, notwith- standing support at the public consultation stage. In 2006, the European Parliament proposed that the Commission should posit measures to enhance the cross- border availability of information on the disqualifica- tion of directors.8 This was consistent with the suggestion made by the 4 UNCITRAL, ‘Directors’ Obligations in the Period Approaching Insolvency’ in Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law (Working Group V, 43rd session, New York, 15–19 April 2013), p. 5, available at http://daccess- dds- ny.un.org/doc/ UNDOC/LTD/V13/807/89/PDF/V1380789.pdf?OpenElement. 5 World Bank, Principles for Effective Insolvency and Creditor Rights System (2001) B2 (p. 13). 6 K. Sorensen, ‘Disqualifying Directors in the EU’ in Hanne S. Birkmose, Mette Neville and Karsten Engsig Sørensen (eds), Boards of Directors in European Companies. Reshaping and Harmonising their Organisation and Duties (London, Wolters Kluwer, 2013), p. 335. 7 Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union: A Plan to Move Forward, COM(2003)284 final, p. 16. 8 Resolutions on recent developments and prospects in relation to company law (2006/2051(INI)), para. 18. Gerard McCormack, Andrew Keay and Sarah Brown - 9781786433312 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/05/2021 04:28:56PM via free access McCORMACK_9781786433305_t.indd 25 12/12/2016 10:49 26 European insolvency law Reflection Group on the future of EU company law.9 It was noted by the Group that the increase of cross-border mobility of companies did lead to the risk that those who are subject to sanctions in one Member State could simply continue their improper activity in another Member State. Therefore, it called for greater access to information on the disqualifi- cation of directors. The Commission has endeavoured to broaden dis- qualification throughout the EU, and thus promote mutual recognition.10 This has been difficult to achieve because of the diverse disqualification rules of the Member States and because of issues relating to the rights of individuals. One problem that often presents itself in addressing the issue of dis- qualification is that it falls into a grey area, somewhere between company law and insolvency law. In this report the focus, as far as disqualification is concerned, is on the breach of insolvency- related duties that might lead to disqualification.11 1.2 WORK UNDERTAKEN BY UNCITRAL In recent years Working Group V (Insolvency Law) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has been studying the obligations that might be imposed on directors in the period approaching insolvency or where insolvency becomes unavoid- able. As part of the study, the Working Group has sought to identify the options that are available when a company is in the vicinity of insolvency in order to inform policy-makers as they seek to devise appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks.12 The Group has referred to, and engaged in some examination of, the developments in some jurisdictions which have involved the shifting of directors’ duties when insolvency is near or actual, and which are discussed in this report.13 The work of the Group 9 Report of the Reflection Group on the Future of EU Company Law (5 April 2011), pp. 34–5. 10 Green Paper on the Approximation, Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union, COM(2004)334 final, p. 24; and see similarly Preventing and Combating Corporate and Financial Malpractice, COM(2004)661 final, p. 11. 11 Sorensen, ‘Disqualifying Directors in the EU’ (n. 6 above) 336. 12 The latest was UNCITRAL, ‘Directors’ Obligations in the Period Approaching Insolvency’ (n. 4 above). 13 It has not clearly endorsed the approach although there are comments in recommendations that suggest that the Working Group seem to think that it needs to be considered: ibid. 14–15. Gerard McCormack, Andrew Keay and Sarah Brown - 9781786433312 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/05/2021 04:28:56PM via free access McCORMACK_9781786433305_t.indd 26 12/12/2016 10:49 Directors’ liability and disqualification 27 has been brought together in Part 4 (‘Directors’ Obligations in the Period Approaching Insolvency’) of UNCITRAL’s Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law (2013).14 1.3 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS This section addresses the duties of directors and the liability that might emanate from the breach of such duties. ‘Duties’ is interpreted in a broad way in the discussion and was the way that national reporters had con- sidered it in their reports. Duties are invariably prescribed by statute, but some other duties may be provided for in judicial precedents, the company’s constitution or pursuant to contracts between directors and their companies. Some of the consideration of duties in our study overlaps with, and builds on, the work done for DG Justice by a team from the London School of Economics in 2013.15 This latter study focused solely on directors and board structure and did not consider insolvency save where it was related to a discussion of the duties of directors. The discussion in our report focuses on insolvency-related duties and does not really engage in consideration of duties that are only applicable to solvent companies. As we will see, in many Member States some of the duties of directors remain the same whether a company is solvent, near insolvent or actually insolvent. Our study sought to ascertain the duties owed by directors across the EU and principally when directors’ companies were insolvent or nearing insolvency. As directors are so crucial to the running of companies, cor- porate law lays down certain duties that regulate how the directors are to conduct themselves in carrying out their functions and powers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doing Business in the Federal Republic of Germany
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 3 Number 2 Fall Article 4 May 2020 Doing Business in the Federal Republic of Germany Georg Kutschelis Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Georg Kutschelis, Doing Business in the Federal Republic of Germany, 3 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 197 (1973). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. DOING BUSINESS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY* GEORG KUTSCHELIS** I. INTRODUCTION II. PRELIMINARY FORMALITIES A. Residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis) B. Labor permit (Arbeitserlaubnis) C. Registration of business (Gewerbeanmeldung) D. Registration of foreign corporate bodies III. LEGAL ORGANIZATION OF A BUSINESS A. Statutory background B. Some peculiarities of German commercial law 1. Kinds of merchants 2. Commercial register 3. Commercial name (Firma) 4. Commercial agency C. Criteria of companies 1. Capacity to hold legal rights (Rechtsfaehigkeit) 2. The dichotomy of company and association 3. Internal and external companies 4. Person-companies and capital-companies 5. Ownership of company assets D. Kinds of Companies 1. Private law company (Gesellschaft buergerlichen- Rechts) 2. Partnership (Offene Handelsgesellschaft) 3. Limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft) 4. Silent partnership (Stille Gesellschaft) 5. Stock corporation (Aktiengesellschaft) 6. Partnership limited by shares (Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien) 7. Limited liability company (Gesellschaft mit besch- raenkterHaftung) 8. Limited liability company and partner (GmbH & Co KG) 9.
    [Show full text]
  • German Corporate Governance Regulation Between Market and Multilevel Governance
    On the Road to Anglo-Saxon Capitalism? German Corporate Governance Regulation between Market and Multilevel Governance Susanne Lütz and Dagmar Eberle Paper prepared for the 4th ECPR Conference, Pisa, Italy, September 6th – 8th, 2007 Section on Regulation and Governance Contact: Prof. Susanne Lütz Dagmar Eberle Open University in Hagen (FernUniversität) Political Regulation and Governance Universitätsstrasse 41 58084 Hagen Germany E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Financial internationalization and European regulatory harmonization put the German cor- porate governance regime under pressure to move towards a market-oriented, Anglo-Saxon model. While International Political Economy approaches expect Anglo-Saxon standards to spread across national borders, Comparative Political Economy predicts persistent diversity. In our paper, we trace the patterns and driving forces of change in two areas of corporate governance regulation, namely internal governance and accounting. In accounting, proc- esses of multilevel coordination entailed a high degree of convergence towards Anglo- Saxon standards and institutions. A much greater stability of the domestic institutional framework can be seen in the case of internal governance. While political economy ap- proaches offer important insights for analyzing these changes, both fail to account for the different patterns of convergence and divergence in the two cases. Therefore, we argue in favor of a policy analysis perspective to capture the sectorally distinct interplay of forces that shape the processes of regulatory change. 1. Introduction 1 Whether distinct national “varieties of capitalism” will survive in an increasingly globaliz- ing economy has become one of the most hotly debated issues in Comparative Political Economy since the early 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • ILF WP151.Pdf
    Melanie Döge T h e F i n a n c i a l O b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e S h a r e h o l d e r W O R K I N G P A P E R No 151 Melanie Döge The Financial Obligations of the Shareholder Institute for Law and Finance WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 151/2017 The Financial Obligations of the Shareholder Rechtsanwältin Dr. Melanie Döge* I. Introductory Remarks The vast theme “Financial obligations of the shareholder” requires some restrictions. This means that a comparative overview and comparison with other legislatures will not be presented in the following; my remarks are based on and confined to German corporate law. While it is true that basic traits of our European company law systems are commonly shared (as regards financial obligations of the shareholders, in particular due to the 2nd Company Law Directive of the EU),1 many differences remain. Hence it is left to the foreign reader to find similarities or differences in her or his own system with what follows here. A second restriction has to be made and mentioned. The chapter does not deal with the well-known debate about the usefulness of the traditional European system of a nominal capital which of course has implications for the financial duties of shareholders as regards the formation of a company; the raising of fresh capital; and for distribution of profits and assets to the shareholders (“capital maintenance”). The general debate about this has stalled meanwhile as the results of the various studies on the pros and cons of the different systems were inconclusive.2 An interesting side issue in this debate is the usefulness of a minimum capital requirement for smaller corporations which do not fall under the provisions of the 2nd Company Law Directive.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Governance in Germany - Konn Te System and Recent Developments Nich T Gefu Nden Theodor Baums* Werd En
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main Fehl er! Verw eisq uell e Corporate Governance in Germany - konn te System and Recent Developments nich t gefu nden Theodor Baums* werd en. I. Introduction II. The Empirical Background 1. Number of Firms 2. Structure of Ownership a) Private households b) Firms c) Foreign investors d) Banks e) Insurances; pension funds 3. An example: Distribution of ownership in Siemens Aktiengesellschaft III. The Corporate Governance Structure 1. The Legal Framework 2. The Stock Corporation as a Legal Entity 3. The Company Organs a) The formal regulation b) Practical example: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 4. The Practice of Internal Monitoring a) The role of the banks b) Performance of supervisory boards Fehl er! Verw eisq uell e 5. External monitoring konn te a) External vs. internal monitoring nich t gefu b) Hostile takeovers nden werd en. IV. The Present Debate and Ongoing Work 1. "Finanzplatz Deutschland" 2. The Hearing of the Committee on Economic Affairs on "Power of Financial Institutions", of Dec. 8, 1993 3. The Law of Groups of Firms I. Introduction The following descriptive overview of the German corporate governance system and the current debate is structured as follows. Part II will give some information on the empirical background. Part III will describe the formal legal setting as well as actual practices in some key areas. Part IV will then deal with some issues of the current debate. II. The Empirical Background 1. Number of firms Obtaining new reliable data on all firms in reunified Germany is not yet possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives
    4. TAN WANG HOFMANN- FINAL CHECK (005) (1) (DO NOT DELETE) 2/20/2019 2:51 PM PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL: HISTORICAL, THEORETICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES Tan Cheng-Han, Jiangyu Wang, Christian Hofmann, E W Barker Centre for Law and Business, National University of Singapore Introduction ............................................................................................. 140 Historical Context ................................................................................... 141 Veil Piercing – A Theoretical Analysis .................................................. 150 Veil Piercing – A Comparative Analysis ................................................ 157 England and Singapore ................................................................ 158 United States ................................................................................ 160 Germany ...................................................................................... 170 Veil-piercing in the context of the smaller German company type, the GmbH .............................................................. 171 Cases of undercapitalization and liability for “annihilating interference” .................................................................. 172 Principles of German law of capital maintenance ................ 173 The Trihotel judgment of the Federal High Court (BGH) ... 175 The GAMMA judgment of the BGH ................................... 178 Veil-piercing for commingling of corporate and private assets ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eec Company Law Harmonization and Worker Participation
    ARTICLE EEC COMPANY LAW HARMONIZATION AND WORKER PARTICIPATION PROFESSOR DR. WALTER KOLVENBACH* SYNOPSIS The company law harmonization program of the European Com- munity has as its principal components the coordination, safeguarding, protection and equivalence necessary to protect shareholders, creditors, customers, potential investors and, last, but not least, the employees of companies in the Member States. The goals are to remove obstacles to the establishment of businesses by Common Market citizens within the entire Community and to harmonize the company laws of the Member States. While the removal of obstacles has proven to be uncomplicated, the second goal of harmonization is politically sensitive as a result of the different degrees of employee participation that exist in the Mem- ber States. While some Member States do not have any scheme for employee participation at all, others have extensive legislation in this area. Organizations of employers and employees take different views not only as to the extent of harmonization, but also as to the methods and means to achieve such harmonization. These differences became apparent when the Commission pro- posed harmonization of company laws involving employee participation systems. Out of the original ten company law directives envisaged, seven have been enacted by the Council of Ministers because they har- monize primarily technical aspects of company law. The remaining three directives, the Fifth Company Law Directive, the Ninth Com- * Dr. Jur. 1949, University of Cologne; former President of the European Com- pany Lawyers Association; former Chairman of the Legal Committee of the German Chemical Association; former Chairman of the Section on General Practice of the In- ternational Bar Association; member of the German Bar; Lecturer of Law, University of Cologne and University of Bonn; Honorary Professor of Law 1988, University of Cologne; former General Counsel to Henkel, KGaA, D~isseldorf; Of Counsel with Heuking, Kiihn, Herold, Kunz and Partner, Diusseldorf.
    [Show full text]
  • Groups of Companies in Swedish Law
    Groups of Companies In Swedish Law Dotevall, Rolf Published in: Journal of Civil & Legal Science 2018 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Dotevall, R. (2018). Groups of Companies In Swedish Law. Journal of Civil & Legal Science, 7(2). Total number of authors: 1 Creative Commons License: Other General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 & ivil Leg C al f S o c l Dotevall, J Civil Legal Sci 2018, 7:2 i a e n n r c e u DOI: 10.4172/2169-0170.1000247 s o J Journal of Civil & Legal Sciences ISSN: 2169-0170 Review Article Open Access Groups of Companies in Swedish Law Rolf Dotevall* Department of Law, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Abstract Third party often got the impression that a company group is not only a commercial entity but also a legal personality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Free Movement of Companies1
    The Free Movement of Companies1 The ‘real seat doctrine’ is dead – Long live the ‘incorporation state doctrine’! Søren Friis Hansen In its decision of 5th November 2002, in Case C-208/00 Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH [2002] ECR I-9919, and its decision of September 30th 2003, in Case C-167/01 Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art ltd [not yet reported] the European Court of Justice has definitively rejected the ‘real seat’ doctrine (sometimes known as the ‘head office’ doctrine, or ‘Sitztheorie’ in German) as a means for determining the nationality of a company, in respect of companies which are established in accordance with the laws of a Member State, and whose registered office, head office or main place of business are situated within the European Union. The Court has therefore confirmed its decision of 9th March 1999 in Case C-212/97 Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen [1999] I-1459. The Centros judgment has been one of the most debated decisions of the European Court ever. In its decision of 13th March 2003, the German Federal Supreme Court has changed its practice, so that the incorporation state doctrine is now regarded as applicable in German private international law for determining the nationality of a company. These decisions are of great practical importance for European Companies. It is unlikely that thousands of foreign incorporations will be used as shells for commercial undertakings, which have their head offices in Denmark. However, a number of undertakings will make use of the new opportunities in the EU, following the Centros, Überseering, and Inspire Art cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Employee Participation Under German Company Law Frank Wooldridge
    19168 Amicus 87 Autumn text.qxd:Text 10/11/11 13:41 Page 31 Employee participation under German company law Frank Wooldridge n the nineteenth century certain German Christian and THE WORKS COUNCILS ACTS OF 1952 AND liberal writers on political theory advocated cooperation 1972 THE DRITTELBETEILIGUNGSGESETZ Ibetween the owners of capital and their employees in (DRITTEL BG) OF 2004 German business entities. The first statutory provision to The Betreibsverfassungsgesetz (Works Councils Act) in its be influenced by the concept of the creation of committees 1972 version contained provisions in paragraphs 87 et seq of workers exercising particular functions was enacted in thereof which gave the works council certain rights of codetermination which were binding on the employers, July 1891. A similar arrangement was provided for and and which were applicable to companies that were not made compulsory by the Gesetz über den väterlandische operating in the coal, iron and steel industries. The Hulfsdienst (law governing the national emergency service) relevant rights had to be exercised at the level of the of December 5, 1916. A decree was enacted on December supervisory board: this gave rise to criticisms on the 12, 1918 concerning wage agreements, the use of commit - ground that the supervisory board has limited functions tees of ordinary and white collar workers, and the arbitra - and may not always be adequately provided with staff. tion of industrial disputes (Die Verordung über Tarifvertrage Paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Works Council Act in its Arbeiter und Angestelltenauschüsse, und Schichtung von 1952 and 1972 versions required one third of the members Arbeitstreitigkeiten).
    [Show full text]
  • The Nordic Corporate Governance Model
    PER LEKVALL (ED.) THE NORDIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MODEL WITH COMMENT BY RONALD J. GILSON SNS FÖRLAG »This is an important and influential book for three reasons. First, Nordic countries are important and currently upheld as a model for good corporate governance around the world. Second, the book is an exceptionally careful and thorough analysis of their governance arrangements. It combines an overview of the common features of Nordic countries’ governance with individual country details of their differences. Third, it provides real insights into the determinants of successful corporate governance. It points to three key components: diversity of ownership patterns including controlling shareholdings, independent boards, and strong protection of minority investor interests. The book deserves to be widely read and carefully studied by anyone interested in the design of corporate governance systems.« Colin Mayer, Peter Moores Professor of Management Studies, Said Business School, University of Oxford THE NORDIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE M ODE L PER LEKVALL (ed.) The Nordic Corporate Governance Model with comment by RONALD J. GILSON and contributions by national experts: D E N M A R K : Jesper Lau Hansen and Carsten Lønfeldt F I N L A N D : Manne Airaksinen, Tom Berglund and Tom von Weymarn N O R W A Y : Gudmund Knudsen and Harald Norvik S W E D E N : Rolf Skog and Erik Sjöman S N S F Ö R L A G SNS Förlag Box 5629 SE-114 86 Stockholm Telephone: +46 8 507 025 00 [email protected] www.sns.se SNS – Centre for Business and Policy Studies – is a non-partisan and independent non-profit organisation that contributes to decision makers in politics, public administration and business being able to make well-informed decisions based on science and factual analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles the Development of German Corporate Law Until 1990
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by SOAS Research Online Articles The Development of German Corporate Law Until 1990: An Historical Reappraisal ∗ By Peter Muchlinski A. Introduction The development of modern corporate law can be located in four “origin” legal systems: France, England, Germany and the United States (specifically in leading State Jurisdictions such as New York, New Jersey and Delaware). These systems are often segregated between an Anglo-American “outsider” system of corporate law and governance and the 1 Continental “insider” system. This has its political economy parallel in the “Varieties of Capitalism” literature, which separates the major capitalist economies into “Liberal Market Economies”, such as the UK and the USA, and “Co-ordinated Market Economies”, such as 2 Germany. These distinctions concentrate, in particular, on whether the system of corporate finance is based on open stock markets and widely dispersed “outsider” shareholding, as in the Anglo-American model, or on finance carried out by “insider” ∗* Peter Muchlinski is a Professor at The School of Law, SOAS, University of London. Email: [email protected]. This paper is part of a wider project on the globalization of corporate law undertaken by the author in conjunction with his colleagues at SOAS – Nick Foster, Sanzhu Zhu and Scott Newton – as represented by our joint LLM/MA course International and Comparative Corporate Law. I would like to acknowledge the support of Professor Gralf- Peter Calliess, the Centre for Transnational Studies and the Faculty of Law at the University of Bremen, where I was a Visiting Professor in February-March 2012, in allowing me to use their resources while undertaking the research for this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines an Overview of the Glass Lewis Approach to Proxy Advice
    2018 PROXY PAPER™ GUIDELINES AN OVERVIEW OF THE GLASS LEWIS APPROACH TO PROXY ADVICE GERMANY Table of Contents GUIDELINES INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 Corporate Governance Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Changes for the 2018 Germany Policy Guidelines .......................................................................................... 1 A SUPERVISORY BOARD THAT SERVES SHAREHOLDER INTEREST ........................................... 3 Election of Supervisory Board Members ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Independence ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Other Considerations for Individual Board Members ............................................................................................................. 5 External Commitments ............................................................................................................................................................................................5 Board Structure and Composition ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]