ERPN: Corporate Law (Other) (Sub-Topic)最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Unlovely and Unloved: Corporate Law Reform's Progeny 不可爱和不受欢迎:公司法改革的后代

ERPN: Corporate Law (Other) (Sub-Topic) Pub Date : 2008-04-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1125542

Cally Jordan

{"title":"Unlovely and Unloved: Corporate Law Reform's Progeny","authors":"Cally Jordan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1125542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1125542","url":null,"abstract":"\"Oscar Wilde would have regarded our modern Corporations Law not only as uneatable, but also indigestible and incomprehensible\" (Sir Anthony Mason, 1992).There is no dispute; it is unlovely and unloved. Complex, ungainly, internally inconsistent, conceptually troubled; the Corporations Act 2001(CA 2001) is a mishmash of old law, ad hoc amendments, provisions pulled willy-nilly from different legal systems, statements which are not law at all, ideological posturing, and drafting styles that swing wildly from the colloquial to the technical. Despite massive efforts at law reform in the last fifteen years, and continuous tweaking, the CA 2001 remains, as Sir Anthony Mason found it, indigestible and incomprehensible.The state of the legislation, at odds with the dynamism of the Australian economy over this same period, raises some intriguing questions. Is corporations law not just \"trivial\", as Bernard Black provocatively suggested a few years ago, but completely irrelevant? In this case, does law not matter, not a whit? Is corporate law reform not worth the economic candle? Why is consistency and coherency in business law not valued in Australia? Is this an atavistic response of an old common law system, a deep-rooted aversion to \"codification\"?This paper looks at some of the consequences of this state of affairs, arguing that a better corporations law would be of benefit to Australia. The paper identifies some points of departure: a separate business corporations statute, elimination of the bifurcation of directors duties (as between the statute and the general law), substitution of a comprehensive personal property security regime for the troublesome insolvent trading provisions and reconceptualisation of the complexities of capital maintenance rules.","PeriodicalId":140847,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Corporate Law (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128884479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Protection of Creditors in Public Limited Companies: Second Council Directive and Albanian Company Law Compared: Is There a Need for Reform? 公共有限公司债权人保护:第二次理事会指令与阿尔巴尼亚公司法之比较:是否需要改革?

ERPN: Corporate Law (Other) (Sub-Topic) Pub Date : 2004-09-30 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1130311

Elis Tarelli

{"title":"Protection of Creditors in Public Limited Companies: Second Council Directive and Albanian Company Law Compared: Is There a Need for Reform?","authors":"Elis Tarelli","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1130311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1130311","url":null,"abstract":"The public company was the invention that allowed entrepreneurs to raise substantial amounts of capital to finance big projects. These huge amounts of money could not be mobilized without granting to entrepreneurs the privilege of limited liability. Limited liability would give them the courage to invest the money put forward by investors in projects, which sometimes entailed too high a risk of failure. The privilege of limited liability meant that the danger of failure was shifted from the entrepreneurs to the investors. Because of this shift in bearing the costs of failure, the entrepreneurs would have the incentive to abuse with the privilege of limited liability, jeopardizing the interests of the investors, be they shareholders or creditors.Should law protect the creditors of the company, or should creditors look out for themselves? If yes, how much protection should law provide? Is there any benefit from protecting this group of investors? In the European level, does the Second Company Law Directive for the protection of creditors provide the mechanisms? Is Albanian Company Law providing the basic creditors' protection mechanisms required by the Second Directive? We try to answer these questions and end our paper with few recommendations on how to better align Albanian Company Law with the Second Directive as far as the protection of creditors' interests is concerned.","PeriodicalId":140847,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Corporate Law (Other) (Sub-Topic)","volume":"31 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114028040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

首页上一页