'New Governance' in European Corporate Law Regulation as Transnational Legal Pluralism

The present transformation of European corporate governance regulation mirrors the challenges that have been facing the EU's continuously evolving polity, marked by tensions between centralised integration programmes, on the one hand, and Member State's embedded capitalisms, path-dependencies and rent-seeking, on the other. As longstanding concerns with remaining obstacles to more mobility for workers, services, business entities and capital in recent years are aligned with post-Lisbon commitments to creating the world's leading competitive market, European corporate governance regulation (ECGR) has become exposed to and implicated in a set of highly dynamic regulatory experiments. In this context, 'New Governance' offers itself as both a tentative label and immodest proposal for a more responsive and innovative approach to European law making. The following article assesses the recently emerging regulatory forms in ECGR as illustrations of far-reaching transformations in market governance. The arguable parallels between the EU's regulatory transformation in response to growing legitimacy concerns and the recurring question about whose interests a business corporation is intended to serve, provide the framework for an exploration of current regulatory trajectories in European corporate law that can most adequately be understood as a telling example of transnational legal pluralism.     

Legal Diversity and Regulatory Competition: Which Model for Europe?

Abstract:  Two models of regulatory competition are contrasted, one based on a US pattern of 'competitive federalism', the other a European conception of 'reflexive harmonisation'. In the European context, harmonisation of corporate and labour law, contrary to its critics, has been a force for the preservation of diversity, and of an approach to regulatory interaction based on mutual learning between nation states. It is thus paradoxical, and arguably antithetical to the goal of European integration, that this approach is in danger of being undermined by attempts, following the Centros case, to introduce a Delaware-type form of inter-jurisdictional competition into European company law.     

论我国股份公司代表权制度及其立法改革

我国现行公司法规定的法定代表人制度在实践中存在诸多弊端。改革我国的公司代表权制度应从公司代表权的法律性质出发,参考国外公司法有关经验,以公司效率和交易安全两方面的价值考量为原则,允许公司以章程约定代表方式;公司代表权主体宜以复数代表为原则,单一代表为例外;代表权行使则以分别行使(单独代表)为原则,以共同行使(共同代表)为例外。同时,应将公司经理还原为公司代理人和辅助人地位,并赋予监事会或监事在特殊情况下的公司代表权。     

中国公司法产生源流考——以日本法的影响为视角

在我国公司法的历史上,作为第一部完整规定公司制度法律的1904年《钦定大清商律》、作为第一部单行法的1929年《公司法》以及1914年《公司条例》具有重要的意义。这三部法律文件不仅在内容上存在差异,同时各自所面对的立法背景与立法环境都存在很多的不同。这三部法律文件之间具有内在关系,其中包含对于今天公司法完善仍然有益的信...     

小议欧盟第1419/2006号条例对班轮航运业的影响

国际航运反垄断豁免制度作为一种行业豁免制度,是指通过立法赋予航运业中具有垄断性质的行为以反垄断豁免,它是一般反垄断豁免在国际航运业的体现。目前各航运发达国家,如美国、加拿大等,都在法律中确定了有关反垄断法在国际航运领域的适用例外。2006年9月欧盟竞争委员会颁布了旨在取消班轮公会反垄断豁免的第1419/2006号条例。从班轮市场集中度、市场运力、市场运价、市场竞争力等方面,分析该条例对包括中国在内的各利益相关方的影响,指出该条例的生效仍将延续班轮航运业的垄断态势。     

法人与公司制度融合风险的法律控制——兼论实现国家公司公益性的法人制度支持

现代民法上的法人制度包含了为公司制度发展量身定做的"完人化"标准。公司制度借与法人制度融合获得了广义财产与基本权利,扭转了公司在传统社会组织身份格局中的不利地位,形成了对其他企业类型的制度竞争优势,但也带来巨大风险:公司异化为新身份格局中的"公司帝国"。法人制度在我国具有主要服务国有企业改革的功能狭隘性,加之官商传统潜移默化,产生了更为复杂的"官商公司帝国",妨碍了国有企业实现公共利益。针对性地而言,应祛除法人制度的极端功利主义成分,重建国有企业承载公共利益的法人制度支持。     

