This book studies the funding problems with shareholder litigation through a functionally comparative way. In fact, funding problems with shareholder lawsuits may largely discourage potential shareholder litigants who bear high financial risk in pursuing such a claim, but on the other hand they may not have much to gain. Considering the lack of incentives for potential shareholder claimants, effective funding techniques should be in place to make shareholder actions function as a corporate governance tool and discipline corporate management. The book analyzes, among others, the practice of funding shareholder litigation in the Australia, Canada, the UK, the US and Israel, and covers all of the typical approaches being used in financing shareholder litigation in the current world. For instance, Israel and Canada (Quebec and Ontario) are probably unique in having a public funding mechanism for derivative actions and class actions, while Australia is the country where third party litigation funding is originated and is growing rapidly. Based on this comparative research, the last part of this book discusses how to fund shareholder litigation in China in context of its social and legal background and what kind of problems need to be solved if certain funding techniques are used.

This book examines the role and potential of derivative actions in shareholder protection in public limited companies. Derivative actions have been a focal point of legislators’ agendas on shareholder protection, in the past few decades, throughout Europe and beyond. Nevertheless, there remain jurisdictions, such as Greece, which are still devoid of this remedy. Against this backdrop, this book examines whether and how the derivative action may improve shareholder protection, constituting thus a mechanism that justifies legislative attention. It does so in three parts. First, it analyses the desirable role derivative actions assume in protecting shareholder property, monitoring corporate management and mitigating agency costs, alongside their economic implications, introducing the reader to the contemporary international debate on the topic. Having set the desiderata, the second part proceeds with the comparative analysis of Greek, German and UK law – jurisdictions that have recently reformed their provisions on shareholder protection – examining not only the law on derivative actions and their Greek counterpart remedy but also mechanisms of shareholder protection that do, or could, assume functions similar to those of the derivative action. By critically assessing the merits and failures of the respective UK, German and Greek shareholder protection laws, the book then proceeds to offer (in Part III) a model framework of shareholders’ derivative litigation for jurisdictions considering reform. Written in an accessible format, it will be an invaluable resource for anyone interested in this important aspect of company law and corporate governance.

In Third Party Funding, Gian Marco Solas, for the first time, describes third party funding (TPF) as stand-alone practice within the wider litigation and legal services' markets. The book reports on legal issues related to TPF in both common law and civil law jurisdictions, and in the international context. It then discusses the incentives and economics of TPF transactions in different legal contexts while explaining how the practice emerged and how it is likely to develop. In addition, the book offers practical insights into TPF transactions and analyzes a number of regulatory proposals that could affect its use and desirability. This work should be read by scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and anyone else interested in how TPF is changing the practice of law.

This edited volume focuses on specific, crucially important structural measures that foster corporate change, namely cross-border mergers. Such cross-border transactions play a key role in business reality, economic theory and corporate, financial and capital markets law. Since the adoption of the Cross-border Mergers Directive, these mergers have been regulated by specific legal provisions in EU member states. This book analyzes various aspects of the directive, closely examining this harmonized area of EU company law and critically evaluating cross-border mergers as a method of corporate restructuring in order to gain insights into their fundamental mechanisms. It comprehensively discusses the practicalities of EU harmonization of cross-border mergers, linking it to corporate restructuring in general, while also taking the transposition of the directive into account. Exploring specific angles of the Cross-border Mergers Directive in the light of European and national company law, the book is divided into three sections: the first section focuses on EU and comparative aspects of the Cross-border Mergers Directive, while the second examines the interaction of the directive with other areas of law (capital markets law, competition law, employment law, tax law, civil procedure). Lastly, the third section describes the various member states’ experiences of implementing the Cross-border Mergers Directive.

This book examines corporate governance rules in China, and highlights the deficiencies in current company law, with the purpose of arguing for a more effective derivative action mechanism, for the benefit of shareholders and their companies.

The landscape of shareholder dispute resolution in Hong Kong has changed vastly since the launch of the Civil Justice Reform in 2009. Key initiatives - the voluntary court-connected scheme and reform of the statutory unfair prejudice provisions - were employed to promote the greater use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in shareholder disputes. While the Hong Kong government and judiciary introduced such schemes to prove the legitimacy of extra-judicial over court-based litigation processes, their success is still uncertain. In this book, socio-legal theory and sociological institutionalism are used to develop a theoretical framework for analyzing the key stages of institutionalization. The author analyzes how procedural innovations could acquire legitimacy through different types of legal and non-legal inducement mechanisms within the institutionalization process. Recommendations on codifying and innovating ADR policy in Hong Kong shareholder disputes are also made with comparison to similar policies in the United Kingdom, South Africa and New Zealand.

In recent years, investor-state tribunals have often permitted shareholders' claims for reflective loss despite the well-established principle of no reflective loss applied consistently in domestic regimes and in other fields of international law. Investment tribunals have justified their decisions by relying on definitions of 'investment' in investment agreements that often include 'shares', while the no-reflective-loss principle is generally justified on the basis of policy considerations pertaining to the preservation of the efficiency of the adjudicatory process and to the protection of other stakeholders, such as creditors. Although these policy considerations militating for the prohibition of shareholders' claims for reflective loss also apply in investor-state arbitration, they are curable in that context and must be balanced with policy considerations specific to the field of international investment law that weigh in favor of such claims: the protection of foreign investors in order to promote trade and investment liberalization.