company law essays

Corporate Law

Will the real shareholder primacy please stand up.

• Ann M. Lipton

In re GGP, Inc. Stockholder Litigation

Delaware Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal for Shareholders Seeking Appraisal in Merger with Preclosing Dividend.

Public Reporting of Monitorship Outcomes

• Veronica Root Martinez

Extraterritorial Avoidance Actions Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code

The supreme court and the pro-business paradox.

• Elizabeth Pollman

The (Indigenous) Case for Shareholder Primacy and its Role in Climate Justice

• Carla F. Fredericks

Rethinking Retirement Savings

• Jason Fernandes
• Janelle Orsi

Controller Confusion: Realigning Controlling Stockholders and Controlled Boards

Flood v. synutra international, inc..

MFW Conditions Are in Place “Before Any Substantive Economic Negotiations” in Controlling Shareholder Transactions.

Deal Process Design in Management Buyouts

• Guhan Subramanian

Law Explorer

Fastest law search engine.

If you have any question you can ask below or enter what you are looking for!

• Law Explorer /
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW /

INTRODUCTION TO COMPANY LAW

1 Introduction to company law AIMS AND OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter you should understand:   The scope of ‘company law’   The relationship between core company law, insolvency law, securities regulation and corporate governance   The sources of company law   The importance in the study of company law of foundation course legal knowledge and skills   The historical development of the registered company and its statutory framework   The arguments for and against limited liability   The influence of the European Union on UK company law   The rationale behind the Companies Act 2006 and subsequent developments 1.1 Who this book is for This book is written primarily for undergraduate law students studying company law. It aims to guide students to an understanding of:   the scope of company law and how it is linked to other specialist legal subjects such as securities regulation and insolvency law;   the sources of company law;   key legal principles of company law;   key moot, or unsettled, issues in company law. It is also written to assist students to develop their ability to:   understand and appreciate the context in which company law operates;   apply key principles of company law to solve problem questions;   interpret legislation;    use precedents to construct logical and persuasive arguments and discuss moot points of law;   think reflectively and critically about the strengths, shortcomings and implications of various aspects of company law. Company law and company law scholarship have grown rapidly in volume in recent years making it unrealistic to cover the whole of even ‘core’ company law (a term explained in the next section) in what is usually little more than two terms if students are to achieve understanding rather than acquire a superficial level of knowledge. Three filters commonly used to limit the volume of material covered are adopted in this book, which focuses on:   companies formed to run businesses for profit , not companies formed for charitable or other non profit-making purposes;    registered limited liability companies with a share capital rather than other types of registered company such as unlimited companies or companies limited by guarantee;   the Companies Act 2006 , with limited coverage of securities regulation (also known as capital markets law or financial services law) or insolvency law. Whilst students choose to study company law for a number of reasons, all share the aim of successfully completing their assessment(s). The activities and sample essay questions in each chapter of this book are designed to help you to test your knowledge and understanding and develop a successful approach to answering company law questions. core company law The law governing the creation and operation of registered companies 1.2 What we mean by ‘company law’ 1.2.1 Core company law The focus of this book is what is sometimes referred to as ‘core company law’, which is essentially the law governing the creation and operation of registered companies. It is very easy to identify core company law today as it is almost all contained in the 1,300 sections and 16 schedules of the Companies Act 2006, regulations made pursuant to that Act, and cases clarifying the application of the statutory rules and principles. That said, the Companies Act 2006 is not a comprehensive code of core company law in the sense of a body of rules that has replaced all common law rules and equitable principles previously found in cases. Certain aspects of core company law, such as remedies available for breach of directors’ duties, remain case-stated law distinct from statute law and many cases interpreting provisions of past Companies Acts remain relevant today. The Companies Act 2006 is also not the only current statute containing core company law. Key relevant statutes and the role of case law in core company law are considered in section 1.3 under the heading ‘Sources of company law’. Limits of core company law A more comprehensive review of law relevant to companies would include insolvency law and securities regulation (the latter is part of a larger body of law known as capital markets law or financial services law) to the extent that they apply to companies. In the last 25 to 30 years, each of these areas of law has become a highly developed and voluminous legal subject in its own right. Realistically, not even the parts of each relevant to companies can be covered in any depth in a company law textbook of moderate length and no attempt is made here to do so. Students interested in those subjects specifically can find references to texts providing a good starting point for their studies at the end of this chapter. Figure 1.1  Company law includes parts of securities regulation and insolvency law. Corporate governance has also emerged as a subject of study in its own right over the last 25 to 30 years, so much so that it is appropriate to say a few words about it in the context of setting out what we mean by core company law. Corporate governance is not a legal term, rather, it is a label, or heading under which the questions how, by whom and to what end corporate decisions are or should be taken, are analysed and reflected upon. Issues such as the role law plays and how far the law can and should be used to achieve effective or good corporate governance arise as part of those analyses and reflections. Those who support extensive use of law and regulation backed up by law to achieve effective corporate governance are said to support the ‘juridification’ of corporate governance, those against include those who are said to prefer ‘private ordering’. Core company law and corporate governance overlap to the extent that a large part of core company law is a body of rules and principles establishing how and by whom corporate decisions may lawfully be made or are legally required to be made. Core company law textbooks differ in the extent to which they deal with insolvency law, securities regulation and corporate governance. The approach taken in this book to each is set out in the following three sections. Figure 1.2  Corporate governance. 1.2.2 Insolvency law Even though in theory they could, companies do not tend to continue in existence forever. They either outlive their usefulness or become financially unviable. Before a company ceases to exist, or is ‘dissolved’, to use the legal term, its ongoing operations are brought to an end, its assets are sold and the proceeds of sale are used to pay those to whom it owes money. This process is called ‘winding up’ or ‘liquidating’ the company. Some companies that are wound up or liquidated are able to pay all their debts in full, that is, they are ‘solvent’, yet the law governing winding up of solvent companies is set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 (and rules made pursuant to that Act, the most important of which are the Insolvency Rules 1986). The explanation for this is that most winding ups involve insolvent companies and when, in the mid-1980s, the law governing insolvent company winding ups was moved out of company law legislation into specific insolvency legislation, it made sense to deal with solvent winding ups in the same statute. This avoided the need for duplication of those winding-up provisions relevant to both solvent and insolvent companies in both the Companies Act 1985 (now replaced by the Companies Act 2006) and the Insolvency Act 1986. Note that insolvency is a term relevant to both companies and individuals but in the UK the term bankruptcy is used only to refer to the insolvency of individuals, not companies. It is legally incorrect to refer to a company going bankrupt. Insolvency law is a highly detailed and specialised area of legal practice requiring study of specialist texts for a full understanding of its scope and complexity. That said, the two key formal processes forming the core of insolvency law are administration (a process designed to facilitate the rescue of financially troubled companies) and liquidation (the process by which companies are wound up). Administration is outlined in Chapter 15 and liquidation is examined in Chapter 16 . During the administration and liquidation processes, administrators and liquidators have various powers, including powers to bring legal actions and to review and challenge the validity of certain transactions entered into by the company. Clearly, it is important for anybody seeking to understand the rights of those who deal with companies and the law governing directors (because many of these legal actions and transactions involve directors), to have a basic understanding of these powers. For this reason the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 are included in Chapter 16 . Finally, in the case of a winding up, once the assets of the company have been turned into money and any and all contributions secured, the liquidator is required to follow a statutory order of distribution which determines the priority of payment of different types of creditors. Given the significance of this statutory ordering to the decision whether or not to deal with a company, and the terms on which to do so, the statutory order of distribution on liquidation is also covered in Chapter 16 . 