Acharya, Viral, Philippon, Thomas, Richardson, Matthew and Roubini, Nouriel, ‘The Financial Crisis of 2007–2009: Causes and Remedies’ (2009) 18 Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments 89–137.Google Scholar

Afsharipour, Afra, ‘Rising Multinationals: Law and the Evolution of Outbound Acquisitions by Indian Companies’ (2011) 44 UC Davis Law Review 1029–1089.Google Scholar

Afsharipour, Afra, ‘A Shareholders’ Put Option: Counteracting the Acquirer Overpayment Problem’ (2012) 96 Minnesota Law Review 1018–1099.Google Scholar

Allen, Franklin, Chakrabarti, Rajesh and De, Sankar, ‘India’s Financial System’ (2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1261244, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Allen, William T., Kraakman, Reinier and Subramanian, Guhan, Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organizations, 4th edn, Aspen Casebook Series (New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2012).Google Scholar

American Law Institute, Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations (American Law Institute, 1994).Google Scholar

Amran, Nur Afza and Ahmad, Ayoib Che, ‘Effects of Ownership Structure on Malaysian Companies Performance’ (2013) 4 Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance 51–60.Google Scholar

Andrade, Gregor, Mitchell, Mark and Stafford, Erik, ‘New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers’ (2001) 15 Journal of Economic Perspectives 103–120.Google Scholar

Andre, Gregory R., ‘Tender Offers for Corporate Control: A Critical Analysis and Proposals for Reform’ (1987) 12 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 865–910.Google Scholar

Andrews, William D., ‘The Stockholder’s Right to Equal Opportunity in the Sale of Shares’ (1965) 78 Harvard Law Review 505–563.Google Scholar

Armour, John and Gordon, Jeffrey N., ‘The Berle-Means Corporation in the 21st Century’, Yale Law School Working Papers available at www.law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Armour_BerleMeansCorp091021.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Armour, John and Lele, Priya, ‘Law, Finance, and Politics: The Case of India’ (2009) 43 Law & Society Review 491–526.Google Scholar

Armour, John and Skeel, David A. Jr, ‘Who Writes the Rules for Hostile Takeovers, and Why? The Peculiar Divergence of US and UK Takeover Regulation’ (2007) 95 Georgetown Law Journal 1727–1794.Google Scholar

Armour, John, Black, Bernard S., Cheffins, Brian R. and Nolan, Richard, ‘Private Enforcement of Corporate Law: An Empirical Comparison of the UK and US’ (2009) 6 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 687–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Armour, John, Jacobs, Jack B. and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘The Evolution of Hostile Takeover Regimes in Developed and Emerging Markets: An Analytical Framework’ (2011) 52 Harvard International Law Journal 219–285.Google Scholar

Armson, Emma, ‘The Australian Takeovers Panel: Commercial Body or Quasi-Court?’ (2004) 28 Melbourne University Law Review 565–588.Google Scholar

Armson, Emma, ‘The Australian Takeovers Panel and Judicial Review of its Decisions’ (2005) 26 Adelaide Law Review 327–358.Google Scholar

Armson, Emma, ‘An Empirical Study of the First Five Years of the Takeovers Panel’ (2005) 27 Sydney Law Review 665–682.Google Scholar

Armson, Emma, ‘Evolution of Australian Takeover Legislation’ (2013) 39 Monash University Law Review 654–701.Google Scholar

Armson, Emma, ‘The Frustrating Action Policy: Shifting Power in the Takeover Context’ (2003) 21 Company and Securities Law Journal 487–506.Google Scholar

Armson, Emma, ‘Lessons for the Australian Takeovers Panel from the United Kingdom’ (2014) 29 Australian Journal of Corporate Law 295–321.Google Scholar

Aronson, Bruce E., ‘Japan Corporate Governance Reform: A Comparative Perspective’ (2015) 11 Hastings Business Law Journal 85–118.Google Scholar

Aronson, Bruce E., ‘The Olympus Scandal and Corporate Governance Reform, Can Japan Find a Middle Ground Between the Board Monitoring Model and Management Model?’ (2012) 30 UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 93–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atanasov, Vladimir, Black, Bernard, Ciccotello, Conrad and Gyoshev, Stanley, ‘How does Law Affect Finance? An Examination of Equity Tunneling in Bulgaria’ (2010) 96 Journal of Financial Economics 155–173.Google Scholar

Austin, Robert P. ‘The Courts and the Panel After 10 Years’ in Hill, Jennifer and Austin, Robert P. (eds), The Takeover Panel After 10 Years (Sydney: Ross Parsons Centre of Commercial Corporate and Taxation Law in Publication Series, 2011), pp. 131–146.Google Scholar

Bainbridge, Stephen M., Mergers and Acquisitions, 3rd edn (New York: Foundation Press 2012).Google Scholar

Balasubramanian, Bala N. and Ramaswamy, Anand, ‘Ownership Trends in Corporate India 2001–2011: Evidence and Implications’, Working Paper No. 419, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2303684, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Bälz, Moritz, Dernauer, Marc, Heath, Christopher and Petersen-Padberg, Anja (eds), Business Law in Japan – Cases and Comments (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2012).Google Scholar

Banaji, Jairus, ‘Thwarting the market for corporate control: takeover regulation in India’ (2005), http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/10920/1/QEH_banaji.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Barca, Fabrizio and Becht, Marco, The Control of Corporate Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

Barker, Roger and Chiu, Iris, ‘Protecting Minority Shareholders in Blockholder-Controlled Companies – Evaluating the UK’s Enhanced Listing Regime in Comparison with Investor Protection Regimes in New York and Hong Kong’ (2014) 10 Capital Markets Law Journal 98–132.Google Scholar

Bates, Thomas W., Lemmon, Michael L. and Linck, James S., ‘Shareholder Wealth Effects and Bid Negotiation in Freeze-Out Deals: Are Minority Shareholders Left Out in the Cold?’ (2006) 81 Journal of Financial Economics 681–708.Google Scholar

Baum, Harald, ‘Takeover Law in the EU and Germany: Comparative Analysis of a Regulatory Model’ (2006) 3 University of Tokyo Journal of Law and Policy 60–72.Google Scholar

Bebchuk, Lucian A., ‘The Case for Facilitating Competing Tender Offers’ (1982) 95 Harvard Law Review 1028–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bebchuk, Lucian A., ‘Why Firms Adopt Antitakeover Arrangements’ (2003) 152 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 713–753.Google Scholar

Bebchuk, Lucian A., ‘The Pressure to Tender: An Analysis and a Proposed Remedy’ (1987) 12 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 911–949.Google Scholar

Bebchuk, Lucian A. and Ferrell, Allen, ‘Federalism and Corporate Law: The Race to Protect Managers from Takeovers’ (1999) 99 Columbia Law Review 1168–1199.Google Scholar

Bebchuk, Lucian A. and Kahan, Marcel, ‘The “Lemons Effect” in Corporate Freeze-Outs’, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 6938 (1999) 2.Google Scholar

Becht, Marco, Polo, Andrea and Rossi, Stefano, ‘Does Mandatory Shareholder Voting Prevent Bad Acquisitions?’ (2016) 29 Review of Financial Studies 3035–3067.Google Scholar

Bertrand, Marianne, Mehta, Paras and Mullainathan, Sendhil, ‘Ferreting out Tunneling: An Application to Indian Business Groups’ (2002) 117 Quarterly Journal of Economics 121–148.Google Scholar

Betton, Sandra, Eckbo, B. Espen and Thorburn, Karin S., ‘Corporate Takeovers’ in Eckbo, B. Espen (ed.), Handbook of Corporate Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2008).Google Scholar

Betton, Sandra, Eckbo, B. Espen and Thorburn, Karin S. ‘Merger Negotiations and the Toehold Puzzle’ (2009) 91 Journal of Financial Economics 158–178.Google Scholar

Boone, Audra, Broughman, Brian and Macias, Antonio, ‘The Cost of Supermajority Target Shareholder Approval: Mergers versus Tender Offers’ (2016) Indiana Legal Studies, Research Paper No. 331, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar

Booth, Richard A., ‘The Real Problem with Appraisal Arbitrage’, Villanova Law/Public Policy Research Paper No. 2016–1026 (7 September 2016), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2836093, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Bruner, Christopher M., Corporate Governance in the Common-Law World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Bruner, Robert, ‘Does M&A Pay? A Survey of Evidence for the Decision-Maker’ (2002) 12 Journal of Applied Finance 48–68.Google Scholar

Buchanan, John, Chai, Dominic Heesang and Deakin, Simon, Hedge Fund Activism in Japan: The Limits of Shareholder Primacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Bull, Martin and Rhodes, Martin (eds), Italy: A Contested Polity (London: Routledge, 2009).Google Scholar

