Search

The article focuses on the implication of controlling shareholders on corporate governance. Topics mentioned include good law jurisdictions, nonpecuniary private benefits of control, the different types of controlling shareholders, the role of nationalism in the development of corporate law and governance, and the efficiency of corporate governance in reducing agency costs

The problem of managerial agency costs dominates debates in corporate law. Many leading scholars advocate reforms that would reduce agency costs by forcing firms to allocate more control to shareholders. Such proposals disregard the costs that shareholders avoid by delegating control to managers and voluntarily restricting their own control rights. This Essay introduces principal-cost theory, which posits that each firm's optimal governance structure minimizes the sum of principal costs, produced when investors exercise control, and agent costs, produced when managers exercise control. Both principal costs and agent costs can arise from honest mistakes (which generate competence costs) and from disloyal conduct (which generate conflict costs). Because the expected costs of competence and conflict are firm-specific, the optimal division of control is firm-specific as well. Thus, firms rationally select from a range of governance structures that empower shareholders to varying degrees. The empirical predictions produced by principal-cost theory are more accurate than those produced by any theory focused solely on agency costs. Principal-cost theory also suggests different policy prescriptions. Rather than banning some governance features and mandating others, lawmakers should permit each firm to tailor its governance structure based on its firm-specific tradeoff between principal costs and agent costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented on American corporate law and governance as of June 2013, focusing on contracting at the initial public offering (IPO) stage, state competition, and corporate takeover defenses. The Seventh Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS) is addressed, along with the 1976 article "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure" by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. A positive and normative theory of corporate law is also examined.

We apply the paradigm of the firm as a nexus of contracts to the debate on regulatory competition vs. unification of law as an alternative way of regulating the business corporation. This approach views the business corporation as a set of coordinated contracts among different parties. Agency problems and related agency costs are the result of this interaction. The economic analysis of corporate law, securities regulation and bankruptcy law identifies law as a means to minimise such agency costs. In this paper, we develop a model where companies are heterogeneous in their preferences about the legal regulation of contractual relationships. We then compare a regime of regulatory competition with one of single supply of regulation and we analyse their relative costs and benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been advocated within corporate governance that institutional investors may discipline management in listed firms and thereby alleviate the free rider problem associated with dispersed ownership. This article tests this hypothesis using a sample of Danish listed firms during 1998–2001 determining, whether ownership by institutional investors impacts performance, measured by Tobin’s q. Using three stage least squares, it is shown that aggregate ownership by institutional investors does not influence firm performance. However, when decomposing the results, it is found that joint ownership by the largest two Danish institutional investors, has a significant negative impact firm performance. Ownership by banks and to a lesser extent insurance companies significantly influences firm performance positively. The results somehow challenge the conventional wisdom, arguing that the black box view of institutional investors should be abandon. Therefore it is suggested that a more careful analysis should be devoted to each institutional investors own legal environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]