National Corporate Law in a Globalised Market
Show Less

National Corporate Law in a Globalised Market

The UK Experience in Perspective

David Milman

In this timely book, David Milman considers how UK corporate law has been affected by the forces of globalisation, arguing that this is not a new development, but rather is part of an historical continuum. He examines corporate law regulatory strategy in general, treatment of foreign shareholders and multinational groups, aspects of private international law and issues connected with cross border insolvency.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 9: The future of national corporate law systems

David Milman


1 CONVERGENCE Any astute observer of the development of company law across the globe could not fail to pick up on the fact that national systems of corporate law are converging.1 In chapter 9 of The Anatomy of Corporate Law, Paul Davies, Gerard Hertig and Klaus Hopt assert: Our analysis clearly establishes that corporate law has converged significantly across our benchmark jurisdictions over the past two decades. Jurisdictions are under pressure to adopt uniform ‘best practices’ to facilitate the cross border tapping of investors by their publicly-traded companies. In addition, national lawmakers have come to realise that a modernised framework of company law can provide even their closely held companies with a competitive advantage.2 Taking convergence to its logical extreme, are we about to see a version of ‘The End of History’ in corporate law?3 Accepting this as an instructive starting point, this summative chapter will seek to bring together some of the reasons for this pattern of evolution and consider where it will end up as far as English law is concerned. On convergence in corporate law generally, see J.A. McCahery (ed.), Corporate Governance Regimes: Convergence and Diversity (2002) (OUP), J. Gordon and M.J. Roe (eds), Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance (2004) (CUP), M.M. Siems, Convergence in Shareholder Law (2007) (CUP), L.A. Cunningham [2004] 1 Int Jo of Discl and Gov 269. For a strong counter-thesis, see D. Branson (2001) 34 Cornell Jo of Int Law 321. 2 (2004) (OUP) at p. 218. 3 The commentator Francis...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.