Melbourne Law School - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11
-
ItemIllegal Phoenix Activity: Is a "Phoenix Prohibition" the Solution?(LAWBOOK CO LTD, 2017-05)
-
ItemIllegal Phoenix Activity from the Insolvency Practitioner's Perspective(Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, 2016)
-
ItemAT THE COALFACE OF CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND PHOENIX ACTIVITY: A SURVEY OF ARITA AND AICM MEMBERS(LAWBOOK CO LTD, 2016-10)
-
ItemASIC, PHOENIX ACTIVITY AND THE VIEW FROM THE OUTSIDE(LAWBOOK CO LTD, 2016-11)
-
ItemIllegal Phoenix Activity - What Do AICM Members Think About It?(Australian Institute of Credit Management, 2016)
-
ItemProfiling Phoenix Activity: A New Taxonomy(Thomson Reuters (Professional), 2015)
-
ItemThe Productivity Commission, Corporate Insolvency and Phoenix Companies(Thomson Reuters (Professional), 2015)
-
ItemIllegal phoenix activity: Quantifying its incidence and cost(LAWBOOK CO LTD, 2016-08)
-
ItemThe Evolution of Shareholder and Creditor Protection in Australia: An international comparison(Cambridge University Press, 2012)This article is part of a larger international investigation of the effects of a country's legal origins on the style of business regulation. We employ an innovative ‘leximetric’ methodology to numerically code the protective strength of Australian corporate law for both shareholder and creditor protection for the period 1970 to 2010. This leximetric methodology has been used in a prominent international debate concerning the development of legal rules and the effects of different styles of regulation on a range of economic outcomes—the legal origins debate. Drawing on similar data compiled by Armour, Deakin, Lele and Siems in five other countries (France, Germany, India, the UK and the US) for the period 1970 to 2005, we compare changes in the level of protection afforded to Australian shareholders and creditors with developments in other countries. Our analysis finds that in Australia there was a sustained upward trend in shareholder protection, but not in the case of creditor protection. Compared to the five other countries, the level of protection afforded to shareholders under Australian law was relatively high, and this was the case for the level of protection afforded to creditors as well. We also examine the extent of convergence and divergence in shareholder and creditor protection among the countries in the study. We find persistent divergence in shareholder protection, with the extent of divergence in 2005 similar to that in 1970. For creditor protection, we find increasing divergence among the countries over the period of study. Our findings are not supportive of legal origins theory.
-
ItemShareholder and creditor protection in Australia: A leximetric analysis(Lawbook Co., 2012)This article utilises leximetric analysis, which involves the numerical coding of the strength of legal protections, to show changes in levels of shareholder and creditor protection in Australia for the period 1970 to 2010. This form of analysis, originally developed by La Porta et al, and subsequently used by many scholars in different legal fields, allows for the production of graphs which illustrate changes to the law, reducing complexities and allowing for comparisons of shareholder and creditor protection. The data show levels of shareholder protection have increased, most notably against actions of the board of directors rather than against other shareholders. In contrast, levels of creditor protection have been relatively stable. The article explores how and why these developments in shareholder and creditor protection have occurred. The research also identifies that for most of the 40-year period of study, there was a positive correlation between shareholder and creditor protection. However, this is no longer the case for recent years and possible explanations for this finding are identified.