1 Commission Communication. Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union - A Plan to Move Forward, COM (2003) 0284 final.Google Scholar

2 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on Issues Related to Takeover Bids, 2002 available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/company/takeoverbids/index.en.htm, viewed 9 January 2007.Google Scholar

3 This is the primary form of regulation of takeovers at EU level although clearly each of the Market Abuse, Prospectus and Transparency Directives will have implications for the regulation of takeovers.Google Scholar

4 Christine Parker, Colin Scott, Nicola Lacey, & John Braithwaite, eds., Regulating Law (2004), 13.Google Scholar

5 A similar argument was made by Dewar in relation to family law at id., 82.Google Scholar

6 O.J. 2001 C23/1.Google Scholar

7 See, supra note 2.Google Scholar

8 Commission Staff Working Document, Report on the Implementation of the Directive on Takeover Bids, SEC 2007, 268, 21/2/07.Google Scholar

9 Joseph A. McCahery, Luc Renneboog, Peer Ritter, and Sascha Haller, The Economics of the Proposed European Takeover Directive in Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe (Guido Ferrarini, Klaus J. Hopt, Jaap Winter and Eddy Wymeersch eds. 2004).Google Scholar

10 Weinberg & Blank on Takeovers and Mergers, Part III B, 502.Google Scholar

11 Marc Goergen, Marina Martynova, and Luc Renneboog, Corporate Governance Convergence: Evidence from Takeover Regulation Reforms ECGI 2005, Law Working Paper No. 33/2005, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=709023 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.709023.Google Scholar

12 Blanaid Clarke The Irish Takeover Panel Act, 1997 – A Further Cutting of the UK Regulatory Ties, in Palmer's In Company, 1-3 (1998).Google Scholar

13 The Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2006 subsequently introduced a number of amendments to the 1997 Act and the Regulations including a provision allowing the Irish Panel to make provision in its rules to give effect to EU law in this area. The power to make rules in the 1997 Act was not wide enough to enable the Panel to make rules directly to give effect to changes in this area arising from the Takeovers Directive and recent case law provides that such power must be provided in primary law.Google Scholar

14 EC Directive 2004/25/ of 21 April 2004, O.J. L 142, Art. 1(1).Google Scholar

15 DTI, Company Law Implementation of the European Directive on Takeover Bids, A Consultative Document, January 2005, para. 2.11.Google Scholar

16 Id., para. 2.12.Google Scholar

17 DTI, Company Law Implementation of the European Directive on Takeover Bids, Government Response and Summary of Responses to the Consultative Document, November 2005, 3.Google Scholar

18 The Takeover Panel, The European Directive on Takeover Bids 2005/10, January 2005, 2.Google Scholar

19 Takeover Panel 2006 Annual Report.Google Scholar

20 R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, 1987, 1 All ER 564.Google Scholar

21 The Committee of Wise Men Report on the Regulation of European Securities Markets, 2001, available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/securities/lamfalussy/index_en.htm, viewed 9 January 2006. The Committee was chaired by Baron Alexandre Lamfalussy.Google Scholar

22 Supra note 14, Art. 4(4) provides that Member States may (i) include such derogations in their national rules, in order to take account of circumstances determined at national level and/or (ii) grant their competent supervisory authorities powers to waive such national rules, to take account of the circumstances referred to in (i) or in other specific circumstances, in which case a reasoned decision must be required.Google Scholar

23 Rule 9 of the City Code and the Irish Takeover Panel Takeover Rules 2001-2006.Google Scholar

24 See for example McKinsey's Global Investor Opinion Survey, 2002 or Paul A. Gompers, Joy L. Ishii, & Andrew Metrick, Corporate Governance and Equity Prices, 118 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (2003).Google Scholar

25 EU Company Law at the Crossroads, in Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe, 12 (Guido Ferrarini, Klaus J. Hopt, Jaap Winter and Eddy Wymeersch eds. 2004).Google Scholar

26 Id.Google Scholar

27 Report of Sixth Meeting of the Financial Service Policy Group, 2 November 2000, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/actionplan/index_en.htm#policy.Google Scholar

28 See, supra note 20 QB. 815.Google Scholar

29 See, supra note 17, 31.Google Scholar

30 See, supra note 2, 19.Google Scholar

31 Manne, Henry, Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control, 73 Journal of Political Economics 110 (1965), Jensen, Michael & Meckling, William Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, 3 Journal of Financial Economics 305(1976), Eugene Fama Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm, 88 Journal of Political Economics 288 (1980).Google Scholar

32 See further Clarke, Blanaid, Articles 9 and 11 of the Takeover Directive (2004/25) and the Market for Corporate Control, Journal of Business Law 355-374 (2006).Google Scholar

33 See, supra note 2, 19.Google Scholar

34 The study was based on the offer documents and response circulars of the 39 takeover offers made from 1997 to 2006.Google Scholar

35 This does not include offers where there was no actual value for the share listing - because of a lack of a market, suspension or otherwise.Google Scholar

36 The average number of relevant companies during the period 1997 to 2005 was 74. The term “relevant company” is determined in accordance with section 2 of the Irish Takeover Panel Act 1997.Google Scholar

37 Even if the poor share price was caused by inept management, it would seem to pervert the market for corporate control theory, if the management themselves were able to benefit from the fruits of their ineptitude.Google Scholar

38 6 out of the 19 bids did not disclose any details of the resignations. A further one indicated the finance director and an undisclosed number of other directors were remaining.Google Scholar

39 Irish Takeover Panel Act, 1997, Takeover Rules 2001-2006, Rule 24.1.Google Scholar

40 The Company and Commercial Law Committee of the Law Society of Ireland made this point for example in their submission to the Commission on the draft directive.Google Scholar

41 Enriques, Luca, EC Company Law Directives and Regulations: How Trivial Are They? Law Working Paper Number 39/2005 (May 2005).Google Scholar

42 Clarke, Blanaid, Regulating Poison Pill Devices, 4 Journal of Corporate Law Studies 51-75 (2004).Google Scholar

43 Panel Response Statement, The implementation of the Takeovers Directive, RS2005/5, 21 April 2006, 15.Google Scholar

44 In some cases such as Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas Ltd, 1951 Ch. 286, Evershed MR suggested that the interests of the present shareholders should be considered. In Gaiman v. National Association for Mental Health, 1972, Ch. 317 and Dawson International plc v. Coats Paton plc, 1988, 4 B.C.C. 305 the interests of the company were equated with the interests of present and future shareholders.Google Scholar

45 Black, Julia, The Case of Finance, in Regulating Law, (Christine Parker, Colin Scott, Nicola Lacey, John Braithwaite, eds., 2004) 41.Google Scholar

46 See, supra note 2, 16.Google Scholar

47 Id., 19.Google Scholar

48 Id., 20.Google Scholar

49 Id., 21.Google Scholar

50 Such an exemption is also consistent with practice in Ireland and the UK. Indeed in two of the three hostile bids made to Irish companies during the period of study, this was the successful form of defence utilised by management.Google Scholar

51 See, supra note 32.Google Scholar

52 See, supra note 2, 20.Google Scholar

53 Id., 29.Google Scholar

54 Id., 30.Google Scholar

55 Berglöf, Eirk and Burkart, Mike European Takeover Regulation, 18 Economic Policy 171 (2003).Google Scholar

56 K. Gugler, Corporate Governance and Economic Performance (2001), Bennesden, Morten & Nielsen, Kasper, The Impact of a Break-Through Rule on European Firms, Working Paper, Copenhagen Business School (2002), Khachaturyan, Arman, Can Bolkestein Finally Break the Takeover Directive Deadlock? Commentary, Centre for European Policy Studies, 12 January 2005, available at: http://www.ceps.be/Article.php?article_id=68, viewed 9 January 2006. DTI, Company Law Implementation of the European Directive on Takeover Bids, Government Response and Summary of Responses to the Consultative Document n19, November 2005, 25, Hertig, Gerard & McCahery, Joseph, Company and Takeover Law Reforms in Europe: Misguided Harmonization Efforts or Regulatory Competition, 4 European Business Organization Law Review 179 (2003) and Bebchuk, Lucian & Hart, Oliver, A Threat to Dual-class Shares, Financial Times 31 May 2002.Google Scholar

57 See, supra note 32.Google Scholar

58 Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on Issues Related to Takeover Bids, 39-42 available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/takeoverbids/2002-01-hlg-report_en.pdf.Google Scholar

59 This decision must be taken by the shareholders in a general meeting in accordance with the rules applicable to the amendment of their articles of association.Google Scholar

60 Commission Staff Working Document, Report on the Implementation of the Directive on Takeover Bids, SEC 2007 268, 21/2/07, 6-7, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/takeoverbids/2007-02-report_en.pdf.Google Scholar

61 O'Sullivan, Noel and Wong, Pauline. Board Composition, Ownership Structure and Hostile Takeovers: Some UK Evidence 29 Accounting and Business Research 139-155 (1999); Cotter, James F., Anil Shivdasani, & Zenner, Marc, Do Independent Directors Enhance Target Shareholder Wealth During Tender Offers? 39 Journal of Financial Economics 3-43 (1997), Holl, Peter & Kyriazis, Demetris, The Determinants of Outcome in UK Takeover Bids 3 International Journal of Economics and Business 165-184 (1996); Cotter, James F., & Zenner, Marc, How Managerial Wealth Affects the Tender Offer Process 35 Journal of Financial Economics 63-97 (1994), Eddey, Peter & Casey, RS. Directors Recommendations in Response to Takeover Bids: Do They Act in their Own Interests 14 Australian Journal of Management 1-28 (1989); and Walking, Ralph. Predicting Tender Offer Success: A Logistic Analysis 20 Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 461-478 (1985).Google Scholar

62 Supra note 58, 20.Google Scholar

63 Supra note 14, Art. 3(1)(c).Google Scholar

64 Higgs, D. Review of the Role and Effectiviness of Non-Executive Directors (January 2003), para.9.2., available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/bbf/corp-governance/higgs-tyson/page23342.html.Google Scholar

65 Id., para. 9.3.Google Scholar

66 Comparative Study of the Corporate Governance Codes relevant to the European Union and its Member States, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/corpgov/corp-gov-codes-rpt-part1_en.pdf.Google Scholar

67 Final Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a Modern Regulatory Framework for Company Law in Europe (4/11/2002), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/modern/report_en.pdf.Google Scholar

68 Jonathan Rickford, Corporate Governance in the UK, Company Law and Corporate Governance Code in European Corporate Governance in Company Law and Codes Oct. 18, 2004, a report prepared for the European Corporate Governance Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

69 Commission Recommendation, on the role of non-executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the committees of the (supervisory) board, 15 February 2005, para. 2.2.3, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_052/l_05220050225en00510063.pdf.Google Scholar

70 2005/162/EC, Commission Recommendation, on the role of non-executive or supervisory directors of listed companies and on the committees of the (supervisory) board, 15 February 2005, Recital 4, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_052/l_05220050225en00510063.pdf.Google Scholar

71 David Trubek, Patrick Cottrell, & Mark Nance, “Soft Law” “Hard Law” and European Integration: Toward a Theory of Hybridity (Legal Studies Research Papers Series Paper No.1002, 2005).Google Scholar

72 Supra note 70, Art. 13.3.2.Google Scholar

73 Irish Takeover Panel Act, 1997, Takeover Rules 2001-2006 Rule 3.1.Google Scholar

74 Id., Rule 25.1(d).Google Scholar

75 Id., Note to Rule 25.1.Google Scholar

76 Blanaid Clarke Board Advice During Takeovers Conference, Soft Law, Soft Regulation? The Implications for Regulatory Practice, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge (2006).Google Scholar

77 In four of these cases, the majority of the advisers remained, in one an equal number remained, in five a minority remained (although often in an important role like CEO or financial director) and in one an unidentified minority remained.Google Scholar

78 Supra, note 64, para. 9.8.Google Scholar

79 Supra, note 71.Google Scholar

80 Lehne, Klaus-Heiner COD/2002/0240, EP: legislative opinion, 1st reading or single reading (16/12/2003), available at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2002/0240, last visited 26 March 2007.Google Scholar

