The 2014 decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case ?Grande Stevens
and Others v. Italy? raises numerous complex issues concerning the regulation of market abuses in Italy, Europe, and also in other systems.
The broad questions that the Court of Strasburg addresses, specifically concerning the nature of administrative sanctions and civil penalties, due process in administrative sanctioning procedures, and double jeopardy issues when both criminal and civil sanctions can be inflicted, not only are extremely relevant practically for the current and future regulation of insider trading and market manipulation, but also open a more theoretical discussion on the relationships between the only apparently unrelated fields of human rights and enforcement in financial markets. This Article offers an analysis of the decision, also in the light of future developments due to the recent reform of European law on market abuse, and compares this landmark European decision with corresponding U.S. case law.
Mechanisms of market inefficiency are some of the most important and least understood institutions in financial markets today. A growing body of empirical work reveals a strong and persistent demand for “safe assets,” financial instruments that...Read more
This study examines the challenge of implicit communications - qualitative statements, tone, and non-verbal cues - to the effectiveness of enforcing corporate disclosure regulations. We use Regulation FD setting, given that SEC adopted the...Read more
Shareholder activism by hedge funds has taken hold in Germany in spite of large ownership concentration. This essay uses the example of Stada Arzneimittel AG to highlight features of activism, German style. It goes on to discuss the legal issues...Read more
In order to favor shareholder investment over a longer time horizon, Italy introduced loyalty shares in late 2014, which allow double voting rights after a two-year continuous holding period. Italian listed firms which adopted loyalty shares (...Read more