Controlling Shareholders’ Fiduciary Duties Owed to Minority Shareholders – A Comparative Approach: The United States and France

Author(s):  
Celine Gainet
Author(s):  
Matthew Conaglen

This chapter examines the principles of fiduciary doctrine that are found in contemporary common law systems. More specifically, it considers the current similarities and differences between various jurisdictions such as England, Australia, Canada, and the United States. The similarities focus on the duties of loyalty, care and skill, and good faith, as well as when fiduciary duties arise and the kinds of interests that are protected by recognition of fiduciary relationships. The chapter also discusses the issue of differences between various jurisdictions with regard to the duty of care and skill before concluding with an analysis of differences between remedies that are made available in the various contemporary common law jurisdictions when a breach of fiduciary duty arises. It shows that the regulation of fiduciaries appears to be reasonably consistent across common law jurisdictions and across various types of actors, even as such actors are expected to meet differing standards of care. Statute plays a key role in the regulation of various kinds of fiduciary actors, especially corporate directors.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
María del Pilar Zambrano ◽  
Estela B. Sacristán

The paper analyzes the issue of legal interpretation of the Constitution in the light of a comparative approach between the case law of Argentina and the United States about the value attributed to embryonic life.


2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Clark

I admit that I am an addict, a compulsive user of libraries and especially law libraries. As a comparative lawyer I need to investigate foreign law, which for me is the law of jurisdictions outside the United States. Since I believe the social and cultural context in which law operates is important to its understanding, I must leave the relative comfort of United States libraries and venture abroad to learn about the features of legal systems not adequately described in books. Beyond common law countries, as the IALL 20th Annual Course illustrates, the language of law is something other than English: yet another hill to climb to understand foreign law. For most of you, United States law is foreign law, which is the other side of the same issue. In addition, public international law lawyers could benefit from the comparative approach. This is particularly true for those from the Anglo-American world who rely almost exclusively on English language materials in their research. This narrow perspective undercuts the fundamental premise of universality behind a truly international legal system.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 1632-1646
Author(s):  
I-Ting Hwang ◽  
Jessica M. Kramer ◽  
Ellen S. Cohn ◽  
Linda L. Barnes

We conducted a meta-synthesis to explore how Asian immigrant parents in the United States enact their perceived parental role while using health and educational services for their child with developmental disabilities. We identified 11 qualitative studies for analysis, and examined these studies using a constant comparative approach and thematic analysis informed by role theory and acculturation theory. Based on our analysis, five themes related to parents’ role enactment emerged: (a) parents perceive a multifaceted parental role; (b) parents’ individual factors influence their role enactment; (c) system factors influence parents’ role enactment; (d) parents use coping strategies to address role dissatisfaction; and (e) parental role enactment is a continuously evolving process influenced by acculturation, which spirals them toward their ultimate goal of helping their child thrive. Findings can inform practitioners’ and researchers’ understanding of how to create a culturally safe environment to support Asian immigrant parents in realizing their parental role.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alon Klement ◽  
Robert Klonoff

Abstract Unlike most countries, the United States and Israel have employed the class action procedure for decades. This Article compares the two countries’ class action regimes and examines how the device has evolved in those countries. It examines the current procedures, as well as proposed reforms. It also compares class action statistics in the two countries relating to filings and outcomes. We demonstrate the many common features between the United States and Israeli class action procedures. As we illustrate, these common features have led to robust class action practices in both countries. At the same time, there are profound differences between the types of class actions filed and their outcomes. Thus, while Israel has many more class actions than the United States on a per capita basis, the cases are much less consequential from a monetary and subject matter perspective. We explore possible explanations for these observations. Furthermore, this study identifies features — utilized by the United States and Israel — that can serve as models for other countries that are adopting or amending their own class action regimes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 590-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sungho Park ◽  
Craig S. Maher