Citizenship and the Corporation

This article investigates the contribution made by the concept of citizenship to contemporary understandings of the widely held business corporation. Because the conventional economic understanding of corporations and corporate law cannot fully explain the nature of the business corporation and the purposes of corporate law, the framework within which teachers and students of corporate law approach the corporation must be enlarged. By looking at the corporation exclusively through the lens of economics we are unable to account for all features of the corporation and corporate law, and we risk mistaking the purpose of these features, or wrongly supposing that they serve no purpose. The article proposes that through resort to a distinct set of conceptual tools—the concept of citizenship, borrowed from political theory—we can attain a fuller comprehension of the meaning of the corporation.     

Taking crime out of crime business

It is one thing to assert that conventional market analysis is critically useful in understanding criminal enterprise. It is more challenging to suggest that corrupt and compromised legal regulation interacts with other critical market variables to maximise market advantage for crime business in a similar manner to legitimate regulatory forces in their protection and enhancement of legitimate business enterprise. The central argument of this paper is that crime business mirrors other business forms when considered in terms of critical market variables, and that in particular regulatory forces when inverted from their original purposes can influence market conditions in the same ways desired from the legitimate regulatory form. The main research direction deriving from the analysis of regulatory influences over specific criminal enterprises is how do certain critical market forces essentially facilitate criminal enterprise as a market phenomenon. This paper suggests how through comparatively analysing nominated critical market forces in the context of lucrative and recurrent criminal enterprises, common business decision-making may be predicted and thereby controlled beyond a law enforcement paradigm. In fact, the paper argues that when perverted law enforcement regulation operates as an inter-connecting market characteristic then it can have a similar influence over illegitimate enterprise that law enforcement may provide legitimate business.By establishing a richer and more enterprise-oriented understanding of crucial market variables, it becomes possible to refine control strategies at critical entry and exit points in the operation of clandestine crime businesses. The paper will challenge a comparative theorising of what makes crime business a good business, and how normative distinctions between illegitimate markets are made less convincing when positioned against an analysis of the interaction of critical market variables.     

控制股东:公司法框架下的责任重构

控制股东因其持股数量超过其他任何股东而对公司的运营决策直接或间接地具有实质控制权。我国公司法实务中存在着控制股东滥用其控制权 ,违法违规操作 ,损害公司及中小投资者利益的实例。确立控制股东对公司的忠实义务 ,确实履行出资义务 ,保障公司的独立人格 ;对其他股东的诚信义务 ,并以经营判断规则衡量之 ,在法律上对控制股东违反上述义务予以规制 ,具有紧迫的必要性     

The Road to EU Membership. Enforcing Competition Policy in Hungary: Double Protection and Domestic Developments

The present article is concerned withthe so-called process of harmonisation to theCommunity Law, which is taking place in thecentral eastern European countries, candidatesto join the European Union. Specifically, thisarticle deals with the building of a matureHungarian competition policy, inaccordance with the acquis communautaire,as part of a larger long-term programme ofpro-market decisions concerning privatisationand market openness. On the one hand, theso-called iterated multi-level interaction indifferent arenas between Hungarian institutionsand the Union, structured on path-dependentdynamics, influences the mechanisms and thetiming of harmonisation to the EuropeanUnion. On the other hand, the gradualempowerment of an independent national Office of Economic Competition and theprogress made to the adaptation of policystructures and policy behaviours to theEuropean Union's canons and laws are taken asthe main factors explaining the development ofa clear, predictable, and transparent processof competition law enforcement. Byfollowing a multidisciplinary approach, thisarticle combines an analysis of the meaning ofboth the Hungarian Competition Act and theprovisions on competition contained in the Europe Agreement, alongside a study of theirenforcement experience, revealing a gap betweenthe high consistency of the Hungariandiscipline on competition protection withEuropean Union law and the real enforcement capacity.     