1.2.3 Securities regulation It is difficult to decide which, if any, part of securities regulation to include in a core company law textbook. The aim of securities law is essentially to provide protections to those who decide to invest their money in securities. The term ‘securities’ covers a complex range of investment products, including products unrelated to companies. A student of core company law is concerned only with securities taking the form of shares and corporate bonds. Securities regulation is part of what is often called finance law. For our purposes, finance law can be viewed as made up of three parts: banking law; the regulation of those who conduct investment business and the markets on which investments are traded; and, increasingly, the regulation of companies whose securities (shares and bonds) are offered to the public. Consequently, basically, securities regulation is only relevant to those companies with shares or bonds traded or ‘listed’, i.e. bought and sold, on stock exchanges. As only a very small minority of UK companies have shares or bonds that are traded/listed, it is very important to appreciate that it is a very small number of companies that need to engage with and comply with securities regulation. Securities regulation does not apply to over 99 per cent of registered companies. Regulatory shortcomings highlighted by the global financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath have resulted in extensive, ongoing reform of finance law globally. Reform of UK law is the result of both UK and EU initiatives. Most of the changes relate to the regulation of banks and the re-alignment of regulatory responsibilities. Re-alignment has been effected by the Financial Services Act 2012. The Financial Services Authority (FSA), as such, has been abolished and its functions have been split between two new regulatory bodies. A new ‘macro-prudential authority’ has been established, called the Financial Policy Committee (FPC), and the two key regulators sitting underneath this umbrella body are the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), which is a subsidiary of the Bank of England, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The key securities regulator (the successor to the FSA) is the FCA. Fortunately, apart from this change of regulator, the framework of securities regulation has remained intact. Arguably, the FSA has simply been renamed and refocused, with some of its functions having been removed and given to the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) The key securities regulation statute in the UK remains the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), as amended (most recently by the Financial Services Act 2012). The 2000 Act established and empowered the main securities regulator to make detailed provisions governing securities. Those detailed provisions can be found in what is now the Financial Conduct Authority Handbook (FCA Handbook). The heart of securities regulation is disclosure of accurate information. This theme has been reinforced and supplemented in recent years, in no small part because securities regulation is being used to implement legal initiatives to achieve effective or good corporate governance, which is seen as supportive of efficient capital markets and essential to achieve economic growth. This trend is part of the juridification of corporate governance referred to above. It also causes lawyers to rethink what they mean when they use the terms law and regulation. Focusing for a moment on the sources of securities regulation, statutory provisions in the FSMA are supplemented by detailed provisions made by the FCA pursuant to powers under the FSMA (the FCA Handbook). This clearly legal regime is supplemented by what is increasingly referred to as ‘soft law’, important examples of which are the UK Corporate Governance Code and the Stewardship Code. Disclosure of information by companies is provided for both by the Companies Act 2006 and by securities regulation. Accordingly, Chapter 17 , which deals with transparency, ventures into securities regulation so that students have an idea of how the securities regulation framework of disclosure for traded/listed companies supplements the Companies Act provisions. Accurate information disclosure is particularly important when shares are being offered to the public for the first time and, for this reason, the corresponding part of securities regulation, the Prospectus Rules, are outlined in Chapter 7 . corporate governance The system by which companies are directed and controlled 1.2.4 Corporate governance Corporate governance means different things to different people in different contexts. Whenever the term is used, the first question to ask is, in what sense is it being used by the writer? If this is not made clear, it is usually helpful to examine the context in which the term is being used (see also section 9.5 of Chapter 9 ). Subject to this caveat, two definitions of corporate governance are often referenced (as, for example, in the European Commission Green Paper, ‘The EU Corporate Governance Framework’ (COM(2011) 164 final). The first is a definition laid down in 1992 in the Report of the Cadbury Committee, a Committee established by the Financial Reporting Council, the London Stock Exchange and the accountancy profession to consider the financial aspects of corporate governance. According to the Cadbury Committee (at para 2.5), ‘Corporate Governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled.’ The second definition is that first provided by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1999 and repeated in 2004 in the preamble to its revised Principles of Corporate Governance (which principles are subject to a 2014 review) in which corporate governance is identified as one key element in improving economic efficiency and growth as well as enhancing investor confidence. QUOTATION ‘Corporate governance involves a set of relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are determined.’ ‘OECD Principles of Corporate Governance’ (2004) at p. 11 These definitions were crafted in the context of exercises focused on publicly traded (or listed) companies. They were developed with large companies, or groups of companies under common control/governance, and investor/manager conflict forefront in the minds of the drafters. Before turning to the concept of corporate governance in such contexts, and, in particular, the problem of reconciling shareholder primacy and corporate social and environmental responsibility, it is instructive to recall that, as mentioned earlier, most companies are not publicly traded. Most companies are micro, small or medium-sized entities (SMEs) (this term is explained in more detail in section 2.2.2 ). To date, in the SME context, core company law has been (and largely remains) the alpha and omega of corporate governance. Corporate governance and small companies The vast majority of independent companies, that is, companies that are neither part of a larger corporate group of companies nor have shares that are publicly traded, are managed and governed by individuals who own the whole, or a large block of the company’s shares. Additional shareholders are typically related to the majority owner or participate in running the company alongside the majority owner, and it is not uncommon for them to be relatives, co-managers and governors. Most of these companies are not large and are registered as private rather than public companies. Questions about how such companies are governed usually arise out of one of two types of dispute. The first type of dispute is between majority and minority shareholders. It raises the question whether the director(s) (who is/are the majority shareholder) can behave, or cause the company to behave (i.e. can the company be governed?), in a manner objectionable to, and inconsistent with the interests of its minority shareholders. The second type of dispute is between the company and its creditors. It raises the question whether or not the director(s) (who is/are the shareholders) can behave, or cause the company to behave (i.e. can the company be governed?), in a manner that undermines the ability of the company to pay its creditors. Whilst other groups, such as employees, suppliers and customers, may be affected by the manner in which a small company is governed, such impacts are typically either relatively minor or can be worked around because these other groups are not really ‘stakeholders’. The size of a small company’s operations means that members of these groups can turn to other companies. Also, self-interested action by managers or directors of small companies is not generally an issue because the manager/directors own the company. To the extent that the managers/directors do not own all of the shares, their pursuit of self-interest raises issues not only, or even mainly, of how to prevent abuse of the powers of directors, but rather, of the legal constraints that exist, or should be imposed, on majority shareholders who seek to operate the company for their own gain rather than for the benefit of all of the company’s shareholders. Company laws important to regulating small company governance include obvious topics such as directors’ duties and disclosure obligations. However, as the preceding paragraphs suggests, key to small company governance are legal constraints on majority shareholders and remedies available to minority shareholders confronted with majority shareholder abuse, such