Bulow, Jeremy, Huang, Ming and Klemperer, Paul, ‘Toeholds and Takeovers’ (1999) 107 Journal of Political Economy 427–454.Google Scholar

Burkart, Mike, ‘Initial Shareholdings and Overbidding in Takeover Contests’ (1995) 50 Journal of Finance 1491–1515.Google Scholar

Burkart, Mike and Panunzi, Fausto, ‘Mandatory Bids, Squeeze-Out, Sell-Out and the Dynamics of the Tender Offer Process’ in Ferrarini, Guido, Hopt, Klaus J., Winter, Jaap and Wymeersch, Eddy (eds), Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 737–765.Google Scholar

Cai, Wei, ‘An Efficiency Approach to the Mandatory Bid Rule’ (2013) 4 Peking University Law Journal 847–859.Google Scholar

Cai, Wei, ‘The Mandatory Bid Rule in China’ (2011) 12 European Business Organization Law Review 653–680.Google Scholar

Cain, Matthew D. and Davidoff, Steven M., ‘Delaware’s Competitive Reach’ (2012) 9 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 92.Google Scholar

Cain, Matthew D. and Davidoff, Steven M., ‘Form Over Substance? The Value of Corporate Process and Management Buy-Outs’ (2011) 36 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 849–902.Google Scholar

Cannon, Kimble C. and Tangney, Patrick J., ‘Protection of Minority Shareholder Rights under Delaware Law: Reinforcing Shareholders as Residual Claimants and Maximizing Long-Term Share Value by Restricting Directorial Discretion’ (1995) Columbia Business Law Review 725–784.Google Scholar

Carney, Richard W. and Child, Travers Barclay, ‘Changes to the Ownership and Control of East Asian Corporations between 1996 and 2008’ (2013) 107 Journal of Financial Economics 494–513.Google Scholar

Chakravarty, Vikram and Chua, Soon Ghee, Asian Mergers and Acquisitions: Riding the Wave (Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, 2012).Google Scholar

Chandrachud, Abhinav, ‘The Emerging Market for Corporate Control in India: Assessing (and Devising) Shark Repellents for India’s Regulatory Environment’ (2011) 10 Washington University Global Studies Law Review 187–238.Google Scholar

Chang, Hong Yun and Teo, Wai Sum, GLI-Mergers & Acquisitions, 2nd edn (London: Global Legal Group, 2013).Google Scholar

Cheffins, Brian R., Corporate Ownership and Control, British Business Transformed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Cheffins, Brian R., ‘Putting Britain on the Roe Map: The Emergence of the Berle-Means Corporation in the United Kingdom’ in McCahery, Joseph A., Moerland, Piet, Raaijmakers, Theo and Renneboog, Luc (eds), Corporate Governance Regimes: Convergence and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chen-Wishart, Mindy, Loke, Alexander and Ong, Burton, Studies in the Contract Laws of Asia I: Remedies for Breach of Contract (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar

Chen, Jinping, ‘Empirical Studies on Control Transactions of Listed Companies’ (2005) 12 Securities Market Herald 35.Google Scholar

Chen, Juan, ‘Innovation, Reform, and Future: An Analysis of the 2014 Reform of China’s M&A Regime’, Shenzhen Stock Exchange Research Report Series (25 December 2014).Google Scholar

Chen, Juan, Regulating the Takeover of Chinese Listed Companies (Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2014).Google Scholar

Choong, Hong Huan, Huang, Yi Lin Emily, Sai, Sing Tzeh, Wong, Huey Miin and Yeow, Chai Ting, ‘The Impact of Ownership Concentration and Board Governance on Firm Performance: Malaysian Public Listed Property Companies’, unpublished, research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the Degree of Bachelor of Business Administration (Hons) Banking and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman Faculty of Business and Finance Department of Finance (April 2014), http://eprints.utar.edu.my/1281/1/BF-2014-1004552.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Chu, Te-Fang, ‘效率、併購與公司治理—以敵意併購法規範圍核心’ [‘Efficiency, Takeover and Corporate Governance: From the Perspective of Hostile Takeover Legislation in Taiwan’] (2006) 17 Chung Yuan Financial & Economic Law Review 195–259.Google Scholar

Chun, K. H., ‘Distinctive Features of M&As in Korea and their Legal Implications’ (in Korean) (2011) 56 Advanced Commercial Law Review 133–168.Google Scholar

Claessens, Stijn, Djankov, Simeon and Lang, Larry H.P., ‘The Separation of Ownership and Control in East Asian Corporations’ (2000) 58 Journal of Financial Economics 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Robert C., Corporate Law, Textbook Treatise Series (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1986).Google Scholar

Coates, John C. IV, ‘Measuring the Domain of Mediating Hierarchy: How Contestable Are U.S. Public Corporations?’ (1999) 24 Journal of Corporation Law 837.Google Scholar

Coates, John C. IV, ‘M&A Break Fees: US Litigation vs. UK Regulation’ in Kessler, Daniel P. (ed.), Regulation versus Litigation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 239–284.Google Scholar

Coates, John C. IV, ‘Mergers, Acquisitions, and Restructuring: Types, Regulation, and Patterns of Practice’ in Gordon, Jeffrey N. and Ringe, Wolf-Georg (eds), Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017 forthcoming).Google Scholar

Coates, John C. IV, ‘“Fair Value” as an Avoidable Rule of Corporate Law: Minority Discounts in Conflict Transactions’ (1999) 147 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1251–1359.Google Scholar

Coffee, John C. Jr, ‘Regulating the Market for Corporate Control: A Critical Assessment of the Tender Offer’s Role in Corporate Governance’ (1984) 84 Columbia Law Review 1145–1296.Google Scholar

Coffee, John C. Jr, ‘The Rise of Dispersed Ownership: The Roles of Law and the State in the Separation of Ownership and Control’ (2001) 111 Yale Law Journal 1–82.Google Scholar

Coffee, John C. Jr, ‘Systemic Risk After Dodd-Frank: Contingent Capital and the Need for Regulatory Strategies Beyond Oversight’ (2011) 111 Columbia Law Review 795–847.Google Scholar

Cooke, Stephen, ‘To-may-to To-mah-to: 10 Surprises For A US Bidder On A UK Takeover’, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (4 April 2014), corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/04/to-may-to-to-mah-to-10-surprises-for-a-us-bidder-on-a-uk-takeover, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Costi, Renzo, ‘Intervento al Seminario “Voto Maggiorato, Voto Plurimo e Modifiche OPA”’ (2015) 42 Giurisprudenza Commerciale 225–229.Google Scholar

Corporate Law Economic Reform Program, ‘Takeovers — Corporate Control: A Better Environment for Productive Investment’ (Paper No. 4, 1997).Google Scholar

Croci, Ettore and Petmezas, Dimitris, ‘Minority Shareholders’ Wealth Effects and Stock Market Development: Evidence from Increase-In-Ownership M&As’ (2010) 34 Journal of Banking and Finance 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dasgupta, Sudipto and Tsui, Kevin, ‘A “Matching Auction” for Targets with Heterogeneous Bidders’ (2003) 12 Journal of Financial Intermediation 331–364.Google Scholar

Davies, Paul, ‘Control Shifts via Share Acquisition Contracts with Shareholders (Takeovers)’ in Gordon, Jeffery and Ringe, Wolf-Georg (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2017), ch 23.Google Scholar

Davies, Paul, ‘The Notion of Equality in European Takeover Regulation’ in Payne, Jennifer (ed.) Takeovers in English and German Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002).Google Scholar

Davies, Paul and Hopt, Klaus, ‘Control Transactions’ in Kraakman, Reinier et al., The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 225–273.Google Scholar

Davies, Paul and Hopt, Klaus, ‘Control Transactions’ in Kraakman, Reinier, Armour, John, Davies, Paul et al., Anatomy of Corporate Law, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Davies, Paul and Worthington, Sarah, Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law, 10th edn (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2016).Google Scholar

Davies, Paul, Schuster, Edmund-Philipp and Van de Walle de Ghelcke, Emilie, ‘The Takeover Directive as a Protectionist Tool?’ in Bernitz, Ulf and Ringe, Wolf-Georg (eds), Company Law and Economic Protectionism: New Challenges to European Integration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 105–160.Google Scholar

Davis, Gerald F., Diekmann, Kristina A. and Tinsley, Catherine H., ‘The Decline and Fall of the Conglomerate Firm in the 1980s: The Deinstitutionalization of an Organizational Form’ (1994) American Sociological Review 59(4), 547–570.Google Scholar

DePamphilis, Donald, Mergers, Acquisitions, and Other Restructuring Activities: An Integrated Approach to Process, Tools, Cases, and Solutions, 6th edn (Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India, ‘Consolidated FDI Policy’ (2015), http://dipp.nic.in/English/policies/FDI_Circular_2015.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Dieleman, Marleen, Shim, Jungwook and Ibrahim, Muhammad, ‘Asian Family Firms: Success and Succession; A Study of SGX –listed Family Firms’, Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations, National University of Singapore Business School and DBS (2011), bschool.nus.edu/Portals/0/images/CGIO/Report/Asian%20Family%20Business%20Report.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Dixon, Rosalind and Ginsburg, Tom, Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2014).Google Scholar

Donald, David. C., A Financial Centre for Two Empires: Hong Kong’s Corporate, Securities and Tax Laws in its Transition from Britain to China (International Corporate Law and Financial Market Regulation) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donald, Donald C., ‘Bridging Finance without Fragmentation: A Comparative Look at Market Connectivity in the US, Europe and Asia’ (2015) 16 European Business Organization Law Review 173–201.Google Scholar

Easterbrook, Frank H. and Fischel, Daniel R., ‘Corporate Control Transactions’ (1982) 91 Yale Law Journal 698–737.Google Scholar

Easterbrook, Frank H. and Fischel, Daniel R., The Economic Structure of Corporate Law (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

Easterbrook, Frank H. and Fischel, Daniel R., ‘The Proper Role of a Target’s Management in Responding to a Tender Offer’ (1981) 94 Harvard Law Review 1161–1204.Google Scholar

Eddey, Peter, ‘Independent Expert’s Reports in Takeover Bids’ (1993) 33(1) Accounting and Finance 1–18.Google Scholar

Enriques, Luca, ‘Company Law Harmonization Reconsidered: What Role for the EC’, ECGI — Law Working Paper No. 53/2005, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=850005, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Enriques, Luca, ‘The Mandatory Bid Rule in the Proposed EC Takeover Directive: Harmonization as Rent-Seeking?’ in in Ferrarini, Guido, Hopt, Klaus J., Winter, Jaap and Wymeersch, Eddy (eds), Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 767–795.Google Scholar

Enriques, Luca and Gatti, Matteo, ‘Creeping Acquisitions in Europe: Enabling Companies to Be Better Safe than Sorry’ (2015) 15 Journal of Corporate Law Studies 55–101.Google Scholar

Enriques, Luca, Gilson, Ronald J. and Pacces, Alessio M., ‘The Case for an Unbiased Takeover Law (With an Application to the European Union)’ (2014) 4 Harvard Business Law Review 85–127.Google Scholar

Ettinger, David, ‘Takeover Contests, Toeholds and Deterrence’ (2009) 111 The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 103–124.Google Scholar

Eum, S. J., ‘A Status of Various Defensive Measures in Domestic Listed Companies’ (in Korean) (2013) 71 Corporate Governance Review 70–88.Google Scholar

Expert Counsel, Finance and Economy Division of the National Assembly of Korea, ‘The Review Report on the Securities Exchange Act Reform Bill (No. 150967)’ (in Korean) (1998), http://likms.assembly.go.kr/bms_svc/img_attach2/15/doc_20/150967_20.PDF, last accessed 3 March 2017.Google Scholar

Falkner, Robert, ‘Non-Statutory Takeover Panel: Advantage or Anachronism?’ (1990) 9 International Financial Law Review 15–17.Google Scholar

Farrer, Jonathan, ‘Reforming Australia’s Takeover Defence Laws: What Role for Target Directors?’ (1997) 8 Australian Journal of Corporate Law 1–24.Google Scholar

Faung, Kai-Lin et al., 管理層收購法律規範理論與實務 [M&A Laws in East Asia, Management Buyouts: Theory and Practice] (Taipei: 元照Yuan Chao, 2014).Google Scholar

Ferrarini, Guido and Miller, Geoffrey P., ‘A Simple Theory of Takeover Regulation in the United States and Europe’ (2009) 42 Cornell International Law Journal 301–334.Google Scholar

Ferris, George M., ‘A Study of the Securities Market in Singapore and Malaysia’ (Ferris Report) (1970) IESC Project 2067.Google Scholar

Fisch, Jill E., ‘Imprudent Power: Reconsidering U.S. Regulation of Foreign Tender Offers’ (1993) 87 Northwestern University Law Review 523–575.Google Scholar

Fischel, Daniel R., ‘Efficient Capital Market Theory, the Market for Corporate Control, and the Regulation of Cash Tender Offers’ (1978) 57 Texas Law Review, 1–46.Google Scholar

Fishman, Michael J. ‘A Theory of Preemptive Takeover Bidding’ (1988) 19 The Rand Journal of Economics 88–101.Google Scholar

Fleischer, Arthur Jr, and Sussman, Alexander R., ‘Directors’ Fiduciary Duties in Takeovers and Mergers’ in Fleischer, Arthur Jr and Sussman, Alexander R. (eds), Takeover Defense: Mergers and Acquisitions, 7th edn (New York: Wolters Kluwer/Aspen, 2015), ch. 3.Google Scholar

Franks, Julian and Harris, Robert, ‘Shareholder Wealth Effects of Corporate Takeovers: The UK Experience 1955–1985’ (1989) 23 Journal of Financial Economics 225–249.Google Scholar

Franks, Julian, Mayer, Colin and Miyajima, Hideaki, ‘The Ownership of Japanese Corporations in the 20th Century’ (2014) 27 The Review of Financial Studies 2580–2625.Google Scholar

Friedlander, David and Flinn, Hayden, ‘Public Takeovers and Mergers in Hong Kong’ (2011) 24 SPG International Law Practicum 54–57.Google Scholar

Fujita, Tomotaka, ‘The Takeover Regulation in Japan: Peculiar Developments in the Mandatory Offer Rule’ (2011) 3 University of Tokyo Soft Law Review 24–41.Google Scholar

Geoffrey, Shanti, Capital Market Laws of Malaysia (Malaysia: LexisNexis, 2010).Google Scholar

Georgen, Marc, Martynova, Marina and Renneboog, Luc, ‘Corporate Governance Convergence: Evidence from Takeover Regulation Reforms’ (2005) 21 Oxford Review of Economic Policy 243–268.Google Scholar

Gerner-Beuerle, Carsten, Kershaw, David and Solinas, Matteo, ‘Is the Board Neutrality Rule Trivial? Amnesia about Corporate Law in European Takeover Regulation’ (2011) 22 European Business Law Review 559–622.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J., ‘Controlling Shareholders and Corporate Governance: Complicating the Comparative Taxonomy’ (2006) 119 Harvard Law Review 1641–1679.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J., ‘Globalizing Corporate Governance: Convergence of Form or Function’ in Gordon, Jeffrey and Roe, Mark J. (eds), Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 128–158.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J., ‘The Poison Pill in Japan: The Missing Infrastructure’ (2004) Columbia Business Law Review 21–44.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J., ‘Reflections in a Distant Mirror: Japanese Corporate Governance Through American Eyes’ (1998) Columbia Business Law Review 203–221.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J., ‘A Structural Approach to Corporations: The Case Against Defensive Tactics in Tender Offers’ (1981) 33 Stanford Law Review 819–891.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J., ‘Unocal Fifteen Years Later (and What We Can Do About It)’ (2001) 26 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 491–513.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J. and Gordon, Jeffrey N., ‘The Agency Costs of Agency Capitalism: Activist Investors and the Revaluation of Governance Rights’ (2013) 113 Columbia Law Review 863–928.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J. and Gordon, Jeffrey N., ‘Controlling Controlling Shareholders’ (2003) 152 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 785–843.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J. and Roe, Mark J., ‘Lifetime Employment: Labor Peace and the Evolution of Japanese Corporate Governance’ (1999) 99 Columbia Law Review 508–540.Google Scholar

Gilson, Ronald J. and Roe, Mark J., ‘Understanding the Japanese Keiretsu: Overlaps Between Corporate Governance and Industrial Organization’ (1993) 102 Yale Law Journal 871–906.Google Scholar

Givens, Stephen, ‘Looking Through the Wrong End of the Telescope: The Japanese Judicial Response to Steel Partners, Murakami, and Horie’ (2011) 88 Washington University Law Review 1571–1599.Google Scholar

Goergen, Marc and Renneboog, Luc, ‘Shareholder Wealth Effects of European Domestic and Cross-border Takeover Bids’ (2004) 10 European Financial Management 9–45.Google Scholar

Goldman, Eitan and Qian, Jun, ‘Optimal Toeholds in Takeover Contests’ (2005) 77 Journal of Financial Economics 321–346.Google Scholar

Gordon, Jeffery N., ‘An American Perspective on Anti-Takeover Laws in the EU’ in Ferrarini, Guido, Hopt, Klaus, Winter, Jaap et al. (eds), Reforming Company and Takeover Law in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 541–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gordon, Jeffrey N., ‘The Rise of Independent Directors in the United States, 1950–2005: Of Shareholder Value and Stock Market Prices’ (2007) 59 Stanford Law Review 1465–1568.Google Scholar

Gordon, Jeffrey N. and Ringe, Wolf-Georg (eds), Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017 forthcoming).Google Scholar

Goto, Gen, ‘Legally “Strong” Shareholders of Japan’ (2014) 3 Michigan Journal of Private Equity and Venture Capital Law 125–164.Google Scholar

Goto, Gen, Matsunaka, Manabu and Kozuka, Souichirou, ‘Japan’s Gradual Reception of Independent Directors: An Empirical and Political-Economic Analysis’ in Dan W. Puchniak, Harald Baum and Luke R. Nottage (eds), Independent Directors in Asia: A Historical, Contextual and Comparative Approach (Cambridge University Press, in press).Google Scholar

Green, John, ‘Are Fairness Reports Worth It?’ (1991) 94 Companies and Securities Bulletin 2–11.Google Scholar

Guanghua Management School of Peking University, ‘Takeover Defensive Measures and Regulation, Research Program of Shenzhen Stock Exchange, http://biz.sse.com.cn/cs/zhs/xxfw/jysjs/sseResearch/2003-2/20032c.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Haas, Steven M., ‘Toward a Controlling Shareholder Safe Harbor’ (2004) 90 Virginia Law Review 2245–2304.Google Scholar

Haley, J. O., ‘Career Employment, Corporate Governance and Japanese Exceptionalism’, Faculty Working Papers Series, Paper No. 04-04-01, Washington University (2004).Google Scholar

Hamermesh, Lawrence A., ‘Premiums in Stock-For-Stock Mergers and Some Consequences in the Law of Director Fiduciary Duties’ (2003) 152 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 881–915.Google Scholar

Hamermesh, Lawrence A. and Wachter, Michael L., ‘The Fair Value of Cornfields in Delaware Appraisal Law’ (2005) 31 Journal of Corporation Law 119–166.Google Scholar

Hansen, Jesper Lau, ‘When Less Would Be More: The EU Takeover Directive in its Latest Apparition’ (2003) 9 Columbia Journal of European Law 275–298.Google Scholar

Hansen, Robert G. ‘Auctions of Companies’ (2001) 39 Economic Inquiry 30–43.Google Scholar

Hermalin, Benjamin and Schwartz, Alan, ‘Buyouts in Large Companies’ (1996) 25 Journal of Legal Studies 351–370.Google Scholar

Hertig, Gerard and McCahery, Joseph A. ‘Company and Takeover Law Reforms in Europe: Misguided Harmonization Efforts or Regulatory Competition?’ (2003), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=438421, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Hines, Christopher T., Tanigawa, Tatsuya and Hughes, Andrew P., ‘Doing Deals in Japan: An Analysis of Recent Trends and Developments for the U.S. Practitioner’ (2006) Columbia Business Law Review 355–441.Google Scholar

Holmstrom, Bengt and Kaplan, Steven N., ‘Corporate Governance and Merger Activity in the US: Making Sense of the 1980s and 1990s’ (2001) 15:2 Journal of Economic Perspectives 121–144.Google Scholar

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd (HKEx), ‘Consultation Conclusions to Concept Paper on Weighted Voting Rights’ (June 2015), www.hkex.com.hk/eng/newsconsul/mktconsul/Documents/cp2014082cc.pdf., last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd (HKEx), ‘Fact Book 2014’ (2014) 17, 30, www.hkex.com.hk/eng/stat/statrpt/factbook/factbook2014/Documents/FB_2014.pdf., last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Hopt, Klaus J. ‘European Takeover Reform of 2012/2013: Time to Re-Examine the Mandatory Bid’ (2014) 15 European Business Organization Law Review 143–190.Google Scholar

Houle, France and Sossin, Lorne, ‘Tribunals And Policy-Making: From Legitimacy To Fairness’ in Laverne A. Jacobs and Anne L. Mactavish (eds), Dialogue Between Courts And Tribunals – Essays In Administrative Law and Justice (2001–2007), papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2332875#page=358, last accessed 31 October 2016, pp. 93–156.Google Scholar

Hsu, Chang-Yuan, et al., ‘控制權與盈餘分配權偏離之衡量’ [‘Evaluating the Divergence between Control and Cash Flow Rights’] (2003) 42 Money Watching & Credit Rating 15–31.Google Scholar

Huang, Hui, Securities and Capital Markets Law in China (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

International Organization of Securities Commissioners (IOSCO), ‘Takeover Regulation in the Jurisdictions of some IOSCO EMC Members’ (January 2006), www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD210.pdf., last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Ishak, Zuaini and Napier, Christopher, ‘Expropriation of minority interests and corporate diversification in Malaysia’ (2006) 2 Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance 85–113.Google Scholar

Ito, Takatoshi, The Japanese Economy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992).Google Scholar

Jain, Suneela, Klingsberg, Ethan and Whoriskey, Neil, ‘Examining Data Points in Minority Buy-Outs: A Practitioners’ Report’ (2011) 36 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 939–966.Google Scholar

Jackson, Howell E. and Roe, Mark J., ‘Public and Private Enforcement of Securities Laws: Resource-Based Evidence’ (2009) 93 Journal of Financial Economics 207–238.Google Scholar

Jensen, Michael C., ‘The Takeover Controversy: Analysis and Evidence’ in Coffee, John C. Jr et al. (eds), Knights, Raiders, and Targets, The Impact of the Hostile Takeover (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 314–354.Google Scholar

Jensen, Michael C., ‘Takeovers: Their Causes and Consequences’ (1988) 2 Journal of Economic Perspectives 21–48.Google Scholar

Jensen, Michael C. and Ruback, Richard S., ‘The Market for Corporate Control, The Scientific Evidence’ (1983) 11 Journal of Financial Economics 5–50.Google Scholar

Jindra, Paul M., ‘Securities Fraud in Singapore: China and the Challenge of Deterrence’ (2012) 51 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 120–176.Google Scholar

Johnson, Calvin H., ‘The Disloyalty of Stock and Stock Option Compensation’ (2004–2005) 11 Connecticut Insurance Law Journal 133–168.Google Scholar

Johnston, Alexander, The City Takeover Code (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

Johnston, Alexander, ‘Takeover Regulation: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on the City Code’ (2007) 66 Cambridge Law Journal 422–460.Google Scholar

Kahan, Marcel and Kamar, Ehud, ‘The Myth of State Competition in Corporate Law’ (2002) 55 Stanford Law Review 679–749.Google Scholar

Kahan, Marcel and Rock, Edward B., ‘How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Pill: Adaptive Responses to Takeover Law’ (2002) 69 University of Chicago Law Review 871–915.Google Scholar

Kamar, Ehud, ‘A Regulatory Competition Theory of Indeterminacy in Corporate Law’ (1998) 98 Columbia Law Review 1908–1959.Google Scholar

Kamar, Ehud, Karaca-Mandic, Pinar and Talley, Eric, ‘Going-Private Decisions and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: A Cross-Country Analysis’ (2009) 25 Journal of Law, Economics, and Organisation 107–133.Google Scholar

Kamiya, Mitsuhiro and Ito, Tokutaka, ‘Corporate governance at the coalface: Comparing Japan’s complex case law on hostile takeovers and defensive measures’ in Nottage, Luke, Wolff, Leon and Anderson, Kent (eds), Corporate Governance in the 21st Century: Japan’s Gradual Transformation (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2008), pp. 178–196.Google Scholar

Kanda, Hideki, ‘Corporate Governance in Japanese Law: Recent Trends and Issues’ (2015) 11 Hastings Business Law Journal 68–84.Google Scholar

Kanzaki, K., Shitani, M. and Kawaguchi, Y. Kinyū shōhin torihiki hō [Financial Instruments and Exchange Act] (Japan: Seirinshoin, 2012).Google Scholar

Karmel, Roberta S., ‘Transnational Takeover Talk-Regulations Relating to Tender Offers and Insider Trading in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia’ (1998) 66 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1133–1177.Google Scholar

Kenyon-Slade, Stephen, Mergers and Takeovers in the US and UK Law and Practices (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Kershaw, David, ‘The Illusion of Importance: Reconsidering the UK’s Takeover Defence Prohibition’ (2007) 56 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 267–307.Google Scholar

Kester, W. Carl, Japanese Takeovers (Washington, D.C.: Beard Books, 1991).Google Scholar

Khan, Mushera A., ‘An Analysis of Mandatory Bid Rule in Malaysia and the Proposed Mandatory Bid Rule in Australia’ [2007] LAWASIA Journal 33–50.Google Scholar

Khan, Mushera A., A Guide to Malaysian Takeovers and Mergers Law (Malaysia: Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2013).Google Scholar

Khan, Mushera A., ‘Shareholders’ Protection Through the Enhanced Independent Advice Circular’ [2011] The Law Review 17–34.Google Scholar

