John Armour

How Do Legal Rules Evolve? Evidence from a Cross-Country Comparison of Shareholder, Creditor and Worker Protection

Much attention has been devoted in recent literature to the claim that a country’s ‘legal origin’ may make a difference to its pattern of fi nancial development and more generally to its economic growth path. Proponents of this view assert that the ‘family’ within which a country’s legal system originated—be it common law, or one of the varieties of civil law—has a signifi cant impact upon the quality of its legal protection of shareholders, which in turn impacts upon economic growth, through the channel of fi rms’ access to external fi nance. Complementary studies of creditors’ rights and labour regulation have buttressed the core claim that different legal families have different dynamic properties. Specifi cally, common law systems are thought to be better able to respond to the changing needs of a market economy than are civilian systems. This literature has, however, largely been based upon cross-sectional studies of the quality of corporate, insolvency and labour law at particular points in the late 1990s. In this paper, we report fi ndings based on newly constructed indices which track legal change over time in the areas of shareholder, creditor and worker protection. The indices cover fi ve systems for the period 1970-2005: three ‘parent’ systems, the UK, France and Germany; the world’s most developed economy, the US; and its largest democracy, India. The results cast doubt on the legal origin hypothesis in so far as they show that civil law systems have seen substantial increases in shareholder protection over the period in question. The pattern of change differs depending on the area which is being examined, with the law on creditor and worker protection demonstrating more divergence and heterogeneity than that relationg to shareholders. The results for worker protection are more consistent with the legal origin claim than in the other two cases, but this overall result conceals signifi cant diversity within the two ‘legal families’, with different countries relying on different institutional mechanisms to regulate labour. Until the late 1980s the law of the fi ve countries was diverging, but in the last 10-15 years there has been some convergence, particularly in relation to shareholder protection.

Share Capital and Creditor Protection: Efficient Rules for a Modern Company Law

Examines the economic case for rules of company law which regulate the raising and maintenance of share capital by companies. Argues that the current rules are unlikely to enhance the efficiency of the markets which they regulate, and makes a tentative conclusion.

Insolvency and employment protection: the mixed effects of the Acquired Rights Directive

Abstract The statutory protection provided by European Community law to employees during transfers of undertakings and other restructurings has been criticised on the grounds that it undermines insolvency procedures and interferes with the ‘rescue’ process. We present an analysis which suggests that granting employees rights of this kind may be an efficient means of recognising their firm-specific human capital. Case-study evidence is then presented to show that while in some situations employment rights may obstruct reorganisations, in others they allow employee interests to be factored into the bargaining process in such a way as to enhance the survival chances of enterprises undergoing restructuring. The law functions best when effective mechanisms of employee representation are in place and when the conditions under which employees’ acquired rights can be waived in the interests of preserving employment are clearly specified.

Legal Capital: An Outdated Concept?

This paper reviews the case for and against mandatory legal capital rules. It is argued that legal capital is no longer an appropriate means of safeguarding creditors’ interests. This is most clearly the case as regards mandatory rules. Moreover, it is suggested that even an ‘opt in’ (or default) legal capital regime is unlikely to be a useful mechanism. However, the advent of regulatory arbitrage in European corporate law will provide a way of gathering information regarding investors’ preferences in relation to such rules. Those creditor protection rules that do not further the interests of adjusting creditors will become subject to competitive pressures. Legislatures will be faced with the task of designing mandatory rules to deal with the issues raised by ‘non-adjusting’ creditors in a proportionate and effective manner, consistent with the Gebhard formula.

Corporate Insolvency in the United Kingdom: The Impact of the Enterprise Act 2002

With effect from September 15, 2003, the Enterprise Act made significant changes to the governance of corporate rescue procedures in the United Kingdom which involved a shift away from a “concentrated creditor” model of governance towards a “dispersed creditor” model of governance which vests greater control rights in unsecured creditors collectively. These changes were motivated by fairness and efficiency concerns, notably the concern that the UKs administrative receivership procedure was not conducive to rescue outcomes and operated to the detriment of unsecured creditors. This article discusses the Enterprise Act reforms in the context of wider theoretical debates about the desirability (or otherwise) of secured creditor control of corporate rescue procedures. It then presents in summary form the findings of an empirical study carried out by the authors that sought to evaluate the impact of the Act by comparing the gross realizations, costs and net returns to creditors in a sample of 284 corporate insolvencies commenced before and after the law changed. Whilst we find that gross realizations have increased under the streamlined administration procedure introduced by the Act when compared with the old receivership procedure, we also find that costs have increased. These findings imply that secured creditor control of the insolvency procedure (as in receivership) may be no worse for unsecured creditors than control by dispersed unsecured creditors (as in administration) at least as regards returns.

