1 Adolph Berle & Gardiner Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932).Google Scholar

2 R. Chami & C. Fullenkamp, Trust and efficiency, 26 J. of Banking & Finance, 1785-1809 (2002).Google Scholar

3 E.J. Zajac & J.D. Westphal, The Costs and Benefits of Managerial Incentives and Monitoring in Large U.S. Corporations: When Is More Not Better?, 15 Strategic Management J., 507-529 (1994); Zajac, E.J. & Westphal, J.D., Director reputation, CEO-Board Power, and the Dynamics of Board Interlocks, 41 Administrative Science Quarterly, 507-529 (1996).Google Scholar

4 J. Tirole, Corporate Governance, 69 Econometrica, 1-35 (2001).Google Scholar

5 D. Mueller, The Corporation – Investment, Mergers, And Growth (2003).Google Scholar

6 R. Larner, Ownership and Control in the 200 Largest Nonfinancial Corporations, 1929 and 1963, 56 Am. Econ. Rev., 777-787 (1966).Google Scholar

7 A. Hirschman, Exit, voice, and the State, 31 World Politics 90-107 (1978).Google Scholar

8 K. Pistor & C. Xu, Incomplete Law- A Conceptual and Analytical Framework- And its Application to the Evolution of Financial Market Regulation, Columbia Law School Working Paper No. 204 (2002).Google Scholar

9 D. Mueller, The Corporation – Investment, Mergers, And Growth(2003). 9 D. Mueller, The Corporation – Investment, Mergers, And Growth(2003)Google Scholar

10 K. Hopt & P. Leyens, Board Models in Europe. Recent Developments of Internal Corporate Governance Structures in Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, 18 ECGI Working Paper Series in Law, at http://www.ecgi.org (last visited 19 October 2004).Google Scholar

11 D. Mueller, The Corporation – Investment, Mergers, And Growth(2003).Google Scholar

12 S. J. Praise, The Evolution of Giant Firms in Britain: A Study of the Growth of Concentration in Manufacturing Industry in Britain, 1909-70 (1976).Google Scholar

13 See O. Hart, Firms, Contracts and Financial Structure, (1995).Google Scholar

14 See Tirole's illustrative example of project financing: J. Tirole, Corporate Governance, 69 Econometrica 1-35 (2001).Google Scholar

15 For this characterization, See Hopt, The German Two-Tier Board (Aufsichtsrat): A German View on Corporate Governance, in Comparative Corporate Governance, Essays and Materials 3 (Hopt & Wymeersch eds., 1997); interestingly, the Statute of the Societas Europaea (SE) in the EU Directive 2157/2001 (Abl L 294/1) allows companies incorporating as a SE to choose between a two-tier and a one-tier organisational structure. The inclusion of this option is motivated by the existing differences between the national corporation laws that were largely responsible for the decade-long struggle over the SE; See Chrsitoph Teichmann, The European Company – A Challenge to Academics, Legislatures and Practitioners, 4 German L. J. No. 4, 1 April 2003, at 309-331, at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=259; See also U.C. Brändle & J. Noll, Die Societas Europaea – Droht ein Wettbewerb der Führungssysteme?, Österreichisches Anwaltsblatt, 442-447 (2004) (arguing that this option, resulting from a political compromise, resulted in increased discretion for the firm's management).Google Scholar

16 See Deakin & Konzelmann, 12 Corporate Governance 134 (2004); Bratton, , 76 Tulane L. Rev. 1275 (2002); See also the commentary “Auf Wiedersehen, Germany Inc.,” at http://www.businessweek. com/2000/00_08/b3669018.htm.Google Scholar

17 For example, See Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, H.R. 3763, 107^th Cong. (2002); See also the KonTraG 1998 and TransPuG 2002 in Germany, all claiming for more transparency and disclosure; on the development in Germany, See Cioffi, Restructuring “Germany Inc.”: The Politics of Corporate Governance Reform in Germany and the European Union, 24 Law & Policy 355 (2003); on Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, See Gordon, Governance Failures of the Enron Board and the New Information Order of Sarbanes-Oxley, Harvard John M. Olin Center for Law, Econ., and Business, Discussion Paper No. 416 (April 2003).Google Scholar

18 See the overview, Berrar, Die Entwicklung der Corporate Governance in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (2001).Google Scholar

19 For an example of the German and Austrian Corporate Governance Codes in 2002, See U.C. Brändle & J. Noll, Die Societas Europaea – Droht ein Wettbewerb der Führungssysteme?, Österreichisches Anwaltsblatt 2004, 442–447.Google Scholar

20 M. Becht, P. Bolton, & A. Roell, Corporate Governance and Control, ECGI Working Paper Series of Finance, at http://www.ecgi.org (last visited 19 October 2004).Google Scholar

21 K. Hopt & P. Leyens, Board Models in Europe. Recent Developments of Internal Corporate Governance Structures in Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, 18 ECGI Working Paper Series in Law (2004), at http://www.ecgi.org.Google Scholar

22 See S. Grossman & O. Hart, An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem, 51 Econometrica, 7-46 (1983).Google Scholar

23 Austrian Stock Corporations Act (1965) (F.R.G.).Google Scholar

24 Id., § 104.Google Scholar

25 Id., § 87.Google Scholar

26 Id., § 75Google Scholar

27 Id., § 97.Google Scholar

28 Id., § 95. 28 Id., § 95.Google Scholar

29 M. Becht, P. Bolton, & A. Roell, Corporate Governance and Control, ECGI Working Paper Series of Finance (2002), available at http://www.ecgi.org (last visited 19 October 2004).Google Scholar

30 See, supra, note 23, § 90.Google Scholar

31 Id., § 90.Google Scholar

32 The so-called one-third regime, Cf. § 106 ArbVG (Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz – Law concerning the representation of labor).Google Scholar

33 See, supra, note 23, § 88.Google Scholar

34 D. Mueller, The Corporation – Investment, Mergers, And Growth (2003).Google Scholar

35 Comparative Corporate Governance. State of the Art and Emerging Research (K. Hopt et al. eds., 1998); Becht, M., Bolton, P., & Roell, A., Corporate Governance and Control, ECGI Working Paper Series of Finance (2002), at http://www.ecgi.org; Berrar, Die Entwicklung der Corporate Governance in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (2001).Google Scholar

36 E. Boehmer, Germany, in Corporate Governance and Econ. Performance, 96-120 (K. Gugler ed., 2001).Google Scholar

37 U.C. Brändle & F. Wirl, Corporate Governance Normen – Wege aus der Krise?, WISU – Das Wirtschaftsstudium 7/04, 906-910 (2004).Google Scholar

38 See P. Davies, Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law (7th ed., 2003).Google Scholar

39 UK's Combined Code, 2003.Google Scholar

40 Combined Code 2003, Section C.3.Google Scholar

41 L. Braiotta, The impact of U.S. requirements for audit committees on the structure and membership of non-U.S. audit committees, 17 Advances in Int'l Accounting, 119-135 (2004); Spira, L., Ceremonies of Governance: Perspectives on the Role of the Audit Committee, 3 J. of Management & Governance, 231-260 (1999).Google Scholar

42 Combined Code 2003, Section D.3.Google Scholar

43 K. Palepu & P. Healy, The Fall of Enron, 17 J. of Econ. Perspectives, 3-26 (2003).Google Scholar

44 H. L. Tosi & L.R. Gomez-Mejia, CEO Compensation Monitoring and Firm Performance, 37 Academy of Management J., 1002-1016 (1994); Berrar, Die Entwicklung der Corporate Governance in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (2001); Brändle, U. C. & Noll, J., Enlarged EU – Enlarged Corporate Governance?, 6 Corporate Governance: The Int'l J. of Bus. in Society (forthcoming), (2006).Google Scholar

45 K. Hopt & P. Leyens, Board Models in Europe. Recent Developments of Internal Corporate Governance Structures in Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, 18 ECGI Working Paper Series in Law (2004), at http://www.ecgi.org.Google Scholar

46 See, supra, note23, § 95 (5).Google Scholar

47 There exists a current debate over possible ways of changing this practice, See Berrar, Die Entwicklung der Corporate Governance in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (2001).Google Scholar

48 U. C. Brändle & J. Noll, On the Convergence of National Corporate Governance Systems, 16 J. of Interdisciplinary Econ. (forthcoming), (2005).Google Scholar

49 UK's Combined Code, 2003.Google Scholar

50 Recommandations sur le gouvernement d'entreprise, 2002.Google Scholar

51 German Corporate Governance Code (2002) (F.R.G.), at http://www.corporate-governance-code.de/index-e.html (in German, English, French, Italian and Spanish).Google Scholar

52 E. Fama & Jensen, Separation of Ownership and Control, 26 J. of L. & Econ., 301-325 (1983).Google Scholar

53 E. Fama, Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm, 88 J. of Political Econ., 288-307 (1980).Google Scholar

54 B. Holmstrom, Managerial Incentive Problems: A Dynamic Perspective, 66 Rev. of Econ. Studies, 169-182 (1999).Google Scholar

55 See, e.g., J. Byrd & K. Hickman, Do Outside Directors Monitor Managers? Evidence from Tender Offer Bids, 32 J. of Financial Econ., 195-221 (1992); Mehran, H., Executive Compensation Structure, Ownership, and Firm Performance, 38 J. of Financial Econ., 163-184 (1995); See, infra, note 56.Google Scholar

56 B. Hermalin & M. Weisbach, Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Econ. Literature, FRBNY Econ. Pol. Rev., 7-26 (2003).Google Scholar

57 See, M. Lipton & J. Lorsch, A Modest Proposal for Improved Corporate Governance, 48 Business Lawyer, 59-77 (1992).Google Scholar

58 B. Hermalin & Katz, Judicial Modification of Contracts between Sophisticated Parties: A More Complete View of Incomplete Contracts and Their Breach, 9 J. of L., Econ., and Organization, 230-255 (1993).Google Scholar

59 B. Hermalin & M. Weisbach, Endogenously Chosen Boards of Directors and Their Monitoring of the CEO, 88 Am. Econ. Rev., 96-118 (1998).Google Scholar

60 M. Becht et al., Corporate Governance and Control, ECGI Working Paper Series of Finance (2002), at http://www.ecgi.org (last visited 19 October 2004).Google Scholar

61 V. Warther, Board Effectiveness and Board Dissent: A Model of Board's Relationship to Management and Shareholders, 4 J. of Corporate Finance, 53-70 (1998).Google Scholar

62 C. Rajeha, The Interaction of Insiders and Outsiders in Monitoring: A Theory of Corporate Boards, Vanderbilt University Working Paper No 25 (2001), at http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/fmrc/pdf/wp2001-25.pdf (last visited 27 October 2004).Google Scholar

63 D. Hirshleifer & A. Thakor, Managerial Performance, Boards of Directors, and Takeover Bidding, 1 J. of Corporate Finance, 63-90 (1994).Google Scholar

64 See, D. Scharfstein, The Disciplinary Role of Takeovers, 55 Rev. of Econ. Studies, 185-199 (1988); Becht, M. et al., Corporate Governance and Control, ECGI Working Paper Series of Finance (2002), at http://www.ecgi.org.Google Scholar

65 J. Franks et al., Who Disciplines Management in Poorly Performing Companies?, 10 J. of Financial Intermediation, 209-248 (2001).Google Scholar

66 See, B. Hermalin & M. Weisbach, The Effects of Board Composition and Direct Incentives on Firm Performance, 20 Financial Management, 101-112 (1991); See, infra, note 67; H. Mehran, Executive Compensation Structure, Ownership, and Firm Performance, 38 J. of Financial Econ., 163-184 (1995); See, supra, note 56.Google Scholar

67 J. Byrd & K. Hickman, Do Outside Directors Monitor Managers? Evidence from Tender Offer Bids, 32 J. of Financial Econ., 195-221 (1992).Google Scholar

68 R. Morck et al., Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis, 20 J. of Financial Econ., 293-315 (1988).Google Scholar

69 S. Bhagat & B. Black, The Uncertain Relationship Between Board Composition and Firm Performance, 54 Business Lawyer, 921-963 (2000).Google Scholar

70 B. Hermalin & M. Weisbach, Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined Institution: A Survey of the Econ. Literature, FRBNY Econ. Policy Rev., 7-26 (2003).Google Scholar

71 See, supra, note 69.Google Scholar

72 R. Romano, Empowering Investors: A Market Approach to Securities Regulation, 107 Yale Law J., 2359-2430 (1998).Google Scholar

73 P. MacAvoy & I. Millstein, The Active Board of Directors and Its Effect on the Performance of the Large Publicly Traded Corporation, 11 J. of Applied Corporate Finance, 8-20 (1999).Google Scholar

74 D. Yermak, Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors, 40 J. of Financial Econ., 185-212 (1996).Google Scholar

75 T. Eisenberg et al., Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms, 48 J. of Finacial Econ., 35-54 (1998).Google Scholar

76 R. Gertner & S. Kaplan, The Value-Maximizing Board, University of Chicago Working Paper Through SSRN (1996), at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=10975 (last visited 23 October 2004).Google Scholar

77 J. Core et al., Corporate Governance, Chief Executive Officer Compensation, and Firm Performance, 51 J. of Financial Econ., 371-406 (1999).Google Scholar

78 M. Weisbach, Outside Directors and CEO Turnover, 20 J. of Financial Econ., 431-460 (1988).Google Scholar

79 S. Rosenstein & J. Wyatt, Outside Directors, Board Independence, and Shareholder Wealth, 26 J. of Financial Econ., 175-191 (1990).Google Scholar

