Evolution of the Philosophical Perspective of the Idea of a Joint Stock Company and its Impact on the Legal System
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published
Nov 14, 2019
Abstract
This research deals with the philosophical framework of corporate laws and jurisprudential evolution of comparative corporate laws. The research reviews the role of the state in the different phases of a company; the beginning of incorporation, the management, and the struggle over the control of companies and the legal rules governing these issues.
The fourth section of the research reviews the philosophical framework of corporates as legal entities and the role assigned to them from a legal perspective. It also reviews the main objectives of corporate laws, in particular what is known as the agency problem, which is the central framework of the corporate law. In addition, it analyzes three main objectives of corporate laws: their role in regulating a conflict of interest between the owners and the management of the company; the conflict of interest between the company owners who represent the majority and minority owners; and the corporate laws and the protection of the interests of others in their dealings with the company. In conclusion, the research discusses the future of comparative corporate laws, considering the jurisprudence and philosophical developments of corporate laws.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
Corporate law philosophyComparative corporate lawCorporate law objectives
References
1. Bebchuk, Lucian A., “The Case for Increasing Shareholder Power”, 118, Harvard Law Review, No. 3 (January 2005) 833-913.
2. Blair, Margaret M., & Mark J. Roe, eds. Employees and corporate governance, 1st ed. (Brookings Institution Press, 1999).
3. Chander Anupam, “Minorities Shareholder and Otherwise”, 113, Yale Law Journal (October 2003); UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 280. >http://ssrn.com/abstract=415920<
4. Colleen A. Dunlavy, Social Conceptions of the Corporation: Insight from the History of Shareholder Voting Rights, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev 63 )2006(.
5. David McBride, General Corporation Laws: History and Economics, 74 Law and Contemporary Problems 1-18, (Winter 2011) >http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol74/iss1/2<
6. David Millon, “Theories of the Corporation”, Duke Law Journal, Volume 39, Issue 2, (1990) 201-262. Available at: >https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol39/iss2/2<
7. Elliot J. Hahn, An Overview of the Japanese Legal System, 5 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus 517 )1983(.
8. Ernst Freund, The Legal Nature of Corporations, 1st ed., (The University of Chicago Press, (1897).
9. Fama Eugene F. and Michael C. Jensen, “Separation of Ownership and Control”, Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 26, No. 2, Corporations and Private Property: A Conference Sponsored by the Hoover Institution. (June 1983), 301-325.
10. Ferran Eilis, The Place for Creditor Protection on the Agenda for Modernisation of Company Law in the European Union, ECGI Law Working Paper No. 51/2005. >http://ssrn.com/abstract=841884<
11. Ranklin A. Gevurtz, Corporation Law, (2nd ed., Westlaw Publication, 2010).
12. Hamermesh Lawrence A., “Corporate Democracy and Stockholder-Adopted By-Laws: Taking Back the Street?”, 73, Tulane Law Review (1998)
13. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, Discussion paper No 280, 3/2000, Center for Law, Economics and Business, Harvard University.
14. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, “Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts”, The Yale Law Journal, Volume 100, No. 7 (May, 1991), 1879-1934.
15. Joel S. Demski, “Corporate Conflicts of Interest”, The Journal of Economic Perspective, Volume 17, No. 2 (Spring 2003), 51-72.
16. Joel Seligman, “A Brief History of Delaware’s General Corporation Law of 1899”, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Volume 1, No. 2 (1976), 249-287.
17. John Coffee, “The Mandatory/Enabling Balance in Corporate Law: An Essay on the Judicial Role”, Columbia Law Review, Volume 89, No. 7, Contractual Freedom in Corporate Law (November 1989), 1618-1691.
18. Katharina Pistor, Codetermination: A Sociopolitical Model with Governance Externalities, Employees and Corporate Governance, 163, 1999.
19. Katharina Pistor, “Patterns of Legal Change: Shareholder and Creditor Rights in Transition Economies”, European Business Organization Law Review, Volume 1, No. 1, (2004) 59-110.
20. Katharina Pistor et al., Evolution of Corporate Law: A Cross-Country Comparison, U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L, Volume 23, Issue 4, (2002), 791-871.
21. Kent Greenfield, The Failure of Corporate Law: Fundamental Flaws and Progressive Possibilities, 1st ed., (University of Chicago Press, 2006).
22. Franklin A. Gevurtz, Corporation Law, 2nd ed., (Westlaw Publications, 2010).
23. Leacock Stephen J., “The Rise and Fall of the Ultra Vires Doctrine in United States, United Kingdom, and Commonwealth Caribbean Corporate Common Law: A Triumph of Experience Over Logic”, DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, No.4 (2006), 67-104.
24. Mark D. West, “The Puzzling Divergence of Corporate Law: Evidence and Explanation from Japan and the United States”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume 150, No. 2, (December 2001), 527-601.
25. Meir Kohn, Business Organization in Pre-Industrial Europe, SSRN Working Paper Series, 2003.
26. Melvin Eisenberg, Ralph K. Winter & Fred S. McChesny, “The Structure of Corporate Law”, Colum. L. Rev, Volume 89 (1989) 1461-1525.
27. Michael C. Jensen, Foundations of organizational strategy, 1st ed., (Harvard University Press, 1998).
28. Pinto, Arthur R., “Protection of Close Corporation Minority Shareholders in the United States”, American Journal of Comparative Law, 62 Supplement 361 (2014)
29. Rebecca Page, Co-Determination in Germany- A Beginners Guide, 33 Hans-Böckler-Stiftung (2001).
30. Reinier H. Kraakman, The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, 2nd ed., (Oxford University Press, 2009).
31. Ronald Chen & Jon Hanson, “The Illusion of Law: The Legitimating Schemas of Modern Policy and Corporate Law”, 103, Michigan Law Review, Number 1 (2004)
32. Ronald Coase, “The Nature of the Firm”, Economica New Series, Volume 4, No. 16. (November 1937), 386-405.
33. Ronald J. Gilson, Henry Hansmann & Mariana Pargendler, Regulatory Dualism as a Development Strategy: Corporate Reform in Brazil, the U.S., and the EU, European Corporate Governance Institute Working Paper Series No 149 (2010).
34. S. Samuel Arsht, “A History of Delaware Corporation Law”, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Volume 1, No. 1, (1976) 1-22.
35. Stephen M. Bainbridge, Competing Concepts of the Corporation (a.k.a Criteria? Just Say No), UCLA Law & Economics Research Paper Series, Paper No 05-1, (2005).
36. Stephen M. Bainbridge, Director Versus Shareholder Primacy in New Zealand Company Law as Compared to U.S.A. Corporate Law, UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 14-05, (March 26, 2014),
37. Wood v. Dummer, 30 F. Cas.435 (C.C. Me. 1824).
38. Meiselman v. Meiselman, 307 S.E.2d 551, 309 N.C. 279 (1983).
2. Blair, Margaret M., & Mark J. Roe, eds. Employees and corporate governance, 1st ed. (Brookings Institution Press, 1999).
3. Chander Anupam, “Minorities Shareholder and Otherwise”, 113, Yale Law Journal (October 2003); UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 280. >http://ssrn.com/abstract=415920<
4. Colleen A. Dunlavy, Social Conceptions of the Corporation: Insight from the History of Shareholder Voting Rights, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev 63 )2006(.
5. David McBride, General Corporation Laws: History and Economics, 74 Law and Contemporary Problems 1-18, (Winter 2011) >http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol74/iss1/2<
6. David Millon, “Theories of the Corporation”, Duke Law Journal, Volume 39, Issue 2, (1990) 201-262. Available at: >https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol39/iss2/2<
7. Elliot J. Hahn, An Overview of the Japanese Legal System, 5 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus 517 )1983(.
8. Ernst Freund, The Legal Nature of Corporations, 1st ed., (The University of Chicago Press, (1897).
9. Fama Eugene F. and Michael C. Jensen, “Separation of Ownership and Control”, Journal of Law and Economics, Volume 26, No. 2, Corporations and Private Property: A Conference Sponsored by the Hoover Institution. (June 1983), 301-325.
10. Ferran Eilis, The Place for Creditor Protection on the Agenda for Modernisation of Company Law in the European Union, ECGI Law Working Paper No. 51/2005. >http://ssrn.com/abstract=841884<
11. Ranklin A. Gevurtz, Corporation Law, (2nd ed., Westlaw Publication, 2010).
12. Hamermesh Lawrence A., “Corporate Democracy and Stockholder-Adopted By-Laws: Taking Back the Street?”, 73, Tulane Law Review (1998)
13. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, Discussion paper No 280, 3/2000, Center for Law, Economics and Business, Harvard University.
14. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, “Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts”, The Yale Law Journal, Volume 100, No. 7 (May, 1991), 1879-1934.
15. Joel S. Demski, “Corporate Conflicts of Interest”, The Journal of Economic Perspective, Volume 17, No. 2 (Spring 2003), 51-72.
16. Joel Seligman, “A Brief History of Delaware’s General Corporation Law of 1899”, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Volume 1, No. 2 (1976), 249-287.
17. John Coffee, “The Mandatory/Enabling Balance in Corporate Law: An Essay on the Judicial Role”, Columbia Law Review, Volume 89, No. 7, Contractual Freedom in Corporate Law (November 1989), 1618-1691.
18. Katharina Pistor, Codetermination: A Sociopolitical Model with Governance Externalities, Employees and Corporate Governance, 163, 1999.
19. Katharina Pistor, “Patterns of Legal Change: Shareholder and Creditor Rights in Transition Economies”, European Business Organization Law Review, Volume 1, No. 1, (2004) 59-110.
20. Katharina Pistor et al., Evolution of Corporate Law: A Cross-Country Comparison, U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L, Volume 23, Issue 4, (2002), 791-871.
21. Kent Greenfield, The Failure of Corporate Law: Fundamental Flaws and Progressive Possibilities, 1st ed., (University of Chicago Press, 2006).
22. Franklin A. Gevurtz, Corporation Law, 2nd ed., (Westlaw Publications, 2010).
23. Leacock Stephen J., “The Rise and Fall of the Ultra Vires Doctrine in United States, United Kingdom, and Commonwealth Caribbean Corporate Common Law: A Triumph of Experience Over Logic”, DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, No.4 (2006), 67-104.
24. Mark D. West, “The Puzzling Divergence of Corporate Law: Evidence and Explanation from Japan and the United States”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume 150, No. 2, (December 2001), 527-601.
25. Meir Kohn, Business Organization in Pre-Industrial Europe, SSRN Working Paper Series, 2003.
26. Melvin Eisenberg, Ralph K. Winter & Fred S. McChesny, “The Structure of Corporate Law”, Colum. L. Rev, Volume 89 (1989) 1461-1525.
27. Michael C. Jensen, Foundations of organizational strategy, 1st ed., (Harvard University Press, 1998).
28. Pinto, Arthur R., “Protection of Close Corporation Minority Shareholders in the United States”, American Journal of Comparative Law, 62 Supplement 361 (2014)
29. Rebecca Page, Co-Determination in Germany- A Beginners Guide, 33 Hans-Böckler-Stiftung (2001).
30. Reinier H. Kraakman, The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, 2nd ed., (Oxford University Press, 2009).
31. Ronald Chen & Jon Hanson, “The Illusion of Law: The Legitimating Schemas of Modern Policy and Corporate Law”, 103, Michigan Law Review, Number 1 (2004)
32. Ronald Coase, “The Nature of the Firm”, Economica New Series, Volume 4, No. 16. (November 1937), 386-405.
33. Ronald J. Gilson, Henry Hansmann & Mariana Pargendler, Regulatory Dualism as a Development Strategy: Corporate Reform in Brazil, the U.S., and the EU, European Corporate Governance Institute Working Paper Series No 149 (2010).
34. S. Samuel Arsht, “A History of Delaware Corporation Law”, Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Volume 1, No. 1, (1976) 1-22.
35. Stephen M. Bainbridge, Competing Concepts of the Corporation (a.k.a Criteria? Just Say No), UCLA Law & Economics Research Paper Series, Paper No 05-1, (2005).
36. Stephen M. Bainbridge, Director Versus Shareholder Primacy in New Zealand Company Law as Compared to U.S.A. Corporate Law, UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 14-05, (March 26, 2014),
37. Wood v. Dummer, 30 F. Cas.435 (C.C. Me. 1824).
38. Meiselman v. Meiselman, 307 S.E.2d 551, 309 N.C. 279 (1983).
How to Cite
Al-Zumai , F. A. ., & Al-Hayan , A. (2019). Evolution of the Philosophical Perspective of the Idea of a Joint Stock Company and its Impact on the Legal System. International Review of Law, 2018(2&3). https://doi.org/10.29117/irl.2018.0025
Issue
Section
Articles in Arabic