The corporate governance debate mainly deals with the effectiveness of techniques to protect shareholders from the controllers' misbehaviour. This article takes a different approach. Focusing on self-dealing, it shows that effective strategies to protect investors from expropriation differ from country to country. However, some may be more efficient than others. The inefficiency of an effective discipline of self-dealing stems from the constraints it imposes on the discretion of controlling managers and shareholders. This article shows that both the US litigation-based model and the UK governance-based model are effective against expropriation, but their efficiency can be improved. In light of this, this article recommends restricting the influence of non-controlling shareholders to the selection of a minority of independent directors, whose task should be limited to monitoring and validating self-dealing. These findings can be extended from self-dealing to similar conflicts of interest that may lead to expropriation of shareholders, and to their regulation in other jurisdictions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alessio M. Pacces (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: