Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Consolidation and merger of corporations – Law and legislation – Argentina »

This Master's Thesis is a comparative study of the regulation of defensive measures in hostile takeovers. It consists of two main parts: In the first, the subject is approached from a theoretical point of view. The relevant factors for the regulation of defensive measures are outlined and analysed, followed by a discussion of the different ways of drafting such rules. This part concludes with a proposition concerning the most favourable form and content of a regulation. The second part describes hostile takeover regulation in the US, the UK, Canada, the EU and Germany, showing the diversity in that field of regulation in practice and the underlying reasons. It highlights and assesses the characteristics of each country and its regulation in the light of the considerations made in the first part, and provides an outlook concerning the future development of the regulation of defensive measures in hostile takeovers.

Theses
The Competition Act no.89 of 1998 coupled with its amendments ushered in a new era in the competition analysis and merger approval process in South Africa. This research paper's purpose is to intimately explore the emergent doctrine of "public interest" institutionalized in this new dispensation of competition legislation. In particular this report places under the spotlight the treatment of public issues in case law jurisprudence as developed in the consideration and determination of large and notifiable mergers under the auspices of the competition tribunal of the Republic of South Africa since the inception of the said new legislative order. The efficacy of the determination of socio-political issues and pure competitive efficiency issues separately but under and by the same entity are also examined. The contrast between the South African approach to the application of the doctrine of the public interest and that of some other competition jurisdictions abroad is also explored.

When the European Commission ultimately blocked the merger between American giant General Electrics and Honeywell in July 2001, this decision triggered a firestorm of criticism. Not only had the Commission just stopped a purely American transaction for the first time since the enactment of European Merger Regulation, but it also contradicted its American Counterpart, the US Department of Justice: The Americans had cleared the deal several months earlier.
In spite of constant cooperative efforts during the investigation, the two antitrust agencies could not reach a common position. When scholars and officials tried to find reasons for the divergence between the American and European decisions, they often criticized the Commission's general approach of focusing on competitors rather than on consumers. They further claimed that the Commission had used dubious economic models to block the merger.
This thesis tries to reinstate the reputation of the European Commission as a professional antitrust institution. The criticisms often left the impression that the Task Force of the Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission constituted a politically-orientated, rather than economic and legally-orientated, organ. It will be shown that this is actually not the case.
After having analyzed the Commission's decision in detail, and revealing both the strengths and weaknesses of its findings, the thesis will demonstrate that most of the criticisms have to be rejected, and that the Commission had a legal and economic basis in blocking the GE-Honeywell merger.

Takeovers play an important role in the economy as they serve to reallocate economic resources to more efficient uses and replace inefficient management. Unregulated takeover bids pose a threat to the interests of the target company shareholders. The legislature pays special attention to takeover bids to make sure that the bona fide interests of the target company shareholders are duly protected. This is the primary purpose of the takeover bid regulation in Ontario. The regulation is also aimed at ensuring the horizontal equity among target shareholders and the efficient functioning of the capital market. This thesis analyzes the present regulation of takeover bids in Ontario and argues that while the whole system of takeover bid regulation is consistent with the proclaimed purposes, there are two issues that fall out of the coherent structure. The restriction on free transferability of shares and the adoption by boards of directors of shareholder rights plans do not enhance the protection of target company shareholders and do not correspond to the proclaimed purposes.

Thesis (LLM)--University of Stellenbosch, 2005.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis compares South African and German Competition Law. The focus is the control of mergers between newspaper enterprises. It has to be asked whether special rules should apply to transactions in this field, considering the importance of an unconcentrated, competitive press from an economic and political point of view. It will be shown that South African and German Competition Law are similar in many respects. Both legal systems follow a flexible, primarily economic approach to the consideration of proposed transactions, taking into account a plurality of factors to determine potential detrimental effects of mergers on competition. Moreover, pro-competitive gains and public interest issues are recognised under South African and German law. When it comes to the control of mergers between newspaper enterprises, though, the two legal systems diverge. Only under German Competition Law, are there specific provisions for press mergers. In view of a recently proposed amendment of the German Competition Law, the appropriate form of regulation that is likely to guarantee a free press, will be investigated. It will also be analysed, whether there is a specific need for press regulation in the South African context. Even though there are no special provisions under South African Competition Law, the South African Constitution leaves space for a broader understanding of the freedom of the press. Hence, it will be examined if the South African Constitution obliges the state to enact particular laws to protect press-plurality. Moreover, it will be analysed if the South African Competition Act should be interpreted in a manner that would promote plurality of the press. In the view of the eminent role of the press for a democratic society, it will be argued in this thesis, that there is a particular need for media regulation. Notably the significant levels of concentration in both German and South African press markets raise concerns as regards the protection of a free and pluralistic press. It will be shown that there are different foreign approaches to maintaining and promoting freedom of the press and it will be suggested that South Africa recognises a need for more press-specific regulation in the future.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie verhandeling vergelyk Suid-Afrikaanse en Duitse mededingingsreg. Dit is gefokus op beheer oor persondernemings. Die vraag word gevra of spesiale reëls van toepassing behoort te wees op transaksies in hierdie sektor, indien die politieke en ekonomiese belang van 'n ongekonsentreerde en mededingende pers in ag geneem word. Dit word uitgewys dat Suid-Afrikaanse en Duitse mededingsreg in vele opsigte soortgelyk is, wat die regulering van samesmeltings betref. Beide regsstelsels volg 'n buigsame, hoofsaaklik ekonomiese benadering tot die oorweging van 'n transaksie. Beide neem 'n veelheid van faktore in ag om te bepaal of 'n transaksie moontlik negatiewe gevolge vir mededinging het. Verder word pro-mededingende en publieke belangsaspekte in beide die Suid- Afrikaanse en Duitse reg in ag geneem. In die geval van 'n samesmelting tussen koerantondernemings verskil die twee sisteme egter. Die Duitse reg het spesiale reëls vir samesmelting van sulke ondernemings. In die lig van wysigings wat onlangs aan die Duitse mededingsreg voorgestel is, word geskikte vlakke van regulering van die pers, wat nodig is om 'n vrye pers te waarborg, ondersoek. Aandag word geskenk aan die vraag of daar'n behoefte is aan regulering van die pers in die Suid-Afrikaanse omgewing. Alhoewel die Suid-Afrikaanse Grondwet nie spesiaal daarvoor voorsiening maak nie, laat die Grondwet plek vir 'n wyer begrip van persvryeid. Dus word vasgestelof daar 'n plig op die staat is om wetgewing in te voer wat die staat dwing om perspluralisme te beskerm. Verder, word bepaal of die Suid-Afrikaanse Mededingingswet op so 'n wyse interpreteer kan word dat dit perspluralisme sal bevorder. In die lig van die sentrale rol vir 'n vrye pers in 'n demokratiese samelewing, word geargumenteer dat, daar 'n spesiale behoefte aan reguleringvan die media is. Die hoë vlakke van konsentrasie in beide die Duitse en Suid- Afrikaanse persmarkte skep besorgheid oor die beskerming van 'n vrye en pluralistiese pers in hierdie lande. Dit word aangetoon dat daar verskillende benaderings tot die beskerming en bevordering van 'n vrye pers in ander lande is en daar word voorgestel dat Suid-Afrika 'n behoefte aan meer spesifieke reëls vir regulering van die pers erken.