Khan, Mushera A., ‘Unacceptable Circumstances in Takeovers’ [2010] 6 Malayan Law Journal, cli–clxiv.Google Scholar

Khan, Mushera A. and Abdul Rahman, Ahmad Nazim, ‘Compulsory Share Acquisition: Australian Lessons for Malaysian Regulation’ [2004] 1 MLJ i-iv.Google Scholar

Khan, Mushera A., Azza, Isma M. and David, Sharon M., ‘Efficient, Informed and Competitive Market: The Malaysian Regulation on Takeovers and Mergers of Companies’ (2013) 4 The Law Review 630–633.Google Scholar

Khan, Mushera A., Hamdan, Nur Nadiah and Jabbar, Nur Hafiza Ab, ‘Independent Advice Circular in Corporate Exercises: Revisiting the Law on Fairness Opinion’ [2014] 22 IIUM Law Journal 44–47.Google Scholar

Khanna, Tarun and Yafeh, Yishay, ‘Business Groups in Emerging Markets: Paragons or Parasites?’ (2007) 45 Journal of Economic Literature 331–372Google Scholar

Khanna, Vikramaditya, ‘The Growth of the Fiduciary Duty Class Actions for Freeze Out Mergers: Weinberger v. UOP, Inc.’ in Macey, Jonathan R. (ed.), The Iconic Cases in Corporate Law (St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2009), pp. 193–208.Google Scholar

Khanna, Vikramaditya and Varottil, Umakanth, ‘Regulating Squeeze Outs in India: A Comparative Perspective’ (2015) 63 American Journal of Comparative Law 1009–1051.Google Scholar

Kim, and Chang, , ‘M&A in Korea – A Year in Review and Outlook’ (30 January 2015), www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/international_law/2015/03/2015%20Asia%20Forum/bestpractices1.authcheckdam.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Kim, K. S. and Chun, K. H., ‘Research on the Limitations to the Voting Rights of Circularly Held Shares’ (in Korean), Research Project Report to the Ministry of Justice (2012).Google Scholar

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), ‘Analysis on the Business Combination Report and their Trends’ (in Korean) (26 February 2015), www.ftc.go.kr/news/ftc/reportView.jsp?report_data_no=6116, last accessed 3 March 2017.Google Scholar

Korsmo, Charles R. and Myers, Minor, ‘Appraisal Arbitrage and the Future of Public Company M&A’ (2015) 92 Washington University Law Review 1551–1615.Google Scholar

Kraakman, Reinier, ‘Taking Discounts Seriously: The Implications of ‘Discounted’ Share Prices as an Acquisition Motive’ (1988) 88 Columbia Law Review 891–941.Google Scholar

Kraakman, Reinier, Armour, John and Davies, Paul et al., The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Kraakman, Reinier, Armour, John and Davies, Paul The Anatomy of Corporate Law, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Krause, Nils, ‘German Reorganisation Act Enables Merger Related Squeeze-out of Minority Shareholders for Shareholdings of 90 per cent’ (2011) 22 International Company and Commercial Law Review N41.Google Scholar

Krebs, Christian A., ‘Freeze-Out Transactions in Germany and the U.S.: A Comparative Analysis’ (2012) 13 German Law Journal 941–978.Google Scholar

Krishnan, Jayanth K. ‘Globetrotting Law Firms’ (2010) 23 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 57–102.Google Scholar

La Porta, Rafael, López-de-Silanes, Florencio and Shleifer, Andrei, ‘Corporate Ownership Around the World’ (1999) 54 The Journal of Finance 471–517.Google Scholar

La Porta, Rafael, López-de-Silanes, Florencio and Shleifer, Andrei, ‘What Works in Securities Laws?’ (2006) The Journal of Finance 1–32.Google Scholar

La Porta, Rafael, López-de-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei and Vishny, Robert, ‘Law and Finance’ (1998) 106 Journal of Political Economy 1113–1155.Google Scholar

La Porta, Rafael, López-de-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei and Vishny, Robert, ‘Legal Determinants of External Finance’ (1997) 42 Journal of Finance 1131–1150.Google Scholar

La Porta, Rafael, López-de-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei and Vishny, Robert ‘Investor Protection and Corporate Governance’ (2000) 58 Journal of Financial Economics 3–27.Google Scholar

Lai, In-Jaw, 最新證券交易法解析 [The Newest Analysis of Securities Exchange Law], 3rd edn (Taipei: 2014).Google Scholar

Lam, Swee-Sum, ‘Control Can Be Costly: A Lesson To Learn About Imposing Restrictions on Foreign Share Ownership’, Faculty of Business Administration Working Papers, National University of Singapore (1997).Google Scholar

Lam, Swee-Sum, ‘Restrictions on Foreign Share Ownership and its Impact on Market Capitalisation and Liquidity’ (1995) 23 Stock Exchange of Singapore Journal 4–11.Google Scholar

Lan, Chunhua, ‘Research on the Wealth Effects of Anti-takeover Announcement of Listed Companies’ (2014) 12 Caikuai Tongxun [Accounting Correspondence] 26–30.Google Scholar

Letsou, Peter V. and Haas, Steven M., ‘The Dilemma That Should Never Have Been: Minority Freeze-Outs in Delaware’ (2005) 61 The Business Lawyer 25–94.Google Scholar

Li, Bingan, A Discussion of the Exemption from the Mandatory Bid Rule, (2003) 18(6) Falu Luntan [Legal Forum] 50–56.Google Scholar

Liao, Hsiu-Mei, Lee, Jan-Zan and Wu, Shyang-Hua, ‘董事會結構特性與公司績效關係之研究－兼論台灣家族企業因素的影響’ [‘The Relationships between Board Structure and Firm Performance－And the Influence of Family Control in Taiwan Listed Company’] (2006) 54 Soochow Journal of Economics and Business 117–160.Google Scholar

Lin, Li-Wen and Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘We are the (National) Champions: Understanding the Mechanisms of State Capitalism in China’ (2013) 65 Stanford Law Review 697–759.Google Scholar

Lin, Rich and Lu, Hsiao-Yen, ‘台灣MBO相關重要規範及實務運作問題分析’ [‘MBO in Taiwan: Regulations and Practices’] (2008) 15 Financial and Economic Law Review 45–70.Google Scholar

Liu, Len-Yu, ‘企業併購時董事之受任人(受託義務)’ [‘Director’s Fiduciary Duty in Case of Business Mergers and Acquisitions’] (2011) 195 Taiwan Law Review 225–243.Google Scholar

Liu, Len-Yu, 現代公司法 [Modern Corporation Law], 10th edn (Taipei: 新學林 New Sharing, 2014).Google Scholar

Liu, Len-Yu, 新證券交易法實例研習 [Modern Securities Law: Cases and Explanations], 12th edn (Taipei: 元照Yuan Chao, 2014).Google Scholar

Loughran, Tim and Vijh, Anand M., ‘Do Long-Term Shareholders Benefit from Corporate Acquisitions?’ (1997) 52 Journal of Finance 1765–1790.Google Scholar

Loyola, Gino, ‘Auctions vs. Negotiations in Takeovers with Initial Stakes’ (2012) 9 Finance Research Letters 111–120.Google Scholar

Loyola, Gino and Portilla, Yolanda, ‘A Simple Bargaining Model on Friendly and Hostile Takeovers’, WP2014-01, Centro De Investigación Cuantitativa en Negocios, Universidad de Chile (2014), www.cqn.cl/images/wp/wp2014-01.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Lüttmann, Ruth, ‘Changes of Corporate Control and Mandatory Bids’ (1992) 12 International Review of Law and Economics 497–516.Google Scholar

Lv, Aibing, ‘Hostile Takeover and Takeover Defences surrounding ST Meiya’ (2004) 2 China Investment 106–109.Google Scholar

Mak, Yuen Teen and Li, Yuan, ‘Determinants of Corporate Ownership and Board Structure: Evidence from Singapore’ (2001) 7 Journal of Corporate Finance 235–256.Google Scholar

Manne, Henry G., ‘Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control’ (1965) 73 Journal of Political Economy 110–120.Google Scholar

Mannolini, Justin, ‘Convergence or Divergence: Is there a Role for the Eggleston Principles in a Global M&A Environment?’ (2002) 24 Sydney Law Review 336–360.Google Scholar

Marimuthu, Maran, ‘Mergers and Acquisitions: Some Empirical Evidence on Performance, Financial Characteristics and Firm Sustainability’ (2008) 3 International Journal of Business and Management 8–15.Google Scholar

Martynova, Marina and Renneboog, Luc, ‘A Century of Corporate Takeovers: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Stand?’ (2002) 32 Journal of Banking & Finance 2148–2177.Google Scholar

Martynova, Marina and Renneboog, Luc, ‘The Performance of the European Market for Corporate Control: Evidence from the Fifth Takeover Wave’ (2011) 17 European Financial Management 208–259.Google Scholar

Masulis, Ronald and Mobbs, Shawn, ‘Independent director incentives: Where do talented directors spend their limited time and energy?’ (2014) 111 Journal of Financial Economics 406–429.Google Scholar

Mathew, Shaun, ‘Hostile Takeovers in India: New Prospects, Challenges, and Regulatory Opportunities’ (2007) 3 Columbia Business Law Review 800–843.Google Scholar

Matsunaka, M., ‘Shuyō Mokuteki RUURU no Kentō (ichi)’ [‘The Primary Purpose Rule (Part 1)’] (2008) 57 Handai Hōgaku 1011.Google Scholar

Mayanja, James, ‘Reforming Australia’s Takeover Defence Laws: What Role for Target Directors? A Reply and Extension’ (1999) 10 Australian Journal of Corporate Law 162–191.Google Scholar

Maynard, Therese H., Mergers and Acquisitions: Cases and Materials, 3rd edn (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2013).Google Scholar

McCahery, Joseph A. and Renneboog, Luc, The Economics of the Proposed European Takeover Directive (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2003).Google Scholar

McHugh, Michael H., ‘The Growth of Legislation and Litigation’ (1995) 69 Australian Law Journal 37–48.Google Scholar

Miller, Chris, Campbell, Rebecca and Ramsay, Ian, ‘The Takeovers Panel: An Empirical Study’ (2006) 3 Macquarie Journal of Business Law 199–240.Google Scholar

Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘In the Shadow of Delaware? The Rise of Hostile Takeovers in Japan’ (2005) 105 Columbia Law Review 2171–2216.Google Scholar

Milhaupt, Curtis J. and West, Mark D., ‘Institutional Change and M&A in Japan: Diversity Through Deals’ (2001), http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=290744, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Miwa, Yoshiro and Ramseyer, J. Mark, ‘The Myth of the Main Bank: Japan and Comparative Corporate Governance’ (2002) 27 Law and Social Inquiry 401–424.Google Scholar

Miyajima, H. and Nitta, K., ‘Kabushiki shoyū kōzō no tayōka to sono kiketsu – Kabushiki mochiai no kaishō / “fukkatsu” to kaigai tōshika no yakuwari’ [‘Diversification of Share-Ownership Structure and its Consequences/Unwinding and “Revival” of Cross-Shareholdings and the Role of Foreign Investors’], in Miyajima, H. (ed.), Nihon no kigyō tōchi [Corporate Governance in Japan], (Tōyōkeizai Shimpōsha, 2011).Google Scholar

Moeller, Sara B., Schlingemann, Frederik P. and Stulz, Rene M., ‘Firm Size and the Gains from Acquisitions’ (2004) 73 Journal of Financial Economics 201–228.Google Scholar

Moeller, Sara B. Schlingemann, Frederik P. and Stulz, Rene M., ‘Wealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of Acquiring-Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave’ (2005) 60 Journal of Finance 757–782.Google Scholar

Morse, Geoffrey, ‘Controlling Takeovers – The Self-Regulation Option in the United Kingdom’ (1998) Journal of Business Law 58–74.Google Scholar

Mosca, Chiara, ‘La Maggiorazione del Voto, il Presupposto dell’Obbligo di Offerta Pubblica di Acquisto e le Altre Novità in Materia di Soglie OPA’ (2015) 38 Nuove Leggi Civili Commentate 863–892.Google Scholar

Mukwiri, Jonathan, ‘The Myth of Tactical Litigation in UK Takeovers’ (2008) 8 Journal of Corporate Law Studies 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mukwiri, Jonathan, Takeovers and the European Legal Framework: A British Perspective (Milton: Routledge-Cavendish, 2009).Google Scholar

Mukwiri, Jonathan, ‘Takeovers and Incidental Protection of Minority Shareholders’ (2013) 10 European Company and Financial Law Review 432–460.Google Scholar

Muston, Barbara, ‘Coping with Change: A View from the UK Takeover Panel’ in Munch, John and Skog, Rolf (eds), The Securities Council 25 Years – An Anthology (Capital Markets Board, Stockholm, 2011), www.aktiemarknadsnamnden.se/UserFiles/AMN25ar_kap06_utanKOM_kap06-165x242%20(2).pdf, last accessed 16 December 2016, pp. 69–80.Google Scholar

Myers, Minor and Korsmo, Charles, ‘Appraisal Arbitrage and the Future of Public Company M&A’, Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 388 (2014).Google Scholar

Naito, J., ‘Kabushiki kōkai kaitsuke seido no kaisei’ [‘Reform of the Takeover-bids Regime’] (1990) 1208 Shōji Hōmu 2–11.Google Scholar

Nestor, Stilpon and Thompson, John K., ‘Corporate Governance Patterns in the OECD Economies: Is Convergence Under Way?’, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/10/1931460.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Nisbett, Richard, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Different – and Why (London: Nicholas Brealey, 2003).Google Scholar

Nishith Desai Associates, ‘Public M&As in India: Takeover Code Dissected’ (2013), www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Ma%20Lab/Takeover%20Code%20Dissected.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Nyombi, Chrispas, ‘A Critique of Shareholder Primacy under UK Takeover Law and the Continued Imposition of the Board Neutrality Rule’ (2015) 57:4 International Journal of Law and Management 235–264.Google Scholar

Oda, Hiroshi, Japanese Law, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Oesterle, Dale, The Law of Mergers and Acquisitions, 3rd edn (St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2005).Google Scholar

Offenberg, David and Pirinsky, Christo, ‘How Do Acquirers Choose between Mergers and Tender Offers?’ (2015) 116 Journal of Financial Economics 331–348.Google Scholar

Olgiati, Lorenzo and Weber, Martin, Switzerland Takeover Guide (2014), www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=D45979DA-9473-4FFE-9FBA-5DC3998CCD9C, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

O’Neal, F. Hodge and Thompson, Robert B., Oppression of Minority Shareholders and LLC Members, rev. edn, 2 vols (St. Paul: Thomson Reuters, 2014), vol. I, section 5:26.Google Scholar

Osugi, Kenichi, ‘What is Converging? Rules on Hostile Takeovers in Japan and the Convergence Debate’ (2007) 9 Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal 143–162.Google Scholar

Papadopoulos, Thomas, ‘Legal Aspects of the Breakthrough Rule of the European Takeover Bid Directive’, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1114671, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Payne, Jennifer, ‘Minority Shareholder Protection in Takeovers: A UK Perspective’ (2011) 8 European Company and Financial Law Review 145–173.Google Scholar

Payne, Jennifer, ‘Schemes of Arrangement, Takeovers and Minority Shareholder Protection’ (2011) Journal of Corporate Law Studies 67–97.Google Scholar

Payne, Jennifer, Schemes of Arrangement: Theory, Structure, and Operation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Pillai, Philip, ‘Corporate Takeovers in Singapore’ (1973) 15 Malaya Law Review 170–233.Google Scholar

Pomelli, Alessandro, Trasferimento E Consolidamento Del Controllo Nelle Società Quotate (Italy: Giuffrè, 2014).Google Scholar

Porter, Michael E., ‘Capital Disadvantages: America’s Failing Capital Investment System’ (1992) 70:5 Harvard Business Review 65–82.Google Scholar

Povel, Paul and Singh, Rajdeep, ‘Takeover Contests with Asymmetric Bidders’ (2006) 19 Review of Financial Studies 1399–1431.Google Scholar

Preston, Brian J., ‘Characteristics of Successful Environmental Court and Tribunals’ (2014) 26 Journal of Environmental Law 365–393.Google Scholar

Pritchard, Adam C., ‘Tender Offers by Controlling Shareholders: The Specter of Coercion and Fair Price’ (2004) 1 Berkeley Business Law Journal 83–111.Google Scholar

Psaroudakis, Georgios, ‘The Mandatory Bid and Company Law in Europe’ (2010) European Company and Financial Law Review 550–584.Google Scholar

Puchniak, Dan W., ‘The Derivative Action in Asia: A Complex Reality’ (2012) 9 Berkeley Business Law Journal 1–28.Google Scholar

Puchniak, Dan W., ‘The Efficiency of Friendliness: Japanese Corporate Governance Succeeds Again without Hostile Takeovers’ (2008) 5 Berkeley Business Law Journal 195–262.Google Scholar

Puchniak, Dan W., ‘The Japanization of American Corporate Governance? Evidence of the Never-Ending History for Corporate Law’ (2007) 9 Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 7–70.Google Scholar

Puchniak, Dan W., ‘Multiple Faces of Shareholder Power in Asia: Complexity Revealed’ in Hill, Jennifer G. and Thomas, Randall S. (eds), Research Handbook on Shareholder Power (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015), pp. 511–534.Google Scholar

Puchniak, Dan W., ‘Perverse Main Bank Rescue in the Lost Decade: Proof that Unique Institutional Incentives Drive Japanese Corporate Governance’ (2007) 16 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 13–61.Google Scholar

Puchniak, Dan W. and Lan, Luh Luh, ‘Independent Directors in Singapore: Puzzling Compliance Requiring Explanation’, American Journal of Comparative Law (in press).Google Scholar

Puchniak, Dan W., Baum, Harald and Ewing-Chow, Michael (eds), The Derivative Action in Asia: A Comparative and Functional Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Puchniak, Dan W., Baum, Harald and Nottage, Luke (eds), Independent Directors in Asia: A Historical, Contextual and Comparative Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017 forthcoming).Google Scholar

Rabinowitz, Laurence (ed), Weinberg & Blank on Takeovers and Mergers, 5th edn (United Kingdom: Sweet and Maxwell, 1989 and Supplement, 2008).Google Scholar

Ramsay, Ian, ‘Corporate Law in the Age of Statutes’ (1992) 14 Sydney Law Review 474–494.Google Scholar

Ramseyer, J. M. and Iwakura, M., Casebook M&A – Harvard Law School de no kōgi wo moto ni M&A [Casebook on M&A—Based on lectures at Harvard Law School] (Shōji Hōmu, 2015).Google Scholar

Ravid, S. Abraham and Spiegel, Matthew, ‘Toehold Strategies, Takeover Laws and Rival Bidders’ (1999) 23 Journal of Banking and Finance 1219–1242.Google Scholar

Restrepo, Fernán, ‘Do Different Standards of Judicial Review Affect the Gains of Minority Shareholders in Freeze-Out Transactions? A Re-Examination of Siliconix’ (2013) 3 Harvard Business Law Review 321–359.Google Scholar

Restrepo, Fernán and Subramanian, Guhan, ‘The Effect of Delaware Doctrine on Freezeout Structure and Outcomes: Evidence on the Unified Approach’ (2015) 5 Harvard Business Law Review 205–236.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, Usha and Stegemoller, Mike A., ‘An Inconsistency in SEC Disclosure Requirements? The Case of the “Insignificant” Private Target’ (2007) 13 Journal of Corporate Finance 251–269.Google Scholar

Roe, Mark J., ‘Some Differences in Corporate Structure in Germany, Japan, and the United States’ (1993) 102 Yale Law Journal 1927–2004.Google Scholar

Rogerson, William P., ‘Contractual Solutions to the Hold-Up Problem’ (1992) 4 The Review of Economic Studies 777–793.Google Scholar

Romano, Roberta, ‘Corporate Law and Corporate Governance’ (1996) 5 Industrial & Corporate Change 277–340.Google Scholar

Romano, Roberta, The Genius of American Corporate Law 6–8 (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1993).Google Scholar

Romano, Roberta, ‘The Political Economy of Takeover Statutes’ (1987) 73 Virginia Law Review 111–199.Google Scholar

Romano, Roberta, ‘The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Making of Quack Corporate Governance’ (2005) Yale Law Journal 114, 1521–1611.Google Scholar

Sarkar, Jayati and Sarkar, Subrata, Corporate Governance in India (New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 2012).Google Scholar

Sautter, Christina M., Tender Offers and Disclosure: The History and Future of the Williams Act in Solomon, Steven Davidoff and Hill, Claire (eds), Research Handbook on Mergers and Acquisitions (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016), pp. 352–376.Google Scholar

Schuster, Edmund-Philipp, ‘The Mandatory Bid Rule: Efficient, After All?’ (2013) 76(3) Modern Law Review 529–563.Google Scholar

Securities and Exchange Board of India, ‘Justice P.N. Bhagwati Committee Report on Takeovers’ (1997), www.sebi.gov.in/commreport/bagawati-report.html, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Securities and Exchange Board of India, ‘Report of the Reconvened Committee on Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers Under the Chairmanship of Justice P.N. Bhagwati’ (2002), www.sebi.gov.in/takeover/takeoverreport.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Securities and Exchange Board of India, ‘Report of the Takeover Regulations Advisory Committee Under the Chairmanship of Mr. C. Achuthan’ (2010), www.sebi.gov.in/commreport/tracreport.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Securities Industry Council, ‘Consultation Conclusions on the Revision of the Singapore Code on Takeovers and Mergers’ (15 March 2007), www.mas.gov.sg/~/media/resource/sic/press_releases/Consultation_of_the_Code_Response_Paper_15_Mar_2007.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Securities Industry Council, ‘Consultation Paper on Revision of the Singapore Code on Takeovers and Mergers’ (1999), www.mas.gov.sg/sic, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Securities Industry Council, ‘Regulatory Framework, Securities Industry Council and the Takeover Code’ in Wan, Wai Yee and Varottil, Umakanth, Mergers and Acquisitions in Singapore: Law and Practice (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2013).Google Scholar

Securities Industry Council, ‘Securities Industry Council Issues Draft Revised Code on Takeovers and Mergers’ (2001), www.gov.sg.sic, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Shavell, Steven, ‘The Optimal Structure of Law Enforcement’ (1993) 36 Journal of Law and Economics 255–287.Google Scholar

Shavell, Steven and Polinsky, A. Mitchell, ‘The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law’ (2000) 38 Journal of Economic Literature 45–76.Google Scholar

Sheard, Paul, ‘Interlocking Shareholdings and Corporate Governance’ in Aoki, Masahiko and Dore, Ronald (eds), The Japanese Firm: The Sources of Competitive Strength (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 310–349.Google Scholar

Shen, Hanyao and Wang, Hui, ‘Takeover Defences: Theories, Strategies, Implementation and Cases’ (2007) 9 Directors and Boards 76–85.Google Scholar

Shimoda, Sayuri A., ‘Time to Retire: Is Lifetime Employment in Japan Still Viable?’ (2016) 39 Fordham International Law Journal 753–790.Google Scholar

Shishido, Zenichi, ‘Japanese Corporate Governance: The Hidden Problems of Corporate Law and Their Solutions’ (2000) 25 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 189–233.Google Scholar

Shishido, Zenichi Enterprise Law: Contracts, Markets, and Laws in the US and Japan (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011).Google Scholar

Shorewala, Krishna and Vasumitra, Vasundhara, ‘Comparing Takeover Laws in UK, India & Singapore’ (2011), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=1753341, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Shroff, Cyril, ‘You need a defence strategy’ (2008) 27:7 International Financial Law Review 40–41.Google Scholar

Siegel, Jordan I. and Choudhury, Prithwiraj, ‘A Reexamination of Tunneling and Business Groups: New Data and New Methods’ (2012) 25 Review of Financial Studies 1763–1798.Google Scholar

Smith, Ken, ‘The M&A Buck Stops at the Board’ (2006) 41 Mergers & Acquisitions: The Dealmaker’s Journal 48–53.Google Scholar

Spence, Michael, The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).Google Scholar

Stohlmeier, Thomas, German Public Takeover Law, 2nd edn (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2007).Google Scholar

Subramanian, Guhan, ‘Post-Siliconix Freeze-Outs: Theory and Evidence’ (2007) 36 Journal of Legal Studies 1–26.Google Scholar

Subramanian, Guhan, ‘Fixing Freezeouts’ (2005) 115 Yale Law Journal 2–70.Google Scholar

Takahashi, Eiji, ‘Japanese Corporate Groups under the New Legislation’ (2006) 3 European Company and Financial Law Review 287–309.Google Scholar

Talwar, Karan and Saksena, Nivedita, ‘Anti-Acquirer and Pro-Shareholder? An Analysis of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011’ (2012) 5 NUJS Law Review 129–142.Google Scholar

Tan, Boon T., ‘Forms of Control Exercised Over Securities Industry – A Comparative View’ (1974) 2 Singapore Stock Exchange Journal 5–11.Google Scholar

Tan, Cheng-Han, Puchniak, Dan W. and Varottil, Umakanth, ‘State-Owned Enterprises in Singapore: Historical Insights Into a Potential Model for Reform’ (2015) 28(2) Columbia Journal of Asian Law 61–97.Google Scholar

Tan, Pheng T., ‘Review of P.N. Pillai’s Sourcebook of Singapore and Malaysian Company Law’ (1975) 17 Malayan Law Review 392–397.Google Scholar

Tan, Pheng T., Securities Regulation in Singapore and Malaysia: A Primer on the Laws of the Stock Market with Cases and Materials (Singapore: Stock Exchange of Singapore, 1979).Google Scholar

Tanaka, W. ‘Kabushiki hōyū kōzō to kaisha-hō - Bunsan hōyū no jōjō gaisha no JIRENMA wo koete’ [‘Share-Ownership Structure and Corporate Law - Beyond the Dilemma of Dispersedly-Held Listed Corporations’] (2013) 2007 Shōji Hōmu 30–41.Google Scholar