我国《公司法》体系的重构——一种解释论的观点

1993年以来我国《公司法》虽经过多次修订、修改,但其体系结构并没有发生实质的变化。由于历史的原因,我国《公司法》最初是为现代企业制度的建立,而参酌各国公司立法经验,整合了有限责任公司法规范和股份公司法规范,采取“统分结合”的方式,形成了现行法上的规范体系。这一体系对法律解释和法律适用产生了困扰。各国现代公司法体系是19世纪自由竞争和工业经济的产物,是为大型公开公司的需求而设计的。多数国家以公开公司为基础,以封闭公司为例外,建立了公司法的体系,在立法形式上,采取这两类公司的分别立法或统一立法的模式。近年来,以英国和日本为代表的国家进行了公司法的改革,转变了原有的观念,以中小企业和封闭公司为基础构建一般规范,对公开公司作出例外规定或就某一事项作出单独规定。我国《公司法》的修订应顺应当代知识经济和数字经济的要求,在坚持现行法上将有限责任公司和股份有限公司统合于一部公司法典的基本模式的同时,建立从公司设立、存续到消灭等的同一事项中以具有封闭性质的中小公司为定位建立基础规范,对具有公开性质的大公司作例外或单独规范,以利于公司法的解释和适用。     

公司市场退出法律制度的嬗变逻辑与进化路径

我国《公司法》尚未认可公司市场退出的多项改革,滞后于实践的发展,对瑕疵经营公司缺乏包容度,仅设置了局限于法庭外退出机制的单一性规定,需要进行体系性再造。公司市场退出的丰富实践与我国《公司法》的有限规定形成对比,强化公司市场退出立法,整合与更新既有法律制度安排,能够维系债权人利益的整体保护水平。重申公司市场退出法律制度的私法底色,明确公司登记是对商事主体资格确认的本意,是公司市场退出法律制度改革的关键。登记机关应尊重清算时公司剩余财产分配的自治权,由“前端严审”转向“后端惩治”,以信用机制约束滞留市场的公司,发挥商事资质确认的功能。我国《公司法》应当成为法庭外与法庭内公司市场退出法律制度的“母法”。简易注销制度应扩大调整对象,强制退出制度不应成为依职权注销制度,可在适用前提、期间和结果方面完善休眠制度。     

浅析我国《公司法》关于转投资规定的立法缺陷——评《公司法》第12条之规定

市场经济条件下,作为现代资本企业的公司,不断地追求最大限度的利润和更多的市场占有份额,这是公司不断进行转投资的重要原因。转投资是公司加速资本扩张的重要手段,是公司在激烈的市场竞争中得以生存和发展的重要方式。我国《公司法》第12条关于公司转投资的限制性规定,制约了公司在市场经济环境中的自主发展和自由竞争,影响了资源的合理配置和流动,应当予以修改和完善。本文粗浅地分析了转投资限制性条款的立法缺陷及不足,以期对《公司法》的修改和完善有所帮助。     

Company Liability and Competition Law: Exposure of Company to Risk of Undesirable Behaviour of Directors

In order to protect the objectives of competition policy, companies as undertakings are primarily targeted for the competition law infringements based on the mixed approach of compliance and deterrence theories relying on the view that company directors are incentivised to comply with the rules of competition law by the internal compliance programmes and corporate fines are the consequences of incompliance. This enforcement strategy gives rise to a tension between corporate governance, company law and competition law, as the former two focus on the behaviour of individuals within the corporate structure, while the latter concerns the impact of the company’s behaviour in the market. The question that arises in this tension is whether or to what extent competition law actually considers the way in which the company is run internally while it seeks to promote these primary objectives. This article analyses the deterrent effectiveness of primary enforcement strategy employed in the UK competition law regime and argues that competition law does not tend to localise the source of conduct or particular decisions and does not aim to correct the right wrongdoer. Despite that lack of effectiveness of public enforcement strategy to deter further anti-competitive behaviour has led individual sanctions to be introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 in the UK, companies are still primarily targeted by corporate fines even though directors have intentionally breached the rules of competition law and this strategy is unlikely to deter directors from engaging with undesirable behaviour which exposes the company to risk of liability and loss.

     

反垄断法中联合限制竞争行为的比较研究

联合限制竞争行为的主体必须为两个或两个以上,且目的在于限制竞争;根据不同的分类法,可将其分为横向与纵向、协议与协同、禁止与豁免等种类;考虑其在经济上既能产生消极效果亦能产生积极效果,因此不能简单适用本身违法原则,有时需通过经济学分析以区别豁免情形;欧美竞争法规制联合限制竞争行为在立法体例、价值目标、执法机制、例外制度方面等均不尽相同;我国反垄断立法应以欧美竞争立法经验为基础,同时体现我国的特色.     

劳务出资探析

由于劳务的人身属性与评估上的随意性,我国传统公司法理论及新修订的公司登记管理条例都认为不宜作为出资。但劳务作为公司股东的出资方式,既能弥补劳务合同的不足,又能提供了一种新的创业谋生模式,更呼应了现代经济社会对高智慧人才的尊重与渴求。劳务出资的难点在如何理解劳务出资的交付,及具体制度上如何确保公司资本真实。如果能化解劳务出资的风险与不足,协调好相关利益冲突,我国将来公司法立法应当顺应时势,认可劳务出资。     

Reforming the Market or the State? Article 30 and the European Constitution: Economic Freedom and Political Rights

This article takes as its starting-point the relationship between Article 30 of 30 of the EC Treaty (general rule on the free movement of goods) and the European Constitution. On the one hand, it examines Article 30 in the context of the constitutional dilemmas facing the European Union, particularly the balance of powers to be defined between Member States and the Union, between public power and the market, and between the legitimacy of Community law vis à vis that of national law. On the other hand, it reviews different conceptions of the European Economic Constitution by analysing the role of Article 30 in the review of market regulation.     

商事主体终止的制度检视及其结构优化

商事制度之完善不能偏囿于入口端的登记,还应关注出口端的终止。终止制度对市场风险出清、债权债务处置、要素资源优化具有重要作用。终止的面向大于破产,还有庭外解散和停止经营的进路,终止流程包括去除营业资格的清算和剥离主体资格的注销。现有商事主体终止制度面临双线困局:外线解散过罚不当、清算概念混用、注销虚化空转;内线破产类型狭窄、终端注销衔接不畅。近年来,作为改革突破口的简易注销和强制注销渐次推出,但面临法律正当性阙如之虞。破解困局当有结构化方案,以主体分类、繁简分流为主线,辅以歇业登记、注销回转的补充,通过公司法、破产法、登记法的联动修改,可助益于商事主体终止的理念更新和制度优化。     

A review of telecom markets in the EU: What did the European Commission learn or not from the past?

The EU telecom regulation relies on a market-by-market sunset approach. In order to facilitate the market review of national regulatory authorities, the European Commission has offered two successive sets of recommended markets susceptible to ex ante regulation. The inclusion or exclusion of a recommended telecom market is analyzed on its competition conditions across the EU. Beginning in 2014 the European Commission published the draft third Market Recommendation. This article aims to give a critical evaluation of those recommended markets by surveying the competition situations on every telecom market in the EU Member States. It observes that while the drafted Third Recommendation makes a reasonable assessment for most telecom markets, it may not have appropriately addressed markets such as retail fixed access, wholesale call origination, wholesale fixed and mobile call termination, wholesale high-quality access, and wholesale broadcasting transmission.     

The Inefficiency of Quasi–Per Se Rules: Regulating Information Exchange in EU and U.S. Antitrust Law

It is well understood that the exchange of information between horizontal competitors can violate competition law provisions in both the European Union (EU) and the United States, namely, article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and section 1 of the Sherman Act. However, despite ostensible similarities between EU and U.S. antitrust law concerning interfirm information exchange, substantial differences remain. In this article, we make a normative argument for the U.S. antitrust regime's approach, on the basis that the United States’ approach to information exchange is likely to be more efficient than the relevant approach under the EU competition regime. Using economic theories of harm concerning information exchange to understand the imposition of liability in relation to “stand-alone” instances of information exchange, we argue that such liability must be grounded on the conception of a prophylactic rule. We characterize this rule as a form of ex ante regulation and explain why it has no ex post counterpart in antitrust law. In contrast to the U.S. antitrust regime, we argue that the implementation of such a rule pursuant to EU competition law leads to higher error costs without a significant reduction in regulatory costs. As a majority of jurisdictions have competition law regimes that resemble EU competition law more closely than U.S. antitrust law, our thesis has important implications for competition regimes around the world.