диссертация (1169629), страница 74
Текст из файла (страница 74)
– Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. – 275 p.238.Hansmann H., Kraakman R. The End of History for Corporate Law / H. Hansmann, R.Kraakman // Georgetown Law Journal. – 2001. – Vol. 89, Issue 2. – Pp. 439 – 468.239.Harper Ho V. Enlightened Shareholder Value: Corporate Governance beyond the ShareholderStakeholder Divide / V. Harper Ho // The Journal of Corporate Law. – 2010. – Vol.
36:1. – Pp.59 – 112.244240.Hughes A. Short-Termism, Impatient Capital and Finance for Manufacturing Innovation in theUK. Centre for Business Research and UK Innovation Research Centre, Judge Business School,University of Cambridge, 2014. Working Paper No. 457. – 117 p.241.Inman P. All hail British banks: self-absorbed, short-termist and spivvy. The Guardian,28.10.2017.[Электронныйресурс]Доступпоадресу:https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/28/british-banks-short-termist-self-absorbed(дата обращения: 19.04.2019).242.Jennings R.W. Trading in Corporate Control / R.W.
Jennings // California Law Review. – 1956.– Vol. 44, No. 1. – Pp. 1 – 39.243.Jensen M.C., Meckling W.H. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs andOwnership Structure. Working paper. – 1976. – 78 p. (as printed in: Journal of FinancialEconomics. – 1976. – Vol. 3, No. 4. – Pp. 305 – 360.) [Электронный ресурс] Доступ по адресу:http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=94043 (дата обращения: 19.08.2019).244.John Kong Shan Ho.
Economic Theories of the Firm versus Stakeholder Theory: Is There aGovernance Dilemma / John Kong Shan Ho // Hong Kong Law Journal. – 2008. – No. 38, Part2. – Pp. 399 – 424.245.Johnston J.S. The Influence of the Nature of the Firm on the Theory of Coroprate Law / J.S.Johnston // The Journal of Corporation Law. – 1993. – No. 18. – Pp. 213 – 244.246.Johnston A. The Shrinking Scope of CSR in UK Corporate Law / A. Johnston // Washington andLee Law Review. – 2017. – Vol. 74, Issue 2.
– Pp. 1001 – 1042.247.Keay A. Ascertaining the Corporate Objective: An Entity Maximisation and SustainabilityModel / A. Keay // Modern Law Review, 2007. Vol. 71, No. 5. Pp. 663 – 698.248.Keay A. Getting to Grips with the Shareholder Value Theory in Corporate Law / A. Keay //Common Law World Review. – 2010. – No. 39. – Pp. 358 – 378.249.Keay A. Moving Towards Stakeholderism? Constituency Statutes, Enlightened ShareholderValue, And All That: Much Ado About Little? / A. Keay // Working Paper, 2010. 57 pages.[Электронный ресурс] Доступ по адресу: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1530990 (датаобращения: 19.08.2019).250.Keay A.
Tackling the Issue of the Corporate Objective: An Analysis of the United Kingdom's«Enlightened Shareholder Value Approach» / A. Keay // Sydney Law Review. – 2007. – No. 29.– Pp. 577 – 612.251.Keay A. Shareholder Primacy in Corporate Law: Can It Survive - Should It Survive / A. Keay //European Company and Financial Law Review.
– 2010. – No. 7. – Pp. 369 – 413.252.Keay A. Stakeholder Theory in Corporate Law: Has it Got What it Takes / A. Keay // RichmondJournal of Global Law & Business. – 2010. – No. 9. – Pp. 249 – 300.245253.Keay A. The Duty to Promote the Success of the Company: Is It Fit for Purpose? University ofLeeds School of Law, Centre for Business Law and Practice Working Paper. – 2010.
– 37 p.[Электронный ресурс] Доступ по адресу: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1662411 (датаобращения: 19.08.2019).254.Keay A., Zhang H. An Analysis of Enlightened Shareholder Value in Light of Ex PostOpportunism and Incomplete Law / A. Keay, H. Zhang // European Company and Financial LawReview. – 2011. – No. 4. – Pp. 445 – 475.255.King I. Buyout leaves a bad taste.
The Times, 01.09.2010. [Электронный ресурс] Доступ поадресу:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/columnists/article2709146.ece(датаобращения: 19.04.2019).256.Klausner M. The Contractarian Theory of Corporate Law: A Generation Later / M.
Klausner //Journal of Corporate Law. – 2006. – No. 31. – Pp. 779 – 797.257.Koessler M. The Person in Imagination or Persona Ficta of the Corporation / M. Koessler //Louisianna Law Review. – 1949. – Vol. IX. – Pp. 435 – 449.258.Köke J. Control transfers in corporate Germany: Their frequency, causes, and consequences.Working paper. Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research Mannheim, Germany,2001. – 36 S.259.Köke J. The market for corporate control in Germany: Causes and consequences of changes inultimate share ownership.
– Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), 2000.– 41 p.260.Kozyris P.J. Corporate Wars and Choice of Law / P.J. Kozyris // Duke Law Journal. – 1985.– Vol. 1. – Pp. 1 – 99.261.Kuhlmann J., Ahnis E. Kuhlmann/Ahnis, Konzern- und Umwandlungsrecht. – Heidelberg: C.F.Müller GmbH, 2016. – 472 S.262.Kuntz T. German Corporate Law in the 20th Century. Harwell Wells (ed.), Research Handbookon the History of Corporate and Company Law / T. Kunz. – Edward Elgar, 2017. – 42 p.[Электронный ресурс] Доступ по адресу: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2930974 (датаобращения: 19.08.2019).263.Lambert L.
What Short-Termism Means for Company Strategies. Market Mogul, 08.02.2017.[Электронный ресурс] Доступ по адресу: https://themarketmogul.com/what-short-termismmeans-for-company-strategies/ (дата обращения: 19.08.2019).264.Dr. Li-Jiuan Chen. The Defensive Measures in case of Takeover under German Takeover Actand Delaware Corporate Law. National Taiwan University Law Review. – 2007. – Vol. 93. Pp.93 – 115.246265.“Mandelson admits foreign ownership of firms disadvantages UK”. The Guardian, 25 September2009.[Электронныйресурс]Доступпоадресу:https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/25/mandelson-british-industry-unions (дата обращения: 19.04.2019).266.Manne H.
G. Mergers and the market for corporate control / H.G. Manne // The Journal ofPolitical Economy. – 1965. – Vol. 73, No. 2. – Pp. 110 – 120.267.Manne H.G. Our Two Corporation Systems: Law and Economics / H.G. Manne // Virginia LawReview. – 1967. – Vol. 53 (2). – Pp. 259 – 284.268.Miles D. Testing for short-termism in the UK stock market / D. Miles.
Bank of England, 1992.– 42 p.269.Miles L., Zagelmeyer S. German takeover legislation: implications for the future. / L. Miles, S.Zagelmeyer // International Company and Commercial Law Review. – 2004. – Vol.15(7). Pp.221– 230.270.Millon D.K. Why is Corporate Management Obsessed with Quarterly Earnings and What Shouldbe Done About it? /D.K. Millon // George Washington Law Review. – 2002.
– No. 70. – Pp. 890– 920.271.Min Yan, Yanzhi Wang. The Objective of the Company / Min Yan, Yanzhi Wang // Frontiers ofLaw in China. – 2013. – Vol. 8, No. 3. – Pp. 423 – 520.272.Mitchell L. E. Theoretical and Practical Framework for Enforcing Corporate ConstituencyStatutes / L. Mitchell // Texas Law Review.
– 1992. – No. 70. – Pp. 579 – 643.273.Moore M.T. A Necessary Social Evil: The Indispensability of the Shareholder Value Corporation/ M.T. Moore // Seattle University Law Review. – 2017. – Vol. 40. – Pp. 427 – 464.274.Mukwiri J. Myth of shareholder primacy in English Law / J. Mukwiri // European Business LawReview. – 2013. – Vol.
24. – Pp. 217-241.275.Nyombi C., Mortimer T., Lewis R., Zouridakis G. Shareholder primacy and stakeholders'interests in the aftermath of a takeover: a review of empirical evidence / C. Nyombi, T. Mortimer,R. Lewis, G. Zouridakis // International Business Law Journal. – 2015. – Vol. 2. – Pp. 161 – 186.276.Orhangazi Ö.
Financialisation and capital accumulation in the non-financial corporate sector: Atheoretical and empirical investigation on the US economy: 1973–2003 / Ö. Orhangazi //Cambridge Journal of Economics. – 2008. – No. 32. – Pp. 863–886.277.Orts E.W. Corporate Law and Business Theory / E.W. Orts // Washington & Lee Law Review.– 2017. – No. 74. – Pp. 1089 – 1117.278.Painter R., Kirchner C. Takeover Defenses under Delaware Law, the Proposed Thirteenth EUDirective and the New German Takeover Law: Comparison and Recommendations for Reform/ R.
Painter, C. Kirschner // Illinois Law and Economics Working Papers Series. Working Paper247No. LE02-006. – 2002. 26 p. [Электронный ресурс] Доступ поhttp://papers.ssrn.com/pape.tar?abstract_id=311740 (дата обращения: 16.08.2019).адресу:279.du Plessis J.J., Großfeld B., Luttermann C., Saenger I., Sandrock O. German CorporateGovernance in International and European Context / J.
J. du Plessis, B. Großfeld, C. Luttermann,I. Saenger, O. Sandrock. – Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2007. – 276 p.280.Peetz M. Protecting Shareholders from Themselves: How the United Kingdom's 2011 TakeoverCode Amendments Hit Their Mark / M. Peetz // Penn State Journal of Law and & InternationalAffairs. – 2013. – Vol. 2. – Pp.
409 – 446.281.Petrin M. Reconceptualizing the Theory of the Firm - From Nature to Function / M. Petrin //Penn State Law Review. – 2013. – Vol. 118:1. – Pp. 1 – 53.282.Raiser T. The Theory of Enterprise Law in the Federal Republic of Germany / T. Raiser // TheAmerican Journal of Comparative Law. – 1998. – Vol. 36, No. 1. – Pp. 111 – 129.283.Ritter J.F.
Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co / J.F. Ritter // Virginia Law Review. – 1986. –Vol. 72 (No. 4). – Pp. 851 – 877.284.Roe M.J. The shareholder wealth maximization norm and industrial organization / M.J. Roe //University of Pennsylvania Law Review. – 2001. – Vol. 149. – Pp. 2063 – 2081.285.Rohrlich C. Law and Practice in Corporate Control / C. Rohrlich. – New York: Baker, Voorhis& co., 1933. – 268 p.286.Romano R. After the Revolution in Corporate Law / R. Romano // Journal of Legal Education.– 2005. – No. 55. – Pp.
342 – 359.287.Searle J.R. The Construction of Social Reality / J.R. Searle. – New York: The Free Press (Simon& Schuster Inc.), 1995. – 241 p.288.Sinha R. The role of hostile takeovers in corporate governance / R. Sinha // Applied FinancialEconomics. – 2004. – No.14. – Pp. 1291 – 1305.289.Stein J.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