81 Nilsen, André. The EU Takeover Directive and the Competitiveness of European Industry, The Oxford Council on Good Governance Economy Analysis, 3, available at: http://www.oxfordgovernance.org/fileadmin/Publications/EY001.pdf.Google Scholar

82 Joseph, McCahery & Gerard, Hertig, An Agenda for Reform, in Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe (Guido Ferrarini, Klaus J. Hopt, Jaap Winter and Eddy Wymeersch eds. 2004). For an excellent description of the theories and varieties of regulatory competition see Deakin, Simon, Legal Diversity and Regulatory Competition: Which Model for Europe? (Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working Paper No.323, 2006).Google Scholar

83 Indeed Zumbansen argues that not only do governments compete but whole legal, social, political and economic cultures, their current states and their historical narratives compete. (Zumbansen, Peer, Spaces and Places: A Systems Theory Approach to Regulatory Competition in European Company Law 12 Eur. L. J. 534 (2006), 548, 553–4.Google Scholar

84 Collins, H., Regulating Contract Law, in Regulating Law (Christine Parker, Colin Scott, Nicola Lacey, John Braithwaite, eds., 2004), 13.Google Scholar

85 Bebchuk, Lucian Arye, Federalism and the Corporation: The Desirable Limits on State Competition in Corporate Law 105 Harvard Law Review 1435 (1992), Bebchuk, Lucian & Hamdani, Assaf, Vigorous Race or Leisurely Walk: Reconsidering the Competition over Corporate Charters 112 Yale Law Journal 553 (2002), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=325520 and William Carey, Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections upon Delaware 83 Yale Law Journal 663 (1974).Google Scholar

86 See for example Winter, Ralph, State Law, Shareholder Protection, and the Theory of the Corporation 6 J. Legal Studies 251 (1977) and Easterbrook, Frank & Fischel, Daniel, Voting in Corporate Law 26 Journal of Law and Economics 395 (1983).Google Scholar

87 Romano, Roberta, Is Regulatory Competition a Problem or Irrelevant for Corporate Governance? ECGI Law Working Paper Series, Working Paper No.26/2005. See also Heine, Klaus & Kerber, Wolfgang, European Corporate Laws, Regulatory Competition and Path Dependence 13 European Journal of Law and Economics 47 (2002).Google Scholar

88 Romano, Roberta, Law as Product: Some Pieces of the Incorporation Puzzle 1 JL Econ & Org 225 (1985). See also Carney, William, The Political Economy of Competition for Corporate Charters, 26 Journal of Legal Studies 303 (1997).Google Scholar

89 A detailed evolution of the EU company law harmonization programme is set out in McCahery, Jospeh & Vermeulen, Erik, The Changing Landscape of EU Company Law (TILEC Discussion Paper No. DP2004-023, 2004) available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=871075.Google Scholar

90 Fritz Scharpf, Governing in Europe, Effective and Democratic? (1999), 101.Google Scholar

91 These include, Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs-og Selskabssyrelsen 1999 E.C.R. I-1459, Case C-208/00 Uberseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) 2002 E.C.R. I-9919, Case C-167/01 Kamel van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd 2003 E.C.R. I-10155. See Simon Deakin, Legal Diversity and Regulatory Competition: Which Model for Europe? 12 European Law Journal 440 (2006) for a discussion of the impact of the Centros case on regulatory competition in the EU.Google Scholar

92 Becht, Marco, Mayer, Colin, & Wagner, Hannes, Where Do Firms Incorporate? (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5875, 2006), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=953820. The study found that that incorporation costs, in particular minimum capital requirements, and delays in incorporation are significant influences on firms’ location decisions.Google Scholar

93 Wymeersch, Eddy, Centros: A Landmark Decision in European Company Law (Financial Law Institute Working Paper 99-15, October 1999), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=190431; Ferran, Eilis, Company Law Reform in the UK, (Working Paper, 2001), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=294508.Google Scholar

94 Baums, Theodor, Company Law Reform in Germany 3 J Corp Law Studies 181 (2003), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=329962. This reform involved the issuance of a Corporate Governance Code, the introduction of a Transparenz- und Publizitatsgesetz (law on transparency and disclosure) and the reform of the Aktiengesetz (German Stock Corporation Act).Google Scholar

95 Deakin, Simon, Regulatory Competition versus Harmonisation in European Company Law (ESRC Centre for Business Research, Working Paper 163/2000).Google Scholar

96 Id., 31.Google Scholar

97 Id., 41.Google Scholar

98 Forstinger C, Takeover Law in the EU and USA: A Comparative Analysis (2002), 159.Google Scholar

99 Hertig, Gerard & McCahery, Joseph, An Agenda for Reform in Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe, (Guido Ferrarini, Klaus J. Hopt, Jaap Winter and Eddy Wymeersch eds. 2004), 38; Hertig, Gerard and McCahery, Joseph Company and Takeover Law Reforms in Europe: Misguided Harmonization Efforts or Regulatory Competition? (ECGI Law Working Paper 12/2003) 4.Google Scholar

100 Armour, John, Who Should Make Corporate Law? EC Legislation versus Regulatory Competition 48 Current Legal Problems, (2005), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=757205.Google Scholar

101 Winter, Japp, EU Company Law at the Cross-Roads, in Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe, (Guido Ferrarini, Klaus J. Hopt, Jaap Winter and Eddy Wymeersch eds. 2004), 18.Google Scholar

102 Erik Vermeulen, The Evolution of Legal Business Forms in Europe and the United States (2003).Google Scholar

103 Supra, note 58, 22–23.Google Scholar

104 Supra, note 60, 9.Google Scholar

105 Ironically, a convincing argument can be made that the reciprocity provision does not apply to companies from third countries. It could be said that such companies are not in a position to “apply” the same Articles and are thus not caught. An alternative view and one which the Commission appears to take is that each offeror must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether its own articles of association allow defensive actions or break-through. This rather than the state of incorporation is the relevant determinant of the applicability of Art 12(3).Google Scholar

106 Becht, Marco, Reciprocity in Takeovers (ECGI – Law Working Paper No 14/2003).Google Scholar

107 Winter, Jaap, EU Company Law at the Crossroads in Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe (Guido Ferrarini, Klaus J. Hopt, Jaap Winter and Eddy Wymeersch eds. 2004), 12, 18–19.Google Scholar

108 Supra, note 60, 6.Google Scholar

109 Id.Google Scholar

110 Release, Press, Results of the Competitiveness Council of Ministers, (27 Nov 2003) European Commission. 2003b. MEMO 03/245, Brussels.Google Scholar

111 London Takeover Panel, 2004 Annual Report, 8.Google Scholar

112 Department of Trade and Industry, Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (2005) at para 10 in Annex D of DTI, Company Law Implementation of the European Directive on Takeover Bids, A Consultative Document, January 2005.Google Scholar

113 Department of Trade and Industry, Company Law Implementation of the European Directive on Takeover Bids, A Consultative Document, (2005) para. 1.9, available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file10384.pdf.Google Scholar

114 Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State, Foreword Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Company Law Implementation of the European Directive on Takeover Bids, A Consultative Document (2005).Google Scholar

115 Hertig, Gerard & McCahery, Joseph “Company and Takeover Law Reforms in Europe: Misguided Harmonisation Efforts or Regulatory Competition?” ECGI Law Working Paper No. 12/2003.Google Scholar

116 Supra, note 60, 10.Google Scholar

117 Press Release Corporate governance: Member States reluctant to give a greater say to shareholders in the context of takeover bids, says Commission report (Feb. 27, 2007) (IP/07/251), available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/251&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.Google Scholar

118 Supra, note 60, 10.Google Scholar

119 London Takeover Panel, 2004 Annual Report, 8.Google Scholar

120 DTI, Company Law Implementation of the European Directive on Takeover Bids, A Consultative Document (2005) para. 1.8.Google Scholar

121 Supra, note 60, 6.Google Scholar

122 Luca Enriques. EC Company Law Directives and Regulations: How Trivial Are They? (Law Working Paper N° 39/2005, 2005).Google Scholar