80 K. Hallok, Reciprocally Interlocking Boards of Directors and Executive Compensation, 32 J. of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 331-334 (1997).Google Scholar

81 A. Shivdasani & D. Yermak, CEO Involvement in the Selection of New Board Members; An Empirical Analysis, 54 J. of Finance, 1829-1854 (1999).Google Scholar

82 B. Hermalin & M. Weisbach, Endogenously Chosen Boards of Directors and Their Monitoring of the CEO, 88 American Econ. Rev., 96-118 (1998).Google Scholar

83 J. Tirole, Corporate Governance, 69 Econometrica 1-35 (2001).Google Scholar

84 P. Wright, M. Kroll, Executive Discretion and Corporate Performance as Determinants of CEO Compensation, Contingent on External Monitoring Activities, 6 (3) J. of Management and Governance 186-214 (2002).Google Scholar

85 D. Mueller, The Corporation – Investment, Mergers, And Growth(2003).Google Scholar

86 E. Boehmer, Germany, in Corporate Governance and Econ. Performance 96-120 (K. Gugler ed.,. Oxford 2001).Google Scholar

87 See D. Strickland et al., A requiem for the USA: Is small shareholder monitoring effective?, 40 J. of Financial Econ. 319-338 (1996).Google Scholar

88 H. Schmidt & J. Drukarczyk, Corporate Governance in Germany (1997).Google Scholar

89 B. Friedman, Econ. Implications of Changing Share Ownership, 2 J. of Portfolio Management 59-70 (1996).Google Scholar

90 H. Kanda, Trends in Japanese Corporate Governance, in Comparative Corporate Governance 185 (K. Hopt, E. Wymeersch eds., 1997).Google Scholar

91 P. Davies, Institutional Investors as Corporate Monitors in the UK, in Comparative Corporate Governance 74 (K. Hopt, E. Wymeersch eds., 1997).Google Scholar

92 M. Smith, Shareholder Activism by Institutional Investors: Evidence from CalPERS, 51 J. of Finance 227-252 (1996).Google Scholar

93 See G. Hansen & C. Hill, Are Institutional Investors Myopic? A Time-series Study of Four Technology-driven Industries, 12 Strategic Management J. 1-16 (1991); McConnell, J. & Servaes, H., Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership and Corporate Value, 27 J. of Financial Econ. 595-612 (1990).Google Scholar

94 R. Chung et al., Earnings Management, Surplus Free Cash Flow, and External Monitoring, J. of Business Research (forthcoming 2004).Google Scholar

95 J. Tirole, Corporate Governance, 69 Econometrica, 1-35 (2001).Google Scholar

96 P. Moerland, Alternative Disciplinary Mechanisms in Different Corporate Systems, 26 J. of Econ. Behaviour and Organization 17-34 (1995); Scott, Corporate Business and Capitalist Classes (Oxford 1997).Google Scholar

97 J. Charkman, Keeping Good Company; A Study of Corporate Governance in Five Countries (Oxford 1994); Hopt, K., Common Principles of Corporate Governance in Europe, in The Clifford Chance Millenium Lectures: The Coming Together of the Common Law and the Civil Law, 105-132 (B.S. Markesinis ed., Oxford, 2002).Google Scholar

98 Charkman, Keeping Good Company; A Study of Corporate Governance in Five Countries (Oxford 1994); for Japan: M. Hanazaki & A. Horiuchi, Is Japan's Financial System Efficient?,16 Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 61-73 (2000)Google Scholar

99 S. Prowse, Corporate Governance in an International Perspective: A Survey of Corporate Control Mechanisms Among Large Firms in the US, UK, Japan and Germany, 4 Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments, 1-63 (1995); Bergloef, E., A Note on the Typology of Financial Systems, in Comparative Corporate Governance, 151 (K. Hopt, E. Wymeersch, eds., 1997).Google Scholar

100 D. Byrd & M. Mizruchi, Bankers on the Board and the Debt Ratio of Firms, J. of Corporate Finance (forthcoming 2004).Google Scholar

101 M. Bianchi, Pyramidal Groups and the Separation of Ownership and Control in Italy, in The Control of Corporate Europe, (F. Barca, and M. Becht eds. 2002)Google Scholar

102 K. Gugler, et al., Corporate Governance, Capital Market Discipline and Returns on Investment (University of Vienna Working Paper, available through SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=299520)Google Scholar

103 M. Jensen & W. Meckling, The Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, 3 J. of Financial Econ., 305-360 (1976).Google Scholar