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.
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
We provide an extensive analysis of the payout policy of U.S. banks during the crisis to examine potential risk-shifting and signaling motives of banks. We estimate an empirical model of bank payouts to assess the extent to which changes in...Read more
The public company has historically been a crucial element of the American economy. Various predictions have been made recently that the public company’s future is bleak. This essay maintains these gloomy conjectures are erroneous. Companies...Read more