as the unfairly prejudicial conduct petition examined along with other minority shareholder protection mechanisms in Chapter 14 . Principally found in the Companies Act 2006, laws designed to bring about effective corporate governance can also be found in insolvency law. For the above reasons, a legalistic approach to the concept of corporate governance has been taken and this approach has been justified to date in relation to small, if not all, private companies. Broader-based corporate governance debates have focused on companies with publicly traded shares but this is changing. Corporate governance of unlisted companies is of increasing interest and can be seen in initiatives such as the Corporate Governance Guidance and Principles for Unlisted Companies in Europe published by the European Confederation of Directors’ Association. This development is evidenced by the 2011 EU Green Paper on The EU Corporate Governance Framework: QUOTATION ‘Good corporate governance may also matter to shareholders in unlisted companies. While certain corporate governance issues are already addressed by company law provision on private companies, many areas are not covered. Corporate governance guidelines for unlisted і companies may need to be encouraged: proper and efficient governance is valuable also for unlisted companies, especially taking into account the economic importance of certain very large unlisted companies. Moreover, putting excessive burdens on listed companies could make listing less attractive. However, principles designed for listed companies cannot be simply transposed to unlisted companies, as the challenges they face are different. Some voluntary codes have already been drafted and initiatives taken by professional bodies at European or national level. So the question is whether any EU action is needed on corporate governance in unlisted companies.’ European Commission Green Paper, ‘The EU Corporate Governance Framework’ (COM(2011) 164 final) at p. 4 Corporate governance and large companies In relation to large companies, corporate governance is typically addressed as a much more complex and broad-ranging concept because of the clear impact the quality of corporate governance of large companies with extensive business operations has on the economy and society. It is the role of law in corporate governance, however, that is, and must be, the focus of law courses. Even if we set aside questions of the role the law could and should play in improving corporate governance, the study of how existing company law influences corporate governance is more complex in relation to large companies than it is in relation to small companies. This complexity arises in part out of the model of ownership of many large companies. The scope of impact of business operations The larger the business of a company, the greater will be the impact of its operations, on individuals, other businesses, the community, the environment and, consequently, the economy and public interest. Consider the potential for the environment to be very significantly adversely affected by a company that owns and is actively expanding its network of oil pipelines. Similarly, a large company may run nuclear power stations producing by-products, best practice waste-management of which involves the storage into the long-term future of active nuclear material. A large company may employ a significant proportion of workers in a local community. It may be the largest purchaser of a particular product or products so that producers are dependent upon it continuing to buy a large share of their output (the four leading UK grocery chain corporate groups, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons and Asda exemplify this in relation to the purchase of food products). A large company (or corporate group) may be one of only a handful of suppliers of a particular consumer product or service with, consequently, millions of consumer (distinct from business) customers. Mobile telephone network service providers such as Telefonica (providing O2), EE (providing EE, Orange and T-Mobile), Vodafone and the currently much smaller but growing Hutchison Whampoa (providing 3, which was the first 3G network in the UK), illustrate this. Other suppliers of mobile phone services to consumers, such as Virgin Media, lease the right to use networks maintained by these four companies. The point to note is that the effect of decision-making by such companies is not confined to the shareholders of the company or even to those (typically other companies or businesses) who have chosen to do business with the company. Decision-making by large companies can significantly affect the environment, the local community, the livelihood of large numbers of people who work for the company, consumer choice and the viability of suppliers. The various groups affected by, or interested in, a company are sometimes referred to as ‘stakeholders’. The extent to which the interests of different stakeholders   as a matter of law , must be   as a matter of fact , are   as a matter of policy , should be taken into account in company decision-making are important questions that fall within the corporate governance rubric. Closely related questions are who must be , who is and who should be involved in company decision-making. The extent to which each question is explored in a company law course will depend in large part upon the interests of the lecturers and tutors delivering the course. On a course in which the traditional approach, sometimes referred to as a ‘black letter law’ approach, is adopted, the focus will be on current rules and regulations to answer the first question and its corollary: as a matter of law to what extent must the interests of different stakeholders be taken into account and who must be involved in company decision-making. Even where this approach is adopted, however, introduction into core company law, in s 172 of the Companies Act 2006, of the concept of ‘enlightened shareholder value’ (a concept examined in Chapter 11 at 11.3.2 ) means that some analysis of the larger issues of corporate governance are called for, if only to explain this development and provide some insight into how s 172 may be interpreted in the future by boards of directors and the courts. On a course in which a ‘law in context’ approach or a ‘socio-legal studies’ approach is adopted, time is likely to be spent focused on the third question and its corollary: as a matter of policy, to what extent should the interests of different stakeholders be taken into account in company decision-making and who should be involved in company decision-making. A wide range of approaches can be taken to this line of enquiry. An historical approach, for example, may involve reviewing initiatives in the UK over the years to engage workers in company decision-making. A comparative law approach may involve reviewing, comparing and contrasting company decision-making in a selection of legal jurisdictions across the world. A European Union perspective may be adopted, perhaps examining the dichotomy within the European Union between Member States with worker participation (such as Germany) and those without (such as the UK), a matter that has presented insuperable difficulties in harmonising company law in the European Union. Writings of theorists in an array of scholarly disciplines, sociology and economics to name but two, may be drawn upon to explore corporate governance (as well as other aspects of company law) and underpin policy proposals. In particular, theories and models developed by economists have been drawn upon (extensively in the USA, in the EU and to a lesser, albeit influential, extent in the UK) to explore the operation of law, predict the effects of changes to company law and, more contentiously, propose what the law should be. This law and economics scholarship is more developed in relation to corporate governance issues raised by the phenomenon of the separation of ownership from the control/management of companies, an ownership structure that is addressed in the next section. The second of the three questions identified above: to what extent are the interests of different stakeholders taken into account as a matter of practice and who actually takes part in (or perhaps the question should be, who actually influences) company decision-making, are questions of fact. The focus here needs to be on empirical studies yet, as it appears that little empirical research has taken place in the UK on decision-making in companies, this question is often answered, somewhat unsatisfactorily, by making assumptions. Corporate governance and the separation of ownership and control of companies The second factor adding to the complexity of corporate governance of large companies is the model of ownership of large publicly traded companies. Separation of those who ‘own’ a company (the shareholders) from those who run the company (the directors and executives) has long been a feature of large companies in the UK. This separation raises the problem of ensuring that those who manage and govern companies do not run them for their own personal benefit rather than for the benefit of those on whose behalf the law requires companies to be managed. The management self-interest problem is exacerbated where a company’s shares are owned by a large number of shareholders with no single person owning a significant shareholding. This pattern of shareholding is called the ‘dispersed ownership structure’. It reflects modern portfolio theory which underpins investment risk management by diversification. The interest of almost all beneficial owners of shares in dispersed owner publicly traded companies is, first and foremost if not exclusively, financial in nature. Shareholders seek dividends, increased share value (that is, they want the price at which they can sell their shares to increase) and, ideally, both. This share ownership structure is said to reflect investor capitalism as distinct from entrepreneurial capitalism: shareholders are not interested in engaging in management and management hold an insignificant, if any, shareholding in the companies they manage. In this type of company, legal protection based on a balance of power between the board of directors and shareholders has little if any meaningful effect exactly because shareholders have little inclination to exercise the powers reserved to the shareholding body: the divorce of ownership and control is virtually complete. Yet this scenario is believed to present the greatest risk of management and directors acting in their own self-interest rather than promoting the success of the company, and it is in relation to dispersed ownership companies that the most stringent laws promoting good practice in corporate governance are considered to be necessary. This explains why corporate governance law is more developed for companies with shares listed on stock exchanges than it is for private companies and unlisted public companies. It also explains why relevant laws are found not in core company law, but in securities law. Corporate governance law, beyond the Companies Act 2006, is made up of a combination of hard law (legislation such as the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and regulations and rules made pursuant to that Act) and ‘soft law’ such as guidance and, particularly, codes. Two important codes designed to promote good corporate governance can be found on the Financial Reporting Council website (which is referenced at the end of this chapter). The UK Corporate Governance Code (the successor to the Combined Code) sets out good practice for boards of directors of companies with shares with a Premium Listing on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange on issues such as board composition and effectiveness, risk management, director remuneration and relations with shareholders. The Code is subject to consultation and revision every two years. A company with a Premium Listing is required by the Listing Rules in the FCA Handbook to state in its annual report and accounts how it has applied the Main Principles set out in the UK Corporate Governance Code and whether it has complied or not with all relevant provisions of the code. It must set out any provisions with which it has not complied and give reasons for its non-compliance. The newer UK Stewardship Code is aimed at enhancing the quality of engagement between asset managers and the companies in which they invest. It sets out good practice on engagement with companies, to which asset managers should aspire, to help improve efficient exercise of governance responsibilities. Currently, as is the case with the UK Corporate Governance Code, no legal obligation to comply with this code exists. However, unlike the UK Corporate Governance Code, no legally enforceable reporting obligations exist in relation to the UK Stewardship Code, not even ‘comply or explain’ reporting. Corporate governance codes from all around the world can be accessed on the European Corporate Governance Institute website referenced at the end of this chapter. Corporate governance and large private and unquoted companies Large private companies and large public companies with no publicly traded shares present a challenge to corporate governance law. They highlight what seems to be a structural difficulty with the current law, namely that enhancements to corporate governance laws, the justification for some of which arises from the implications of large-scale operations rather than the divorce of ownership from control, have been implemented by laws applicable only to publicly traded companies. An example of this was the requirement in the Companies Act 2006 that companies report to the public information about the impact of their operations and decisions on the physical and social environment, company employees and the community, as well as disclosing company policies on these matters and the effectiveness of those policies. This obligation applied only if the company was a ‘quoted company’ as that term is defined in the Companies Act 2006. No private company or unquoted public company, regardless of how extensive its operations were, was subject to these reporting obligations. The legal obligation to publish a business review covering the matters outlined above has now been replaced by the obligation imposed on all companies except small companies to publish a strategic report (s 414C). The required contents of this report are considered under narrative reporting in Chapter 17 . Overlooked in the reform resulting in the Companies Act 2006, the problem of how to regulate the governance of large companies that are not publicly traded is an important challenge facing company law. In addition to being raised in the EU Corporate Governance Framework Green Paper quoted from above, the Reflection Group on the Future of EU Company Law, appointed by the European Commission, addressed this issue in its report published in April 2011. QUOTATION ‘As it is important to avoid broad and imprecise categorisations, the Reflection Group is particularly concerned about the distinction between public and private limited companies that has traditionally dominated legislation within company law for more than a century. The origin of the distinction is the still correct observation that a company with a large and dispersed і crowd of shareholders may in certain respects warrant different regulation from a company with a small and closely knit circle of shareholders. However, in its traditional form the distinction relies on an inapt choice of company form, whereby a company is deemed “public” or “private” simply by its choice of company form. Thus, a “public company” does not necessarily have a large and dispersed crowd of shareholders; in fact, it may not even be listed and may have a single shareholder. Nor does a “private company” have to be a small company in any way; it can have more shareholders, more employees and a greater turnover than a “public company”.’ European Commission, ‘Report of the Reflection Group on the Future of EU Company Law’, Brussels (5 April 2011) The approach to corporate governance taken in this book Developments in share ownership patterns (including the more limited role and importance of traditional institutional investors, growth in the proportion of shares on publicly traded companies in overseas ownership and the creeping number of publicly traded companies with block-holding shareholders), concern and steps to regulate the gender composition of boards of directors, enhanced focus on shareholder engagement as a tool to improve corporate governance, the emergence of corporate governance guidance and codes for unlisted companies, heightened concern and steps to ensure effective governance of SMEs (driven by political focus on SMEs as important drivers of economic growth and employment), promotion of employee share ownership and sustained demand for corporate social and environmental responsibility to be given legal backing (the beginnings of which can arguably be seen in company law in narrative reporting developments) combine to make the study of corporate governance a fascinating and contentious field of study. Unfortunately, in a basic text on core company law, it is only possible to alert readers to the rich tapestry of interests and initiatives that make up the multi-faceted world of corporate governance. Before engaging with this complex realm, it is helpful to understand the relevance of core company law to corporate governance. Large parts of the Companies Act 2006 can be characterised as laws existing to support and promote good practice in corporate governance. Being so pervasive, these laws are not separated out and expressly dealt with under the rubric ‘corporate governance’ (although that term is used as the title to Chapter 9 in which the key organs of governance, their composition and decision-making processes are examined). To the extent that securities regulation can be regarded as containing corporate governance provisions, limited space requires that a line be drawn somewhere and the only securities regulation covered briefly in this book is the framework of periodic and insider information reporting for publicly traded companies outlined in Chapter 17 , the Prospectus Rules outlined in Chapter 7 and, because some of its provisions are so widely discussed and lend a fuller picture to some aspects of core company law, certain provisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code are examined at appropriate points in the text. The impact of the quality of corporate governance on the political economy makes it an important topic of scholarly interest. Beyond examining the existing law, this book simply introduces readers to the enormous potential scope of this area of study and provides those interested in expanding their understanding with suggestions for further reading. An excellent starting point for those seeking to understand the European Union’s current approach to corporate governance is the European Commission EU Corporate Governance Framework Green Paper already referred to. 1.3 Sources of company law 1.3.1 Legislation Statute law takes the lead in the sources of company law. The main statute containing company law is currently the Companies Act 2006. The most important statutes containing provisions regarded as part of core company law are:   Companies Act 2006;   Insolvency Act 1986;   Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986;   Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;   Criminal Justice Act 1993 (insider dealing);   Companies Act 1985 (company investigations);   Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 (company investigations and community interest companies (CICs)). BIS The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (formerly BERR and before that the DTI) is the government department responsible for company law (amongst other things)

Free Business & Corporate Law Essay Examples & Topics

Business law is a branch of law governing commercial relationships and dealings between people and legal entities. Studying it, you’re likely to write a paper on the related topic at some point. With this article, we’re striving to help you excel at your corporate & business law essay.

For starters, there are different types of business law. The first one is employment laws that deal with employee and employer relationships. Then, there are business formation and structures . They concern tax and federal laws, registration of intellectual property, etc. The last type is contract laws that govern business deals, sales, transactions, and employees’ non-disclosure agreements. One can say that contracts are the most critical area of business law.

In this article, you’ll find business law essay examples that will help you to nail this complicated assignment. Our experts have also combined tips on how to start such a paper. Additionally, we’ve included a list of business law essay topics so you can start right away.

How to Start a Business Law Essay

Now that you know the main aspects of business law, you can start drafting your essay. In this section, let’s consider what prewriting steps you should take.

Before composing your business & company law essay, try doing the following:

– Scrutinize your assignment . It’s one of the steps that some students fail to accomplish. You can lose valuable points if you don’t read the instructions carefully. Take notice of what structure you’re asked to follow. See the required formatting style and how many sources you should provide in the reference list.

– Find or come up with an appropriate topic. There are many topics you can choose from, and this article can help you find one. Strive to write about an idea that sparkles interest in you. This way, researching it and composing your paper will be engaging. Besides, look for something easy to find information about and explore by yourself.

– Research it thoroughly. Before starting your essay, you need to find and document your sources. Seek appropriate journals and recent publications from specialists in business law. Once you selected your heads, you need to take notes. Decide what you’re going to quote or paraphrase in your paper. To use an article as your evidence, you can use our online summarizer to cut it down.

– Outline your essay. First, come up with a thesis statement where you convey the central message. Then, based on your notes, organize arguments and evidence for your business & corporate law essay. A system helps you keep an exemplary structure and fit all your ideas properly.

24 Corporate & Business Law Essay Topics

With the tips above, you’re almost ready to start writing. The only thing you need is a good topic. In this list, you will find ideas that can help you write your business law essay. Besides, you can try our title generator that will create one for you.