Is Delaware Losing Its Cases

Delaware’s expert courts are seen as an integral part of the state’s success in attracting incorporation by public companies. However, the benefit that Delaware companies derive from this expertise depends on whether corporate lawsuits against Delaware companies are brought before the Delaware courts. We report evidence that these suits are increasingly brought outside Delaware. We investigate changes in where suits are brought using four hand-collected datasets capturing different types of suits: class action lawsuits filed in (i) large MA (iii) derivative suits alleging option backdating; and (iv) cases against public company directors that generate one or more publicly available opinions between 1995-2009. We find a secular increase in litigation rates for all companies in large MA and (ii) suits being filed both in Delaware and elsewhere in large M&A transactions. Overall, Delaware courts are losing market share in lawsuits, and Delaware companies are gaining lawsuits, often filed elsewhere. We find some evidence that the timing of specific Delaware court decisions that affect plaintiffs’ firms coincide with the movement of cases out of Delaware. Our evidence suggests that serious as well as nuisance cases are leaving Delaware. The trends we report potentially present a challenge to Delaware’s competitiveness in the market for incorporations.

After Enron: Improving Corporate Law and Modernising Securities Regulation in Europe and the US

At the end of the twentieth century, it was thought by many that the Anglo-American system of corporate governance was performing effectively and some observers claimed to see an international trend towards convergence around this model. There can be no denying that the recent corporate governance crisis in the US has caused many to question their faith in this view. This collection of essays provides a comprehensive attempt to answer the following questions: first, what went wrong - when and why do markets misprice the value of firms, and what was wrong with the incentives set by Enron? Secondly, what has been done in response, and how well will it work - including essays on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the US, UK company law reform and European company law and auditor liability reform, along with a consideration of corporate governance reforms in historical perspective. Three approaches emerge. The first two share the premise that the system is fundamentally sound, but part ways over whether a regulatory response is required. The third view, in contrast, argues that the various scandals demonstrate fundamental weaknesses in the Anglo-American system itself, which cannot hope to be repaired by the sort of reforms that have taken place. [This essay is the introductory chapter to J. Armour and J.A. McCahery (eds.), After Enron: Improving Corporate Law and Modernising Securities Regulation in Europe and the US, forthcoming 2006 (Oxford: Hart Publishing)].

Personal Insolvency Law and the Demand for Venture Capital

Scholars working in the ‘law and finance ‘field have investigated empirically the links between various types of law and the incidence of venture capital finance. However, no study to date has systematically investigated the relationship between insolvency law — both personal and corporate — and venture capital finance. This paper argues that a nation’s personal insolvency law may have an important impact on the demand for venture capital finance, with more severe treatment of insolvents tending to reduce demand. This hypothesis is subjected to a preliminary test by comparing data on venture capital investment activity with an index of ‘severity’ of insolvency laws, and is not falsified. This finding will be of interest to policymakers, as a number of recent national and EU initiatives have sought explicitly to encourage innovative firms and venture capital finance.

A Comparative Analysis of Hostile Takeover Regimes in the US, UK and Japan (with Implications for Emerging Markets)

In each of the three largest economies with dispersed ownership of public companies - the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan - hostile takeovers emerged under a common set of circumstances. Yet the national regulatory responses to these new market developments diverged substantially. In the United States, the Delaware judiciary became the principal source and enforcer of rules on hostile takeovers. These rules give substantial discretion to target company boards in responding to unsolicited bids. In the UK, by contrast, a private body consisting of market professionals was formed to adopt and enforce the rules on hostile bids and defenses. In contrast to those of the US, the UK rules give the shareholders primary decision making authority in responding to hostile takeover attempts. The hostile takeover regime in Japan, which developed recently and is still evolving, combines substantive rules with elements drawn from both the US (Delaware) and the UK, while adding distinctive elements, including an independent enforcement role for Japan’s stock exchange. This Article provides an analytical framework for business law development to explain the diversity in hostile takeover regimes in these three countries. The framework focuses on the universal supply and demand dynamics that drive the evolution of business law in response to new market developments. It emphasizes the common role of subordinate lawmakers in filling the vacuum left by legislative inaction, and it highlights the prevalence of “preemptive lawmaking” to avoid legislation that may be contrary to the interests of important corporate governance players. Extrapolating from the analysis of developed economies, the framework also illuminates the current state and future trajectory of hostile takeover regulation in the important emerging markets of China, India, and Brazil, where corporate ownership structures may be changing. An important pattern revealed by the analysis is the ostensible adoption - and adaptation - of “best practices” for hostile takeover regulation derived from Delaware and the UK in ways that protect important interests within each emerging market’s national corporate governance system.

Origins of “Offensive” Shareholder Activism in the United States

Carl Icahn, 1980s corporate raider and currently operator of Trian Partners, a major activist hedge fund, spelled out his business philosophy in a late 1970s memo to prospective investors in his initial investment partnership: It is our contention that sizeable profits can be earned by taking large positions in “undervalued” stocks then attempting to control the destinies of the companies in question by: a) trying to convince management to liquidate or sell the company to a “white knight”; b) waging a proxy contest; c) making a tender offer and/or; d) selling back our position to the company. (Stevens 1993)