A Comparative Study on the Material Law relating to Corporate Groups

2005年《日本公司法》的颁布，拓宽了以简化程序重组公司集团结构的可能性，并使日本公司能够通过现金清偿合并或股东大会的特别决议冻结少数股东。这些变化给股东权利的法律保护造成了重大挫折。对最高法院允许对敌意竞购者采取某些防御措施的“牛犬酱”一案的分析表明，传统的不成文的“平等对待股东”原则的制定可能会导致其调节股东之间各种利益的功能的退却。对欧洲讨论最新进展的研究表明，制定有关控股股东行使影响力的规则的必要性仍然是一个有争议的话题。2006年的证券法规改革可以看作是政府对日本敌意收购数量增加的回应。因此，现在的证券法规包含了许多本应被归类为公司法一部分的规则，但两套法律之间似乎缺乏一致性。日本的收购法受到了美国和英国的法律发展和学术讨论的强烈影响。然而，在设计一部收购法时，他们应该考虑到这些法域之间的社会环境差异，从公共选择的角度进行分析表明。

This research focuses on the analysis of the fundamental theories and seeks a possible legislative reform relating to corporate groups in JapanThe enactment of Japanese Companies Act 2005 has broaden the possibility to reorganize corporate group structures with a simplified procedure and enabled Japanese corporations to freeze-out minority shareholders through a cash-out merger or a special resolution of the general meeting. These changes have caused a significant setback in legal protection of the shareholder's rights. The analysis of the case "Bull-dog Sauce", in which the Supreme Court permitted certain defensive measures to be taken against a hostile bidder, reveals that the enactment of the traditional unwritten "equal treatment of shareholders" principle can cause the retreat of its function to adjust the various interests among shareholders. The research into recent developments in European discussions shows that the need for enactment of the rules on exercise of influence by a controlling shareholder is still a controversial topic. The reform in the securities regulations in 2006 can be regarded as the governmental response against the fact that the number of hostile takeovers is increasing in Japan. As a result, the securities regulations now embrace a lot of rules that should be categorized as a part of the corporation law, but there seems to be lack of coherency between two sets of laws. The Japanese takeover law has been influenced strongly by the legal developments and academic discussions in the US and the UK. In designing a takeover law, however, they should take into consideration the differences in social environments among these jurisdictions, which the analysis from a public choice perspective shows.