Check the following topics for business & corporate law essays:

• Age discrimination in the workplace.
• NDAs and how to protect businesses.
• Affirmative action programs at work.
• Whistleblower laws and how it affects some cases.
• Why is business law important for countries?
• The 4 P’s of corporate governance.
• The benefits of international business laws.
• Challenges in international business transactions.
• Advantages of separate legal entities.
• Negotiable instruments in business law.
• Minority shareholders protection laws.
• The importance of the business ethics code.
• Analysis of the corporate veil’s lifting.
• Criminal law in a business context and cases.
• The essential principles of corporate law in Delaware.
• Controversial corporate Supreme Court decision: examples and analysis.
• Business laws and a peaceful workplace environment.
• A corporate counsel: roles, liabilities, requirements, and duties.
• The part of business law for students.
• The role and functions of a lawyer in the business.
• The different types of international business law.
• Discussing contract elements and their role.
• Analysis of the structure of transactions under international business law.
• What is the significance of online privacy policies for the contract law?

Thank you for reading the article! We hope you found it helpful. Now you can check the examples of business law essays below.

710 Best Essay Examples on Business & Corporate Law

Marks & spencer vs. next plc.

• Words: 2508

Legal Yet Unethical: Business Law

• Words: 1434

Top-5 Workplace Confidentiality Violations: Manager-Employee Confidentiality Laws Research Paper

The advantages of sole proprietorship, forms of ownership, the blackwell v .blackwell case.

• Words: 2107

Remedies for Breach of Contract

The bribery scandal at siemens ag.

• Words: 1463

Role of Private International Law in E-Commerce

• Words: 2564

Difference between Clayton Antitrust Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act

• Words: 1140

Anti-Money Laundering and Hawala System in Dubai

• Words: 2843

Meeting Suspense Dates

Employee and guest safety and security in the hospitality industry.

• Words: 2199

McDonald’s Coffee Product Liability Case

• Words: 1227

John Walsh vs. Jonathan Winthrop: The Case Study

Anti-discrimination legislation.

• Words: 2806

The UK Company Law

• Words: 2787

Property Rights

• Words: 1100

Contract Law: Car Buying Agreement and Fraud

Business law: validity of acceptance.

• Words: 1746

Amazon vs. Barnes & Noble: Case Analysis

• Words: 1127

Business Law: Gibson v. Manchester City Council

The corporation as a person, mcdonald’s hot coffee lawsuit and its fair outcome, the concept of english legal system.

• Words: 3132

Advocacy Activities

Contract to supply scrap metal, comparative company law: piercing the veil of incorporation.

• Words: 3385

Amazon.com vs. Toy R Us: Case Study

• Words: 1125

Document Falsification Crime and Response to It

Case brief on dementas v. the estate of tallas, piercing the corporate veil: england and wales.

• Words: 4431

Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates: Case Analysis

• Words: 1614

Tangible Property of the Restaurant Business

Commercial bank of australia ltd vs. amadio.

• Words: 2506

Apple Corporation: Corporate Governance Laws

Anti money laundering and financial crime.

• Words: 3250

Ethical Dilemmas in Workplace Analysis

• Words: 4960

Contract Law: Sand Diego Case

• Words: 1278

Contract Law: Breach, Mutual and Unilateral Mistake

• Words: 2297

A Technology System Purchase Contract

Undue influence’s case: atlas express v. kafko ltd.

• Words: 1391

The Siemens AG Firm’s Bribery Scandals

• Words: 1223

Equity and Trust in English Laws

• Words: 2387

Contract Law: The Impossibility of Performance

Walking a guest: hospitality industry fraud.

• Words: 1393

Sturdza vs. United Arab Emirates

• Words: 2235

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Joint liability under english contract law.

• Words: 2221

Partnership Law for Business Partners

• Words: 1835

Promissory Estoppel in English Contract Law

Trade and legal risks to businesses in the uae.

• Words: 2841

Online Gambling Legalization

• Words: 2476

Equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel

Contracts and corporations.

• Words: 3252

Analyzing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

• Words: 1059

Frigaliment Importing Co. v. BNS International Sales Corp.

• Words: 1119

Legal and Ethical Considerations

Relation between law and business disciplines, the concept of entrepreneurship under english law in england.

• Words: 2816

Beauty Salon Inspection in the Uae

The process of converting a sole proprietorship into a company.

• Words: 2103

Advantages of Public Limited Company

• Words: 1115

Analysis of the Unfair Contract Terms Act of 1977

Principles of modern company law.

• Words: 2667

IGOs, NGOs, MNCs, and International Law

• Words: 2354

Foreign Ownership of Canadian Media Companies

Real estate contract documents.

• Words: 1381

Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Acts Comparison

Uae and uk contract law: misrepresentation and duress.

• Words: 2798

Legal Environment: Agency and Employment Relationship

Doctrine of vicarious liability.

• Words: 2294

Vicarious Liability

• Words: 2266

International Business Law

Germany’s legal environment for business, the applewood firm breaching the legal obligation, case brief on people of the state of new york v. shawn miller.

• Words: 1044

Company Law Issues and Solving Them

• Words: 1853

Contract for Services: Ryan’s Case

The doctrine of vicarious liability’ justifications.

• Words: 1388

English Contract Law: Fundamental Principles

• Words: 1638

Phar Lap vs. Black Beauty Equestrian Contract Case

• Words: 1662

Price Gouging and its Relation to Demand and Supply

Cancellation and termination of contract, mclibel case of morris and steel vs. mcdonalds.

• Words: 1825

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers

Corporate law: problems and solutions.

• Words: 1049

Land Case Related in the United Arab Emirates

Commercial law: cases analysis, contract law: nike, inc. vs. eugene mccarthy, mcdonald’s hot coffee law case and unfair verdict, sec vs blackrock: conflict of interest case, taskrabbit: cutting-edge technology legal issues.

• Words: 1280

Unfair Treatment: Chemical Company’s Case

Employment laws in corporate interactions, functions of the federal insurance contribution act, bank fraud case study: analysis, a v essex county: law for social workers, white oak corporation v. department of transportation, legislative acts in the department of defense acquisition community, understanding the importance of essential terms in contracts, famous corporate scandals’ analysis.

• Words: 1451

Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea Regulation

• Words: 1473

The Duress Cases in Contract Law

• Words: 1435

Comparing Two Real Estate Lease Agreements: Similarities and Differences

Kim’s “situational duress…” article on customer law, the coopers v. g. fox and partners inc. case, enea vs. superior court of monterey county: case analysis, the uae and belgium companies: international contracts, sarbanes-oxley lobbying act of 2002, business-to-business contracts: terms & conditions, principles of law in case of negligence and duty of care, complex systems thinking in policy research, business law and ethics: principles of law, the shackford & gooch, inc. v. town of kennebunk case summary, future political risks that the company abc faces, contract acceptance and revocation: the case study, drafting an agreement between three parties, the statute of fraud and breach of contract, breach of contract and its main types.

• Pay for coursework
• Submit coursework

Home > Company Law

Company Law

• Date submitted

Question: Problem Scenario A new client called Dangerous Sports Plc (DSP). DSP is the parent company in a group of companies which specialises in offering risky sporting events to travellers in the UK. DSP provides all the administrative support for the group and it receives most of the profits from the group's subsidiaries. David Matthews is the Managing Director of DSP and runs the group. DSP holds all of the shares in two wholly-owned subsidiaries in the UK and one wholly-owned subsidiary in New Zealand. The two UK subsidiaries are Wildfire Rafting Ltd (WRL) and Courageous Caving Ltd (CCL). The New Zealand subsidiary is called Barmy Bungee Ltd (BBL). The following is a series of excerpts from the initial interview with David Matthews. DM: I don't know what to do. It feels like all my hard work with this group is starting to fall apart. Let me tell you the worst news first. There was a terrible accident at BBL - a party of six British tourists were all injured by a faulty bungee rope. I blame the temporary staff which BBL had hired, for not checking the bungee rope, but the tourists are proceeding with an action against DSP in the UK. Can they do this? Me and the DSP team have been on some trips to see the operation of BBL, and we have given them some advice in the past, but they were pretty much running the company independently of us. So why are the British tourists bringing an action against DSP? Also, I am worried about a long-standing matter connected to WRL. A young man called James was hurt in a white water rafting accident due to the negligence of some staff of WRL who were acting under the authority of the then Managing Director of WRL, Richard. James brought a successful action against WRL, but it turned out that WRL had no assets by this point. Richard had been trying to run WRL down, because he knew that the claim would break the company and he told me that he didn't want to give James the satisfaction of taking WRL's money. He transferred some of the money to another company which Richard's wife owns, called Active Breaks Ltd. And the rest of the money was transferred to DSP (which we were happy about as DSP was having some cash-flow problems at the time). I've heard that James is taking further legal advice and now I'm worried that DSP might suffer because of Richard's actions. Finally, we have bad news from CCL. We recently found out that CCL has been put into insolvent liquidation. During the months before its liquidation, the Managing Director of the company, Linda, had been making increasingly bizarre attempts to keep the company afloat, including spending huge sums on advertising. She also made some outrageous claims about the company's ability to fulfil some large contracts for holiday companies, and as a result secured several large deals which were then breached by CCL. We are wondering whether the liquidator or the holiday companies could place any of the blame on her, as she has loads of cash and DSP is still hoping to recover some of CCL's assets after all the creditors have been paid. Please prepare some written advice for David Matthews.

Answer: Solution - Counsel to David Matthews The following analysis is devoted to examination of the issues confronting Dangerous Sports Plc. and provides advice pertinent to their resolution at law. Source utilization embraces...

Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2044 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2013 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 886

Question: To what extent do you share the late Professor Kahn-Freund’s view of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL) as a “calamitous decision”?

Answer: To provide a critical answer to the above statement it is important to look at the concepts with regard to incorporation, firstly the history of the incorporated company and its case law,...

Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2998 | References: Yes | Date written: May, 2007 | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 666

Question: Company Law Reform Act ‘It is the case that the UK still has not had a thorough review of the relationship between limited liability and unlimited liability legal forms for small firms and that the LLP’s role for small firms has not been properly addressed. Nevertheless, the need for a special limited liability company regime for owner-managed firms has been reviewed and rejected for clear and convincing reasons. The temptation to create a new legal form because other jurisdictions have something of this type has been resisted, rightly.’ In the light of this statement, evaluate the comparative treatment of the small firm and the reasons why the UK Company Law Review (CLR) rejected the creation of specialist legal forms for closely held companies.

Answer: In March of 1998, the DTI, concerned with the performance of the UK in the new global economy, and with the aim of creating a more competitive and efficient company law regime,...

Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3372 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2007 | Date submitted: March 30, 2011 | Coursework ID: 659

Question: Case study: Tesco’s horsemeat scandal Legal Governance, Risk Management and Compliance

Answer: Introduction In the late 2012 and early 2013, Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) announced that several beef products sold in the UK and Ireland supermarkets contained horsemeat. In January 2013, British...

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1500 | References: Yes | Date written: October, 2013 | Date submitted: April 16, 2014 | Coursework ID: 858

Question: ‘Incorporation is the bedrock upon which Company law is built.’ Critically examine this statement.

Answer: To examine critically the above statement it is important to look at the concepts with regard to incorporation, firstly the history of the incorporated company and its case law, including the ‘veil...

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1885 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2007 | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 667

Question: The general idea behind the Community Interest Companies (CIC) is to have available a custom made legal vehicle for community and social enterprises where the profits are to be made available for public work. However, a more focused Community Interest test is in place which has been said to make the implementation of such Companies impossible. Further, it has been said that the Regulator of CIC does not seem to have proper guidance as what constitutes a Community Interest Company. Do you agree with the above statement? Discuss. Grade B, University of London LLB, 2nd year, Company Law Table of Contents The View Behind Community Interest Companies 2 Types of CIC 2-3 Implementation of Community Interest Companies 3-4 Objectives of a CIC 4 Community Interest Test and Guidance As To What Constitutes a CIC 4-6 The role of the Regulator 6-7 The duties of the Regulator 7 The powers of the Regulator 7-9 International Comparisons 9 Proposals For A More Focused Community Interest Test 10 Conclusion 10-11

Answer: A Community Interest Company(CIC) is a type of limited company specially set up for social enterprises which want to use their profits and assets in favor of the public. However, they are...

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3003 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: April 23, 2014 | Coursework ID: 862

Question: Discuss corporate personality and limited liability.

Answer: While that legal system imposes obligation on the legal person it confers rights. In essence humanity is a state of nature and legal personality is an artificial construct which may or may...

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1913 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: May 02, 2013 | Coursework ID: 785

Question: 'In practice, in no circumstances is it possible to pierce the corporate veil between a parent and a subsidiary company.' Critically assess this claim. Mark: 65% | 2nd Year LLB | Business Association Company Law

Answer: This claim raises issues relating to the veil of incorporation and the relationship between a parent and a subsidiary company. To a certain extent, this essay acknowledges that since the 1970s, the...

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1485 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: May 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 686

Question: In what circumstances may the veil of incorporation be lifted at common law?

Answer: In the past, the corporate veil has been lifted where a group of companies have been viewed as a single economic entity. This argument was raised successfully in the case of D....

Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 565 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 668

Question: The general idea behind the Community Interest Companies (CIC) is to have available a custom made legal vehicle for community and social enterprises where the profits are to be made available for public work. However, a more focused Community Interest Test is in place which has been said to make the implementation of such companies impossible. Further, it has been said that the Regulator of CIC does not seem to have proper guidance as what constitutes a Community Interest Company. Do you agree with the above statement? Discuss. DETAIL: 2nd Year, Undergraduate, Company Law, University of Liverpool SUBJECT: COMPANY LAW ASSIGNMENT MARK ACHIEVED: 62% GRADE: B

Answer: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law.\" (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001) The...

Details: - Mark: 62% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2991 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2013 | Date submitted: April 24, 2014 | Coursework ID: 866

Page 1 of 2 1 2 »

Registering is fast and easy

Welcome back

Gain access

• Register with us
• Pay for instant access
• Or submit 3 pieces of your work for free access
• All categories (882)
• Commercial Law (56)
• Common Law (1)
• Company Law (8)
• Constitutional & Administrative Law (19)
• Contract Law (117)
• Criminal Law (89)
• Employment Law (9)
• English Legal System (80)
• Enviromental Law (8)
• Equity & Trust Law (20)
• European Union Law (58)
• Family Law (26)
• Human Rights Law (44)
• I.T. & the Law (6)
• Insolvency Law (2)
• Intellectual Property Law (15)
• International Law (21)
• Jurisprudence (29)
• Land Law (55)
• Law of Evidence (12)
• Legal Practice Course (4)
• Medical Law (15)
• Professional Skills Practice (1)
• Public Law (47)
• Roman Law (2)
• Tort Law (48)

Lawcoursework.com is an online library of UK LLB law student work.

We are based in Hulme near to the Manchester University campus.

Here you can buy quality LLB law coursework, essays, assignments, papers & dissertations to help guide and support your studies.

We only provide work that has been written by UK university students and is of at least 2.1 standard.

The site is run by graduates who understand the needs of students and the academic requirements of the LLB law degree programme.

So if you have any questions or need help using the site, please do contact us...

Company Law Essays

The interplay of company law in procurement and supply chain management, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Russian Company Law

2017, Russian Company Law: the essentials

The Department of Business Law, Faculty of Law of Lomonosov Moscow State University is pleased to announce a new study book devoted to a relatively new but thriving body of the Russian law – the Russian company law. It is the second book of the Russian Law Essential Series. In the times when Russian business is rapidly developing and the law becomes the most sought after instrument of structuring business relations, this book provides a fresh perspective and a broad legal overview of performance of Russian corporations. It describes business opportunities in the world of contemporary law. The authors sought to scrupulously follow all the recent conceptual innovations and to meticulously analyze the backlog of legal cases. Russian Company Law: The Essentials was created mostly as a course book for Russian students. However, it is addressed to a wide range of readers, including Russian and foreign researchers, law practitioners and businessmen. Russian Company Law: The Essentials is a product of collaboration of academicians and practicing lawyers. While making it we tried to adhere to a functional approach. Therefore, it is going to become a comprehensive and easy practical guidance in the sphere of corporate law, a manual for businessmen and other specialists focused on development of their business skills. Following the functional patterns we decided to devote each chapter to the most practically useful and disputable issues, including but not limited to rights and obligations of shareholders , functions of charter (share) capital, a role of corporate agreements in regulating relations between shareholders , liability issues, corporate control and dispute resolutions within corporations. In the light of the significant changes in the Russian company law over the last three years the book covers a new legislative approach to public and private corporations. Furthermore, it gives thorough insight into the history of the Russian company law which is essential for profound understanding of the subject. The co-authors of Russian Company Law: The Essentials are representatives of the leading law firms in Russia as well as recognized specialists who share their expertise in the company law. The chief editors of the book are Mr. Alexander E. Molotnikov, an associate professor of the Department of Business Law, academic member of the European Corporate Governance Institute, member of the Working Group for expertise and development of corporate legislation of the National Council on Corporate Governance, and Mr. Dmitry I. Dedov, an arbitrator of European Court of Human Rights. We are also delighted to have endorsements from eminent legal experts in international corporate law.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

G-7 to Target Banks Helping Russia Evade Ukraine War Sanctions

By Alberto Nardelli, Alex Wickham and Viktoria Dendrinou

Group of Seven nations and the European Union are studying ways to tighten the screws on banks that help Moscow evade sanctions.

Under consideration by some allies are measures that would target third-country lenders using the Bank of Russia ’s SWIFT-like financial messaging system to circumvent trade restrictions, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified as the discussions are private.

The discussions come ahead of a G-7 meeting in Italy next month, where government heads aim to agree on a set of measures to better enforce sanctions imposed on Russia for its war against ...

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.