Search results

This study examines whether and how the legal origin of foreign institutional investors (FIIs) impacts corporate investment efficiency.

The study employs a large panel dataset of firms from 32 non-USA countries from 2005 to 2018. Financial and institutional ownership data are obtained from the COMPUSTAT Global and Public Ownership databases in S&P Capital IQ, respectively. The study employed ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with year and firm fixed effects. In addition, two-stage least squares with instrumental variable regression (2SLS-IV) and propensity score matching (PSM) approaches were employed to address the potential endogeneity.

The findings of this study suggest that common- and civil-law FIIs differ in their monitoring capabilities to promote investment efficiency. The authors find evidence that increased equity ownership by common-law FIIs, not civil-law investors, strengthens the investment-Q sensitivity, resulting in higher investment efficiency. Consistent with the monitoring and information channel, the results further indicate that the positive impact of common-law FIIs on investment efficiency is stronger in host environments susceptible to agency conflicts and information asymmetry.

This study offers novel evidence on the heterogeneous monitoring role of FIIs with regard to their home countries' legal origins and their impact on investment efficiency in an international context.

Managers may underprice initial public offerings (IPOs), leading to higher initial returns (IRs). The purpose of this paper is multi-fold: to compensate investors for risk, to reduce litigation risk, as well as to maintain control over the firm. The authors examine country-level contingencies (degree of investor protection, legal origin and degree of transparency) in OECD countries to explain IPO IRs.

Cross-sectional data comprising of 4,164 IPOs from 28 OECD countries are used for the period of 2005-2010. Ordinary least square using multiple linear regressions is used to test the hypotheses.

Investors’ protection is associated with higher IRs. This relationship is stronger in the non-common law countries. Degree of transparency negatively moderates the relationship in common law countries. Overall, the results show evidence of risk compensation, litigation risk reduction, and managerial control motives in underpricing.

IPO IRs in OECD countries is examined, within the boundaries of institutional characteristics, i.e., investors’ protection, legal origin and transparency level.

This paper aims to provide a comparative discussion on silence as a misrepresentation in contractual obligations between common law and Islamic law. The objective of this paper is to – from a legal pluralism point of view – highlight the contrasts between the two traditions and provide recommendations for best practices to achieve fairness and equity among the contracting parties. While common law does not treat silence as conscious misrepresentation, in Islamic law, silence does not constitute affirmative will. This has repercussions for the contracting parties because if future disputes arise, the aggrieved party in Islamic law reserves the option to rescind or nullify the contract – an opportunity not afforded by common law. We have discussed and analyzed the implementations of the different contractual terms, such as fraud, misrepresentation, trickery and deception in relation with Islamic law principles and common law practices. This research is an effort to draw the attention for further development in both Islamic law and common law practices on contractual obligation. The notion of misrepresentation – subset of a broader gamut of fraud – is arguably nebulous in Islamic literature as well. We delve into these nuances and provide examples both from common law and Islamic law precedents and provide recommendations for reform in both traditions.

This paper operates under qualitative methodological framework and uses secondary sources for analysis. Sources include journal databases, review of cases, classical/medieval Islamic scripts, etc.

This paper provides a general comparative study between common law’s principle and practice and Islamic law’s principle to forge a better understanding of fine-tuning existing practice and contribute to the debate on determining the best practices to unify international trade and custom exercise. Common law principle, obviously, holds a historical and traditional reputation as those principles are derived from long years of practice and judicial interpretation. Such historical legal system should accommodate fresh ideas in their repertoire and welcome novel ideas which would positively influence its own practice. This paper affords the freedom to the reader to interpret which general principle is acceptable in terms of contractual obligation.

Previous works exist on the issue of misrepresentation. However, those are mostly explanations of fraud and deceit in Islamic law or common law. The treatment of silence as affirmative will is seldom touched upon. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt at contrasting the treatment of silence in common and Islamic law. They have also advocated pluralistic practices and argued for legal reform whereby both traditions can benefit from each other.

In the first two sections the author discusses and analyses the1 terms of employment implied at common law. Then the implied common law duties of the employer towards his or her employee and the employee towards his or her employer are discussed. Custom, practice and works rules as sources of terms of the contract of employment are then considered.

This paper argues that the revolution in intellectual property rights is not forward-looking, but backward looking, and that it is not consonant with the purposes of the patent and copyright clause. It is animated by the theory of common law copyright, which deliberately reconceptualizes social relations in order to recast them as property, and which has been with us for centuries. This paper investigates the “mythology of common law copyright,” showing how this reconceptualization has worked both historically and in the present day to push the law in a direction that is ostensibly author-centered, but is actually focused on the rights of intermediaries.

In the case of Poiret & Anor v Seychelles Pension Fund & Anor (2022), the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Seychelles, took judicial notice of the fact that “[c]ommon law relationships are more prevalent in our society than those between married persons.” In this chapter, the author discusses the law relating to common law marriages in Seychelles by focusing on the following issues: the right to form a family (as a background to understanding common law marriages); requirements for a valid common law marriage; and the rights of parties in a common law marriage. These rights include “court granted” rights and “statutory rights” such as property rights (parties invoking the claim of unjust enrichment in the 1979 Civil Code and property orders and succession under the 2021 Civil Code at the dissolution of common law marriages). I also deal with the remedy of unjust enrichment in the context of the 2021 Civil Code; marital privilege (in case where one of the parties in a common law relationship is accused of committing an offence); and termination of a common law marriage. The author demonstrates the measures taken by courts and the legislators to protect some of the rights of people in common law marriages. The author suggests ways in which courts can interpret the relevant provisions of the 2021 Civil Code. Where necessary, the author highlights how courts or legislators in some African countries such as Kenya, Mauritius, Malawi, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Zambia, South Africa, Namibia, Rwanda, and Uganda have approached some of the issues above.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the interaction between legal origin and cultural distance and its impact on foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into the OECD.

Ordinary least squares regression analysis is used to evaluate FDI flows into OECD countries between 2003 and 2012. Estimations use fixed effects and clustered standard errors.

FDI flows from civil to common law countries are greater than vice versa. Further, cultural distance impacts FDI flows depending on the legal origin of the source country. Specifically, more FDI flows from civil and common law countries, when the host country has a higher (lower) power distance (individualism) score. Civil law countries send more FDI into countries with higher masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and indulgence scores and with lower long-term orientation scores. The opposite is the case with common law source countries. The findings remain robust for various changes to the sample selection.

The concepts of cultural distance and legal origin have been criticized. However, neither concept has been rejected; rather, both concepts persist as robust empirical research tools.

Scholars, managers and investors can gauge the impact of cultural distance on FDI flows based on the legal family of the source country. Further, policy makers might want to consider rebranding their countries in terms of cultural perceptions to show the attractiveness of specific cultural dimensions to foreign companies and investors.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper that jointly investigates FDI, legal origin and national culture.

The paper aims to respond conceptually, rather then empirically, to policy ignorance. It seeks to examine certain aspects of whistleblower protection offered in the common law countries of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK.

The paper provides a four‐country comparison of whistleblower protection laws against 13 characteristics gleaned from the international literature on whistleblower legislation. This analysis is informed by considerations of the common law and corruption and critical state theory.

The conclusion reached is that the whistleblower laws established in the common law countries of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK variously contain serious structural deficiencies, particularly with respect to the scope of protection and the construction of corruption. The concern is that whistleblowers seeking protection under these inadequate programs will be hurt and there will be negligible impact on the profile of corruption.

The major weakness in the analysis was the subjective and arbitrary way the disclosure management characteristics were selected to assess the disclosure laws of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK. Future research should seek more objective indictors of performance as well as a consideration of exterior indicators such as the impact of disclosure policies on corruption.

If the findings here are validated in subsequent research, then governments should urgently review their current whistleblower policies in order to improve disclosure protection.

A conceptual framework informed by considerations of corruption, the common law and critical state theory was used to put whistleblower protection in a wider context where state interest competed with the needs of whistleblowers.