Tay, Watt Moi, ‘Ownership and Control of the Singapore Public Companies, (1940–1962)’ Department of Economics, University of Singapore (1963–1964).Google Scholar

The Takeover Panel, Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31 March 2013.Google Scholar

The Takeover Panel, Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31 March 2016.Google Scholar

Thompson, Robert B., ‘Takeover Regulation After the ‘Convergence’ of Corporate Law’ (2002) 24 Sydney Law Review 323–335.Google Scholar

Thompson, Robert. B. and Thomas, Randall. S., ‘The New Look of Shareholder Litigation: Acquisition-Oriented Class Actions’ (2004) 57 Vanderbilt Law Review 133–208.Google Scholar

Tjio, Hans, Principles and Practice of Securities Regulation in Singapore, 2nd edn (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2011).Google Scholar

Tjio, Hans, ‘The Proper Purpose Rule’ (2016) Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 176–185.Google Scholar

Van der Elst, Christoph and Van den Steen, Lientje S. F. ‘Opportunities in the M&A Aftermarket: Squeezing Out and Selling Out’, Universiteit Gent Financial Law Institute Working Paper No. 2006–12, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=933609, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Van Gerven, Dirk (ed), Common Legal Framework for Takeover Bids in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Varottil, Umakanth, ‘The Advent of Shareholder Activism in India’ (2012) 1 Journal on Governance 582–628.Google Scholar

Varottil, Umakanth, ‘Comparative Takeover Regulation and the Concept of “Control”’ [2015] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 208–231.Google Scholar

Varottil, Umakanth, ‘Compulsory Acquisitions and Squeeze Out of Minority Shareholders’ in Wan, Wai Yee and Varottil, Umakanth, Mergers and Acquisitions in Singapore: Law and Practice (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2013).Google Scholar

Varottil, Umakanth, ‘The Impact of Globalization and Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions on the Legal Profession in India’ in Wilkins, David B., Khanna, Vikramaditya S. and Trubek, David M., The Indian Legal Profession in the Age of Globalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Ventoruzzo, Marco, ‘The Disappearing Taboo of Multiple Voting Shares: Regulatory Responses to the Migration of Chrysler-Fiat’ (2015) 114 Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 192–214.Google Scholar

Ventoruzzo, Marco, ‘Europe’s Thirteenth Directive and U.S. Takeover Regulation: Regulatory Means and Political and Economic Ends’ (2006) 41 Texas International Law Journal 171–221.Google Scholar

Ventoruzzo, Marco, ‘Freeze-Outs: Transcontinental Analysis and Reform Proposals’ (2010) 50 Virginia Journal of International Law 841–917.Google Scholar

Ventoruzzo, Marco, ‘Takeover Regulation as a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Taking UK Rules to Continental Europe’ (2008) 11 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law 135–173.Google Scholar

Vogel, Steven K., Japan Remodeled: How Government and Industry Are Reforming Japanese Capitalism (New York: Cornell University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Walker, David I., ‘Evolving Executive Equity Compensation and the Limits of Optimal Contracting’ (2011) 64 Vanderbilt Law Review 611–674.Google Scholar

Walker, David I. and Fleischer, Victor, ‘Book/Tax Conformity and Equity Compensation’ (2009) 62 Tax Law Review 399–444.Google Scholar

Wan, Wai Yee, ‘Effecting Compulsory Acquisition via the Amalgamation Procedure in Singapore’ (2007) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 323–349.Google Scholar

Wan, Wai Yee, ‘Enforcement of the Takeover Code and Market Misconduct in the Course of Takeovers’ in Wan, Wai Yee and Varottil, Umakanth, Mergers and Acquisitions in Singapore: Law and Practice (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2013).Google Scholar

Wan, Wai Yee, ‘Independent Financial Advisers’ Opinions for Public Takeovers and Related Party Transactions in Singapore’ (2012) 30 Company and Securities Law Journal 32.Google Scholar

Wan, Wai Yee, ‘Invoking Protective Conditions to Terminate Public Mergers and Acquisitions Transactions’ [2011] Journal of Business Law 64–90.Google Scholar

Wan, Wai Yee and Varottil, Umakanth, Mergers and Acquisitions in Singapore: Law and Practice (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2013).Google Scholar

Wang, Baoshu and Huang, Hui, ‘China’s New Company Law and Securities Law: An Overview and Assessment’ (2006) 19(2) Australian Journal of Corporate Law 229–242.Google Scholar

Wang, Wen-You and Pang, Yuan-Chi, ‘Minority Controlling Shareholders: An Analytical Framework and Its Application to Taiwan’ (2007) 2 National Taiwan University Law Review 81–109.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Hiroyuki, ‘Designing a New Takeover Regime for Japan: Suggestions from the European Takeover Rules’ (2010) 30 Journal of Japanese Law 89–106.Google Scholar

Wei, Cai, ‘An Efficiency Approach to the Mandatory Bid Rule’ (2013) 4 Peking University Law Journal 847–859.Google Scholar

West, Mark D., ‘The Pricing of Shareholder Derivative Actions in Japan and the United States’ (1994) 88 Northwestern University Law Review 1436–1507.Google Scholar

Whitaker, Kevin, Gottheil, Michael and Uhlmann, Michael, ‘Consistency In Tribunal Decision Making: What Really Goes On Behind Closed Doors’ in Laverne A. Jacobs and Anne L. Mactavish (eds), Dialogue Between Courts And Tribunals – Essays In Administrative Law and Justice (2001–2007), papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2332875#page=358, last accessed 16 December, 2016, pp. 351–372.Google Scholar

White, Alexander, ‘Reassessing the Rationales for the Takeover Bids Directive’s Board Neutrality Rule’ (2012) 23 European Business Law Review 789–807.Google Scholar

Wilson, Daniel, ‘Desirable Resistance: Kahn v M&F Worldwide and the Fight for the Business Judgment Rule in Going-Private Mergers’ (2015) 17 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 643–671.Google Scholar

Winter, Jaap et al., Report of the High Level Group of Company Law Experts on a Modern Regulatory Framework for Company Law in Europe (Brussels, 4 November 2002).Google Scholar

Wolf, Daniel E., ‘Appraisal Rights – The Next Frontier in Deal Litigation?’, Harvard Corporate Law Blog (16 May 2013), https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/05/16/appraisal-rights-the-next-frontier-in-deal-litigation/, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Wymeersch, Eddy, ‘The Mandatory Bid: A Critical View’ in Hopt, Klaus J. and Wymeersch, Eddy (eds), European Takeovers: Law and Practice (London: Butterworths, 1992), pp. 351–368.Google Scholar

Xi, Chao, ‘The Political Economy of Takeover Regulation: What Does the Mandatory Bid Rule in China Tell Us?’ (2015) 58 Journal of Business Law 142–164.Google Scholar

Xu, Hongtao, ‘Research Report: The Regulation of Takeover Defences’ (2006) Shenzhen Stock Exchange Research Center, www.szse.cn/UpFiles/Attach/1088/2006/04/19/1624072376.pdf, last accessed 31 October 2016.Google Scholar

Xu, Peng and Tanaka, Wataru, ‘Baishu boeisaku in za shado obu kabushiki mochiai - jirei Kenkyu’ [‘Takeover Defense in the Shadow of Cross-Shareholdings - A Case Study’] (2009) 1885 Shōji Hōmu 4–18.Google Scholar

Yamanaka, T., ‘Seitō Mokuteki RUURU ni yoru Torishimariyaku ni taisuru Kiritsu: Eikoku 2006 Kaisha-hō wo Fumaete’ [‘Monitoring Directors with the Proper Purpose Test: Lessons from the UK Companies Act 2006’], Working Paper 2014, Kinyū shōjihō [Financial and Commercial Law].Google Scholar

Yang, Zhongzhi and Yang, Jie, ‘A Study of the Relationships among Ownership Concentration, Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Value: Empirical Study of China’s Listed Companies’ (2012) 2 Xiandai Caijing [Modern Finance and Economics] 74–81.Google Scholar

Yeh, Yin-Hua, ‘台灣公司治理的問題與改革之道’ [‘The Corporate Governance and Reform in Taiwan’] (2005) 20 Securities & Futures Monthly 1–6.Google Scholar

Yeh, Yin-Hua and Ko, Chen-En, ‘The Law and Practice of Independent Directors, Audit Committees and Other Functional Committees in Germany, Japan, the U.S., and Korea’, Financial Supervisory Commission of Taiwan (January 2006).Google Scholar

Yeh, Yin-Hua, Lee, Tsun-Siou and Woidtke, Tracie, ‘Family Control and Corporate Governance: Evidence for Taiwan’ (2001) 2 International Review of Finance 21–48.Google Scholar