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is an infectious respiratory illness afflicting people to a degree not seen since the flu pandemic of 1968 when approximately one million lives were lost worldwide. What makes COVID-19 distinct is the rate at which it spread throughout the world, stress-testing health care systems and stymieing global economies. To confront this unprecedented crisis, nearly every country has been developing a wide range of policy responses, including fiscal measures. This study aims to discuss government fiscal responses to the pandemic from a financial management perspective. The core question is, “How does each country’s financial management system support its fiscal responses to the crisis?” We are particularly interested in reexamining commonly accepted norms about fiscal federalism and the fiscal condition of national and local governments heading into this pandemic. This study takes a comparative approach to the question, focusing on South Korea and the United States. Our findings suggest that the ability to respond to this pandemic in a comprehensive and effective manner is challenged by each nation’s financial management system that generates variation in policy coordination and responsiveness.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Nandi Wardhana

Indonesian competition law today requires a renewal of one of them concerning the doctrine of essential facilities duties. The doctrine essential facilities duties is a doctrine imposed on a dominant business actor who has access to essential facilities to provide access for competing business actors to use the facility. Regulation of essential facilities duties are needed to reduce dominance of a dominant firm in a particular market. This study uses a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and a comparative approach between the arrangements in the United States, Europe and Indonesia. The approach is expected to illustrate, harmonize problems arising, and provide better legal protection in the world of business competition. The doctrine essential facilities duties were first applied in the United States and then followed by European countries. The doctrine of essential facilities duties in the United States is based on the sherman act and uses theapproach rule of reason. The doctrine of essential facilities duties in European countries based on EC focuses on refusal to deal. The doctrine of essential facilities duties is explicitly implied in Law No. 5 of 1999. From this study it is concluded that the regulation on essential facilities duties in Law No. 5 of 1999 still can not provide a good legal protection for business competition in Indonesia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (02) ◽  
pp. 105-117
Author(s):  
Jason Jacobs

AbstractWeaponization of state-backed, foreign investments by China is an emerging national security threat in the United States and the European Union. The U.S. and E.U. have espoused similar policy goals—to address the threat without closing their markets to foreign direct investment—while fostering increased cooperation between allied partners in screening transactions.On the surface, the recent, China-specific measures taken by the U.S. and the investment screening framework adopted by the E.U. appear reflective of an alignment of those policy goals. Indeed, many commentators have suggested that is exactly what is happening. However, closer examination reveals a stark divergence. The U.S. has a robust screening mechanism that has evolved into a weapon of economic warfare. The E.U. meanwhile, remains a patchwork of conflicting—or nonexistent—national regulations overlaid by a comparatively toothless investment screening framework.There is a tendency to attribute this divergence to structural differences between the United States and European Union. This in-depth comparison of U.S. and E.U. investment screening mechanisms exposes a split that goes beyond application and into actual policy. This revelation should temper expectations that the E.U. is equipping itself to block transactions that are of concern to the U.S.


2003 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 305-306
Author(s):  
Zephyr Frank

The author of this ambitious volume tackles the question: why is the United States rich and Brazil poor? Given the importance of the question and the promising comparative approach, readers of this JOURNAL will be tempted to look into John DeWitt's book. Unfortunately, they are likely to be disappointed. The author claims that internal and external factors combined to generate growth in the United States and to breed underdevelopment in Brazil. The external factors hinge on the purported unfairness of the international system. Brazil, according to DeWitt, was “a weak state that could be treated like a palooka and pummeled with impunity” (p. 113). The internal factors of growth or backwardness adduced in the book are based on a series of case studies of regions or industries, such as coastal towns or whaling, along with generalizations about plantation economics. Although there are many useful insights sprinkled throughout the book, the methodology and bibliography are confused and outdated: there are no time series or statistical tests employed in the text; quantitative data are few and almost entirely descriptive; and no mention is made of recent publications emphasizing institutions and factor endowments as sources of economic divergence between the United States and Latin America. In particular, it is troubling that no mention is made in the text or bibliography to Stephen Haber's edited volume, How Latin America Fell Behind (Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press, 1997). This omission prevents DeWitt from addressing the standard text in the literature and severely detracts from the volume's credibility.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document