This article offers the first comprehensive history of the development of mandatory disclosure rules for the cost of consumer credit. In contrast to prior studies, which begin with the creation of federal disclosure rules in 1968, this story starts with state-level laws that were drafted before World War I. By looking back over a longer time period, it reveals the challenges involved in defining “truth” in lending, and how the perceived purpose of a regulatory technique like mandatory disclosure may change over time. Although the modern APR disclosure metric has come to seem natural and inevitable, history shows that lenders and policymakers once hotly debated the design of disclosure rules, with each faction claiming the mantle of “truth.” Moreover, policymakers did not always view disclosure as a means to increase price competition, obviating the need for direct price controls. Disclosure was once a complement to usury laws, rather than a substitute.

In this article, we examine disclosure as a tool to mitigate the effects of asymmetric information in a Thoroughbred yearling market. If disclosures influence market price, information contained therein must be valuable to buyers and hence diminish asymmetric information. Using public auction data, we find that disclosures do not influence price in a segment of the auction in which an implicit quality certification is available. However, in the other segment, we find evidence that some disclosures may provide valuable information to buyers.

Following recent developments in some European jurisdictions, the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) proposed, on 9 February 2010, ‘to extend major shareholding notifications to instruments of similar economic effect to holding shares and entitlements to acquire shares’. This initiative pushes for mandatory Economic-only Disclosure of Major Shareholdings in Europe (EOD). By providing twenty arguments against the CESR proposal, this paper seeks to spur a lively discussion as to whether mandatory EOD is desirable. It puts forward that European institutions are well advised to refrain from implementing the CESR proposal in its current form. If at all, implementing a requirement to report to regulators (Economic- only Reporting – EOR) and limiting EOD to very large positions serves social welfare better than EOD and avoids major differences between European securities law and US securities regulation.

Employee board representation can serve information dissemination purposes. This comment argues that in Germany, which (still) has a bank-oriented financial system, transparency may be better served by using codetermination (under which up to half of the supervisory board is composed of employees) as an information channel, rather than by importing the mandatory disclosure requirements that are typical of Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions. There are two reasons for this. One is that the evidence about the efficiency of mandatory disclosure requirements is mixed. The other is that mandatory disclosure is an intrinsic component of market-oriented financial systems such as the US financial system.

Transplanting a market-oriented component into a bank-oriented financial system brings the risk of inconsistencies, as it affects the complementarities that exist among the intrinsic components of a bank-oriented system. This comment thus concludes that before suggesting ways to transplant further mandatory disclosure requirements into the German financial system, or improve existing ones, one should consider how to use or improve the use of codetermination as an information dissemination channel.

Creditor protection through mandatory disclosure since long is a highly debated issue among corporate lawyers. This paper considers whether the legal system should compel corporations to disclose information publicly in order to better protect its creditors. First, the paper elaborates on the various economic rationales of mandatory disclosure advanced by proponents of that approach. Second, it rehearses the theoretical framework of mandatory disclosure. Third, it gives a brief overview of the law on those mandatory disclosure requirements that primarily or at least in part aim at corporate creditor protection. Fourth, it outlines limitations of mandatory disclosure with respect to creditors and debtor companies. Fifth, it briefly surveys several important challenges to mandatory disclosure regulation with respect to materiality, standardization, comprehensibility and timeliness. And finally, this paper deals with various legislative options to enforce creditor-protective mandatory disclosure.