Convergence, Legal Origins, and Transplants in Comparative Corporate Law: A Case-Based and Quantitative Analysis

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract: In this Article, we intend to fill a gap in the comparative law literature by adopting a case-based approach to comparative corporate law that highlights the important dimension of specific cases in corporate law matters and how identifiable, but limited issues arising from such case disputes are resolved in different jurisdictions. Our study is based on ten cases used in a wider research project and their solutions in ten countries: eight European countries, the United States, and Japan. We assess the solutions to these cases using quantitative methods of network and cluster analysis. We also seek to enquire whether conceptual differences exist between countries in terms of the source, form, style, and substance of the legal rules which comprise their corporate laws. The findings of this assessment are used to evaluate arguments developed in the academic comparative company literature which posit that the existence of fundamental differences in the protection of shareholders across countries reduces the scope for convergence in corporate law systems. The case-based evaluation is also applied to make a contribution towards other influential theories in comparative law, particularly the "legal origins" theorem and the "legal transplants" debate. For example, while we find some evidence of legal transplants, we will show that the notion of legal origins has only limited value in today's corporate law. Furthermore, the research has a public policy dimension since the existence or absence of differences matters for the question of whether formal harmonization of corporate law in the EU, or further afield, is necessary, desirable, or at all possible.

Mental Illness as a Sentencing Determinant: A Comparative Case Law Analysis Based on a Machine Learning Approach

“…Data were obtained and analyzed through an adapted case law analysis methodology which has been used in previous studies (Cabrelli & Siems, 2015;Chopin et al, 2022;Kastellec, 2010). Case memorandums were obtained from appellate state-level courts in New york (Ny) and Kansas (KS) between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021.…”

“…In the last 10 years, classification trees that rely on machine learning algorithms have become an emerging method for examining legal outcomes, because they rely on a process similar to legal reasoning (Cabrelli & Siems, 2015). While a classification model here does not directly mimic or replicate legal reasoning in these cases, the logic used in classification trees is derived from mathematical reasoning that resembles the ways in which humans make decisions.…”

“…A classification analysis was carried out based on a supervised machine learning method (James et al, 2021) to explore whether different variables form patterns that reliably lead to imprisonment (rather than a non-custodial sentence) for people experiencing mental disorders. The analysis was based on that used in previous research on case law (Cabrelli & Siems, 2015;Kastellec, 2010). R software implements an efficient algorithm under the function rpart, which supports analyses as well as performance validations for classification trees (Therneau et al, 2022).…”

Introduction

“…In a related scholarly debate, a number of the chapters here can also profitably contribute to debates over the trajectory of corporate lawspecifically, whether there has been over the past century convergence between different nations' corporation laws such that it makes sense to speak of a trend towards "a single, standard model" of corporation law marked by both the structural elements mentioned above and by a shared ideological commitment to "the view that corporate law should principally strive to increase long-term shareholder value" (Hansmann and Kraakman 2000: 439). The argument that corporate law is converging has drawn acclaim, but also critics, who contend that emphasis on convergence ignores path dependence and the way peculiarities of national history and political economy will continue to shape jurisdictions' corporate laws (Cabrelli and Siems 2015).…”