Search results

This paper aims to compare the influence of different legal systems on corporate sustainability management practices. Against the background of growing internationalization of business activities, it additionally considers whether internationalization allows companies to circumvent the influence of national authorities.

Three legal systems are compared using regression analyses of more than 200 large corporations in five countries: common law (USA and Australia), German code law (Germany) and French code law (France and Spain).

The impact of national and international authorities is found to be strongest in French code law countries. In addition, the influence of international authorities is stronger for corporations with higher shares of international sales. For both national and international authorities, the degree of internationalization is found to moderate the influence of the legal system on corporate sustainability practices.

The legal system in place influences the relative effectiveness of national and international authorities over company sustainability practices and needs to be taken into account in policymaking. To be effective, international authorities need to work with or substitute for national authorities in promoting corporate sustainability practices in countries depending on their legal systems.

This research applies and quantitatively tests La Porta’s (1998) framework on legal systems in the new context of corporate sustainability.

German executives can make misleading statements regarding merger activities while U.S. executives must either state “no comment” or provide a truthful statement. Do these differences in corporate governance standards cause differences in the market response to merger announcements? A sample of German and U.S. firms that announced acquisition plans between 1995 and 1999 suggests that for smaller firms, merger news has no significant impact on cumulative abnormal returns for German firms but a significant positive impact for U.S. firms. Large German firms, however, have similar experiences to large U.S. firms, as do German firms listed on a U.S. stock exchange, which require greater disclosure requirements. Aside from the smaller-firm effect, the evidence is consistent with no price-relevant differences arising from the differences in corporate governance rules.

In this paper, we explore an extensive panel data set covering more than 4,000 listed firms in 16 European countries to study the effects of shareholder protection on ownership structure and firm performance. We document a negative firm-level correlation between shareholder protection and ownership concentration. Differentiating between shareholder types, we find that this pattern is mainly driven by strategic investors. In contrast, we find a positive correlation between shareholder protection and block ownership of institutional investors, in particular when we restrict the analysis to independent institutional investors. Finally, we find that independent institutional investors are positively associated with firm valuation as measured by Tobin’s Q. The opposite applies for strategic investors. Overall, our results are consistent with the view that (i) high shareholder protection and (ii) limited ownership by strategic investors make small investors and investors interested in security returns more confident in their investments.

This paper aims to examine the framework for the regulation of crypto assets in Germany, the UK and Switzerland focusing on anti-money laundering (AML) laws. It comprehensively addresses the risks of crypto assets and the benefits along with the changes made to the existing laws to regulate cryptocurrency.

Qualitative data was analyzed to collect information for the case study and to challenge/examine the existing data and statistics.

The findings suggested that the AML laws are additionally modified to include the cryptocurrencies violations of the legislation, as it is the decentralized financial systems generating opportunities for crimes and terror financing. The moderate or mild laws were found in Switzerland following Germany and the UK has the most traditional and stringent laws of money laundering.

The paper has focused on the comparison of the three states in their AML laws comprehensively along with their attitude toward the crypto businesses.

German law has recently taken an important and long‐overdue step in the battle against dishonesty on the stock markets by implementing EC directives 88/627 and 89/592, respectively imposing a duty of publication of certain information and prohibiting insider dealing. The resulting law, however, is not a panacea for all evils, in that these provisions do not cover the case of deliberate deception through the promulgation of false facts on the stock exchange, leading to a false influence on price fixing and a consequent loss to third parties. The author wishes to show, however, that German law already has a perfectly adequate provision in the criminal code to deal with such instances, although he is not aware of any cases where this provision has been used to convict an individual for causing losses to investors in this way. Several shortcomings can be seen to be responsible for this. Firstly, the ability of the prosecution to handle such cases must be doubted. Secondly, German criminal law is not capable of dealing with cases where this type of interference with market trends was planned and established by teams. Thirdly, the relevant provisions of the German criminal code is only designed to deal with individuals and not with legal entities.

The purpose of this paper is to chart, analyse and attempt to explain, the changes in the scope of consolidation over the last century in national and transnational regulations. It first concentrates on the four countries which have been the main drivers of change (the USA, the UK, Germany and France) and then on the transnational regulations of the EU and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). This issue is of great topical importance (e.g. the IASB's standard on consolidation of 2011).

The author synthesises the literature and then analyses the extensive set of accounting requirements over a century from the four countries, the EU and the international standard setters. Three theoretical perspectives (transnational operations, financing and diffusion of ideas) are assessed as explanations for the developments.

Definitions of subsidiary have ranged from the simple to the byzantine, including poor use of such words as “control” and “power”. Over time, there have been many types of exclusion from consolidation (e.g. based on lack of ownership, lack of control, dissimilarity or foreignness), but the scope has gradually widened. In terms of the conventional understanding of international accounting differences, the US concentration on ownership and the German concentration on control are unexpected. However, the theoretical perspectives allow an explanation, largely in terms of financing and diffusion of ideas rather than transnational operations.

Policy implications concern the improvement in the use of such terms as “control” and “power”. Suggestions are made for clarifying the scope of consolidation.

This is the first paper to analyse the scope of consolidation over a century up to the present on a transnational basis, and the first to seek to explain the developments in a theoretical context.

Over the last decade, the accounting convergence process with the development and adoption of IFRS as national standards has become the focus of governments, professionals, and researchers. In 2005, the EU (including Germany) and Australia adopted IFRS. A survey by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (2010) reported that 89 countries have adopted or intend to adopt IFRS for all their domestic listed companies. Currently, more than 100 jurisdictions require or permit the use of IFRS, with countries such as Canada, Brazil, and Argentina being the most recent adopters (IFRS Foundation, 2011b). This growing number of countries implementing IFRS and their experiences and emerging challenges have further raised researchers' interest in this controversial topic (Ashbaugh & Pincus, 2001; Atwood et al., 2011; Byard et al., 2011; Christensen et al., 2007; Daske et al., 2008; Ding et al., 2007; Hail et al., 2010a, 2010b; Kvaal & Nobes, 2010; McAnally et al., 2010; Mechelli, 2009; Niskanen, Kinnunen, & Kasanen, 2000; Stolowy, Haller, & Klockhaus, 2001; Tyrrall et al., 2007). However, these studies have concentrated on the development and application of specific accounting standards and practices and/or cross-national and cross-cultural issues concerning adaptation, implementation, and evaluation of IFRS. Moreover, an increasing number of studies have been devoted to classifications of accounting models and categorization of accounting standards, principles, and values (Chanchani & Willett, 2004; D'Arcy, 2000, 2001; Doupnik & Richter, 2004; Doupnik & Salter, 1993; Gray, 1988; Kamla, Gallhofer, & Haslam, 2006; Nair & Frank, 1980; Patel, 2003, 2007; Perera & Mathews, 1990; Salter & Doupnik, 1992). However, very few studies have critically examined the historical development of accounting practices and issues related to convergence in its socioeconomic context and, importantly, we are not aware of any study that has rigorously examined the institutionalization of Anglo-American accounting practices as international practice with an emphasis on power and legitimacy in the move toward convergence of accounting standards.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of unfair commercial practices in advertising and marketing law.

The differences addressed in the paper relate to the role or tasks of consumer law in regulating the marketplace.

A comparison of the UK, German and Nordic approaches reveal interesting differences at least in nuances in the approach to omission of information as an unfair commercial practice.

The paper provides useful analysis of the deeper understandings behind unfair commercial practices law.

Family constitutions are relatively new to the law of family companies, although there might have been forerunners in the history of entrepreneur families. The practical importance and the proliferation of family constitutions in German family companies are increasing, along with the discussion of family constitutions in legal literature. This new instrument of family governance is not law driven but business driven, it has been designed by business advisors. Its analysis and classification are still at the very beginning in academic research and practice. Even though family constitutions are generally deemed to be without any legal effect and not legally binding, from a legal point of view, this assumption is at least highly questionable.

Bonds governed under German law would normally not contain collective action clauses, ie provisions dealing with majority decisions by bondholders by which certain bond terms may be altered or waived. This is because it is uncertain whether, in the absence of a statutory basis, a decision taken by a majority of bondholders would be binding upon a dissenting minority. For certain circumstances, however, a statutory basis exists in the form of a law enacted in 1899 which, during the last decades, has been very rarely used. This paper discusses in what cases the law may be invoked, what decisions can be made by bondholders and what procedural requirements must be observed for getting to a binding and unchallengeable decision.