How different are Japanese and the U. S. hostile takeover laws?: A functional and public choice perspective

本研究的目的是分析（1）日本人和美国人之间的差异; S.敌意收购法，（2）是什么造成的差异和（3）我们需要使我们的收购法更好。我证明了（1）这两个法律之间最重要的区别是，而美国法律。S.（特拉华州）明确采用以董事会为中心的模式，日本法律没有明确采用或拒绝该模式。(2)基本模式的差异源于两国在敌意收购的规则制定过程、利益主体的权力和分配等方面的差异。至于日本，虽然有很小的可能性通过法律，严格限制敌意收购一般，如美国的一些国家。美国，个别规管某些行业的法例，可能会对这些行业的敌意收购施加限制。

Purposes of this research project is to analyze(1) differences between Japanese and the U. S. hostile takeover laws,(2) what makes the differences and(3) what we need to make our takeover laws better. I showed that(1) the most important difference between both laws is that while the U. S.(Delaware) clearly adopts a board-centered model, Japanese law does not clearly adopt or reject the model.(2) The difference in basic model comes from differences in rule making process concerning hostile takeover and in power and distribution of interest parties between both countries. As for Japan, although there are small possibilities of adopting laws that heavily restrict hostile takeovers in general, such as some states in the U. S., there is a risk of casting restriction on hostile takeovers in some particular industries by individual statutes regulating those industries.