Advertisement

Shareholders’ Derivative Suits Against Corporate Directors, Following Cross-Border Mergers: A Functioning Remedy Within the EU?

  • Georgios Zouridakis
Chapter
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 17)

Abstract

Mergers, including those involving the cross-border element, have been the subject of EU and Community law and—consequently—academic debate, for some time. However, as this paper shows, the effect of this form of corporate transformation on shareholder litigation remains a grey area.

Despite the fact that the—now codified—3rd Company Law Directive demands that Member States provide for remedy of shareholders’ loss, in a national context, EU law, including that on cross-border mergers, does not address in concreto the matter of derivative suits. The latter remedy, enabling shareholders to enforce the company’s claims, may come to the fore not only where a claim involves the propriety of the merger per se; but also, when it concerns the pre-merger misfeasance of the board of directors, thus affecting the valuation of the merged company.

This study shows that shareholders championing corporate interests may face several obstacles following (cross-border) mergers within the EU, depending on whether the suit is temporally prior to the merger or vice versa. The fact that, post-merger, the merged company ceases to exist (and is succeeded by another entity, in another jurisdiction), gives rise to issues regarding the application of rules intrinsic to the mechanics of derivative suits and particularly those on: continuous ownership; contemporaneous ownership; costs; and on the requirement for shareholders to first demand the board to take action.

Given that the derivative suit, in all its variations, is a form of shareholders’ (and corporate stakeholders’) representative action common among most European countries—and often the only such available—this paper argues in favour of a policy facilitating shareholders’ enforcement of corporate claims in the cross-border merger context; so that no wrong is left unremedied.

References

  1. Baum H, Puchniak D (2012) The derivative action: an economic, historical and practice-oriented approach. In: Puchniak DW, Baum H, Ewing-Chow M (eds) The derivative action in Asia: a comparative and functional approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Biermeyer T, Bech-Bruun, Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services (European Commission) and Lexidale (2013) Study on the application of the cross-border mergers directive. The European Union, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. Carruthers JM (2004) Substance and procedure in the conflict of laws: a continuing debate in relation to damages. Int Comp Law Q 3:691–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen W (2017) A comparative study of funding shareholder litigation. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi SJ, Erickson J, Pritchard AC (2017) Piling on? An empirical study of parallel derivative suits. J Empir Leg Stud 14:653–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coffee J Jr (1985) The unfaithful champion: the plaintiff as monitor in shareholder litigation. Law Contemp Probl 48:5–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox J, Thomas R (2009) Common challenges facing shareholder suits in Europe and the United States. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 6:348–357Google Scholar
  8. De Jong B (2013) Shareholders’ claims for reflective loss: a comparative legal analysis. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 14:97–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delikostopouos I, Sinaniotis LD (2000) Mi peraitéro stírixi ton eidikón ekprosópon anónymis etaireías sto 1/3 tou metochikoú kefalaíou tis, Diki 990Google Scholar
  10. Eaton M, Feldman LJ, Chiang JC (2010) The continuous ownership requirement in shareholder derivative litigation: endorsing a common sense application of standing and choice-of-law principles. Willamette Law Rev 47(1):1–24Google Scholar
  11. European Model Company Act. http://law.au.dk/en/research/projects/european-model-company-act-emca/. Accessed 7 Jan 2018
  12. Feedback statement—summary of responses to the public consultation on cross border mergers and divisions—October 2015, p 9. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2014/cross-bordermergers-divisions/docs/summary-of-responses_en.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2018
  13. Garnett R (2012) Substance and procedure in private international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Gelter M (2011–2012) Why do shareholder derivative suits remain rare in continental Europe? Brooklyn J Int Law 37:843Google Scholar
  15. Gerner-Beuerle C, Paech P, Schuster EP (2013) Study on directors’ duties and liability. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/company/docs/board/2013-study-analysis_en.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2018
  16. Giudici P (2009) Representative litigation in Italian capital markets: Italian derivative suits and (if ever) securities class actions. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 6:246–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joffe V, Drake D, Richardson G, Collingwood T, Lightman D (2011) Minority shareholders: law, practice and procedure. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalss S (2009) Shareholder suits: common problems, different solutions and first steps towards a possible harmonisation by means of a European model code. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 6:324–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karagounidis A (1997) The anomalous merger and division of public limited companies. Sakkoulas, AthensGoogle Scholar
  20. Laster T (2008) Goodbye to the contemporaneous ownership requirement. Del J Corp Law 33:673–694Google Scholar
  21. Latella D (2009) Shareholder derivative suits: a comparative analysis and the implication of the European shareholders’ rights directive. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 6:307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milani LM (1986) The continuous ownership requirement: a bar to meritorious shareholder derivative actions? Wash Lee Law Rev 43(3):1013–1031Google Scholar
  23. Passias I (1969) To Díkaion tis Anonýmou Etaireías. AthensGoogle Scholar
  24. Paul C (2010) Derivative actions under English and German corporate law –shareholder participation between the tension filled areas of corporate governance and malicious shareholder interference. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 1:81–115Google Scholar
  25. Peyerwold D, St. Lawrence S (2017) Counseling California Corporations, 3rd edn [update]. CEB, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  26. Puchniak DW, Nakahigashi M (2012) Japan’s love for derivative actions: irrational behavior and non-economic motives as rational explanations for shareholder litigation. Vanderbilt J Transnat Law 45:1–82Google Scholar
  27. Reisberg A (2007) Derivative actions and corporate governance: theory and operation. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rotem Y (2013) The law applicable to a derivative action on behalf of a foreign corporation—corporate law in conflict. Cornell Int Law J 46:321–360Google Scholar
  29. Siems MM (2012) Private enforcement of directors’ duties: derivative actions as a global phenomenon. In: Wrbka S, Van Uytsel S, Siems MM (eds) Collective actions: enhancing access to justice and reconciling multilayer interests? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sullivan GR (1985) Restating the scope of the derivative action. Camb Law J 44:236–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tseng WR, Wen W (2012) Derivative actions in Taiwan. In: Puchniak DW, Baum H, Ewing-Chow M (eds) The derivative action in Asia: a comparative and functional approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. van Aaken A (2004) Shareholder suits as a technique of internalization and control of management: a functional and comparative analysis. RabelsZ 68:288–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vermeylen J, Vande Veld I (2012) European cross-border mergers and reorganisations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang H (2014) Directors’ liability from the perspective of private international law. PhD thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  35. Zouridakis G (2015) Introducing derivative actions in the Greek law on public limited companies: issues of legal standing and lessons from the German and UK experience. Int Company Commercial Law Rev 26:271–283Google Scholar
  36. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law (trans: Weir T), 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Zouridakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Athens Institute for Education and ResearchAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations