Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency:
Claims by company shareholders seeking damages from governments for so-called "reflective loss" now make up a substantial part of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) caseload. (Shareholders' reflective loss is incurred as a result of injury to "their" company, typic...
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Elektronisch E-Book |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Paris
OECD Publishing
2013
|
| Schriftenreihe: | OECD Working Papers on International Investment
no.2013/03 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Zusammenfassung: | Claims by company shareholders seeking damages from governments for so-called "reflective loss" now make up a substantial part of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) caseload. (Shareholders' reflective loss is incurred as a result of injury to "their" company, typically a loss in value of the shares; it is generally contrasted with direct injury to shareholder rights, such as interference with shareholder voting rights.) This paper considers the consistency issues raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. The paper first compares the approach to shareholder claims in ISDS with advanced systems of national corporate law (and other international law). ISDS arbitrators have consistently found that shareholders can claim individually for reflective loss in ISDS under typical BITs. This can be seen as a success story from the point of view of consistency of legal interpretation and improves investor protection for potential claimant shareholders in many cases. In contrast, however, advanced national systems and international law generally apply what has been called a "no reflective loss" principle to shareholder claims. Second, the paper analyses the policy issues relating to consistency that are raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. National and international law barring shareholder claims for reflective loss is often explicitly driven by policy considerations relating to consistency, predictability, avoidance of double recovery and judicial economy. Limiting recovery to the company is seen as both more efficient and fairer to all interested parties. In contrast, ISDS tribunals and commentators have generally given limited consideration to the policy consequences of allowing shareholder claims for reflective loss. The third part of the paper addresses the issue of company recovery (including two different existing systems which expand the ability of foreign-controlled companies to recover in ISDS) and its relevance to shareholder claims for reflective loss. The paper also contains a series of questions for discussion and has been discussed by governments participating in an OECD-hosted investment roundtable. |
| Beschreibung: | 1 Online-Ressource (61 p.) 21 x 29.7cm. |
| DOI: | 10.1787/5k3w9t44mt0v-en |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000cam a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ZDB-13-SOC-061293067 | ||
| 003 | DE-627-1 | ||
| 005 | 20231204121443.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210204s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1787/5k3w9t44mt0v-en |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627-1)061293067 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KEP061293067 | ||
| 035 | |a (FR-PaOEC)5k3w9t44mt0v-en | ||
| 035 | |a (EBP)061293067 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Gaukrodger, David |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency |c David, Gaukrodger |
| 264 | 1 | |a Paris |b OECD Publishing |c 2013 | |
| 300 | |a 1 Online-Ressource (61 p.) |c 21 x 29.7cm. | ||
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 0 | |a OECD Working Papers on International Investment |v no.2013/03 | |
| 520 | |a Claims by company shareholders seeking damages from governments for so-called "reflective loss" now make up a substantial part of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) caseload. (Shareholders' reflective loss is incurred as a result of injury to "their" company, typically a loss in value of the shares; it is generally contrasted with direct injury to shareholder rights, such as interference with shareholder voting rights.) This paper considers the consistency issues raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. The paper first compares the approach to shareholder claims in ISDS with advanced systems of national corporate law (and other international law). ISDS arbitrators have consistently found that shareholders can claim individually for reflective loss in ISDS under typical BITs. This can be seen as a success story from the point of view of consistency of legal interpretation and improves investor protection for potential claimant shareholders in many cases. In contrast, however, advanced national systems and international law generally apply what has been called a "no reflective loss" principle to shareholder claims. Second, the paper analyses the policy issues relating to consistency that are raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. National and international law barring shareholder claims for reflective loss is often explicitly driven by policy considerations relating to consistency, predictability, avoidance of double recovery and judicial economy. Limiting recovery to the company is seen as both more efficient and fairer to all interested parties. In contrast, ISDS tribunals and commentators have generally given limited consideration to the policy consequences of allowing shareholder claims for reflective loss. The third part of the paper addresses the issue of company recovery (including two different existing systems which expand the ability of foreign-controlled companies to recover in ISDS) and its relevance to shareholder claims for reflective loss. The paper also contains a series of questions for discussion and has been discussed by governments participating in an OECD-hosted investment roundtable. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Finance and Investment | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |l FWS01 |p ZDB-13-SOC |q FWS_PDA_SOC |u https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3w9t44mt0v-en |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a ZDB-13-SOC | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-13-SOC | ||
| 951 | |a BO | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-13-SOC | ||
| 049 | |a DE-863 | ||
Datensatz im Suchindex
| DE-BY-FWS_katkey | ZDB-13-SOC-061293067 |
|---|---|
| _version_ | 1816797336632819712 |
| adam_text | |
| any_adam_object | |
| author | Gaukrodger, David |
| author_facet | Gaukrodger, David |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Gaukrodger, David |
| author_variant | d g dg |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | localFWS |
| collection | ZDB-13-SOC |
| ctrlnum | (DE-627-1)061293067 (DE-599)KEP061293067 (FR-PaOEC)5k3w9t44mt0v-en (EBP)061293067 |
| discipline | Wirtschaftswissenschaften |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1787/5k3w9t44mt0v-en |
| format | Electronic eBook |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>03280cam a22003372 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ZDB-13-SOC-061293067</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627-1</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20231204121443.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210204s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1787/5k3w9t44mt0v-en</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627-1)061293067</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)KEP061293067</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(FR-PaOEC)5k3w9t44mt0v-en</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(EBP)061293067</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gaukrodger, David</subfield><subfield code="e">VerfasserIn</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency</subfield><subfield code="c">David, Gaukrodger</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Paris</subfield><subfield code="b">OECD Publishing</subfield><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1 Online-Ressource (61 p.)</subfield><subfield code="c">21 x 29.7cm.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">OECD Working Papers on International Investment</subfield><subfield code="v">no.2013/03</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Claims by company shareholders seeking damages from governments for so-called "reflective loss" now make up a substantial part of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) caseload. (Shareholders' reflective loss is incurred as a result of injury to "their" company, typically a loss in value of the shares; it is generally contrasted with direct injury to shareholder rights, such as interference with shareholder voting rights.) This paper considers the consistency issues raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. The paper first compares the approach to shareholder claims in ISDS with advanced systems of national corporate law (and other international law). ISDS arbitrators have consistently found that shareholders can claim individually for reflective loss in ISDS under typical BITs. This can be seen as a success story from the point of view of consistency of legal interpretation and improves investor protection for potential claimant shareholders in many cases. In contrast, however, advanced national systems and international law generally apply what has been called a "no reflective loss" principle to shareholder claims. Second, the paper analyses the policy issues relating to consistency that are raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. National and international law barring shareholder claims for reflective loss is often explicitly driven by policy considerations relating to consistency, predictability, avoidance of double recovery and judicial economy. Limiting recovery to the company is seen as both more efficient and fairer to all interested parties. In contrast, ISDS tribunals and commentators have generally given limited consideration to the policy consequences of allowing shareholder claims for reflective loss. The third part of the paper addresses the issue of company recovery (including two different existing systems which expand the ability of foreign-controlled companies to recover in ISDS) and its relevance to shareholder claims for reflective loss. The paper also contains a series of questions for discussion and has been discussed by governments participating in an OECD-hosted investment roundtable.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Finance and Investment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="l">FWS01</subfield><subfield code="p">ZDB-13-SOC</subfield><subfield code="q">FWS_PDA_SOC</subfield><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3w9t44mt0v-en</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-13-SOC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-13-SOC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-13-SOC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-863</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | ZDB-13-SOC-061293067 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-11-26T14:55:58Z |
| institution | BVB |
| language | English |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-863 DE-BY-FWS |
| owner_facet | DE-863 DE-BY-FWS |
| physical | 1 Online-Ressource (61 p.) 21 x 29.7cm. |
| psigel | ZDB-13-SOC |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publishDateSearch | 2013 |
| publishDateSort | 2013 |
| publisher | OECD Publishing |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | OECD Working Papers on International Investment |
| spelling | Gaukrodger, David VerfasserIn aut Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency David, Gaukrodger Paris OECD Publishing 2013 1 Online-Ressource (61 p.) 21 x 29.7cm. Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier OECD Working Papers on International Investment no.2013/03 Claims by company shareholders seeking damages from governments for so-called "reflective loss" now make up a substantial part of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) caseload. (Shareholders' reflective loss is incurred as a result of injury to "their" company, typically a loss in value of the shares; it is generally contrasted with direct injury to shareholder rights, such as interference with shareholder voting rights.) This paper considers the consistency issues raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. The paper first compares the approach to shareholder claims in ISDS with advanced systems of national corporate law (and other international law). ISDS arbitrators have consistently found that shareholders can claim individually for reflective loss in ISDS under typical BITs. This can be seen as a success story from the point of view of consistency of legal interpretation and improves investor protection for potential claimant shareholders in many cases. In contrast, however, advanced national systems and international law generally apply what has been called a "no reflective loss" principle to shareholder claims. Second, the paper analyses the policy issues relating to consistency that are raised by shareholder claims for reflective loss in ISDS. National and international law barring shareholder claims for reflective loss is often explicitly driven by policy considerations relating to consistency, predictability, avoidance of double recovery and judicial economy. Limiting recovery to the company is seen as both more efficient and fairer to all interested parties. In contrast, ISDS tribunals and commentators have generally given limited consideration to the policy consequences of allowing shareholder claims for reflective loss. The third part of the paper addresses the issue of company recovery (including two different existing systems which expand the ability of foreign-controlled companies to recover in ISDS) and its relevance to shareholder claims for reflective loss. The paper also contains a series of questions for discussion and has been discussed by governments participating in an OECD-hosted investment roundtable. Finance and Investment FWS01 ZDB-13-SOC FWS_PDA_SOC https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3w9t44mt0v-en Volltext |
| spellingShingle | Gaukrodger, David Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency Finance and Investment |
| title | Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency |
| title_auth | Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency |
| title_exact_search | Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency |
| title_full | Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency David, Gaukrodger |
| title_fullStr | Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency David, Gaukrodger |
| title_full_unstemmed | Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency David, Gaukrodger |
| title_short | Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency |
| title_sort | investment treaties as corporate law shareholder claims and issues of consistency |
| topic | Finance and Investment |
| topic_facet | Finance and Investment |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3w9t44mt0v-en |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gaukrodgerdavid investmenttreatiesascorporatelawshareholderclaimsandissuesofconsistency |