Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:53:11.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Corporate Law Judges Matter? Some Evidence from Milan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Luca Enriques
Luca Enriques
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Bologna, Faculty of Law.
Get access

Abstract

If corporate law matters to corporate governance and finance, then in order to assess its quality in any given country, one must look at corporate law off the books, i.e., the characteristics of corporate law as applied by judges and other relevant public officials. This paper provides an assessment of Italian corporate law based on an analysis of a sample of 106 decisions by the Milan Tribunal, Italy's most specialized court in corporate law. The judges' quality is evaluated by looking at: (1) how deferential they are to corporate insiders; (2) how keen they are to understand, and possibly take into account, the real rights and wrongs underlying the case before them; (3) how antiformalistic their legal reasoning is; (4) how concerned they are about the effects of their decisions on the generality of corporate actors.

The analysis casts a negative light on Milanese (and by extension, Italian) corporate law judges. It highlights egregious cases of deference to corporate insiders, especially with regard to parent-subsidiary relationships. Furthermore, very few of the court's opinions have been so drafted as to let the reader understand what the real dispute was and which party had really acted opportunistically. In any case, it appears to be rare for the court to take the substantive reasons for the dispute into any account. Cases are described, in which the court has adduced very formalistic arguments. Finally, there is no sign that the judges care about what signals they send to corporate actors: they appear to be quite unconcerned about whether their decisions provide the right incentives for directors and shareholders.

Type
Articles
Information
European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 765 - 821
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, William T. 1992. “Speculations on the Bicentennial: What Is Distinctive about Our Court of Chancery?”, in: Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, 1792–1992, pp. 13–19.Google Scholar
Allen, William T. 1997. “Ambiguity in Corporation Law”, 22 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law (1007) 894–903.Google Scholar
Allen, William T. 2000. “The Pride and the Hope of Delaware Corporate Law”, 25 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law (2000) 70–78.Google Scholar
Amatori, Franco and Andrea, Colli. 2000. “Corporate Governance in Italy: the Italian Story”, Bocconi University, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Barca, Fabrizio. 1996. “On Corporate Governance in Italy: Issues, Facts and Agenda”, Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei, Working Paper No. 10.96.Google Scholar
Barca, Fabrizio. 1998. “Some Views on U.S. Corporate Governance”, Columbia Business Law Review (1998) 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barca, Fabrizio. 2001. “La riforma incompiuta del governo societario italiano: Un'introduzione”, Stato e mercato (2001) 3–16.Google Scholar
Barca, Fabrizio. 2002. “Alcune lezioni dalla corporate governance degli USA”, in: Le nuove funzioni degli organi societari: verso la Corporate Governance? (Milano: Giuffrè 2002) 67–78.Google Scholar
Bebchuk, Lucian A. and Marcel, Kahan. 1989. “Fairness Opinions: How Fair Are They and What Can Be Done About It?”, 27 Duke Law Journal (1989) 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglöf, Erik. 1997. “Reforming Corporate Governance: Redirecting the European Agenda”, 24 Economic Policy (1997) 93–117.Google Scholar
Berglöf, Erik and Ernst-Ludwig, von Thadden. 2000. “The Changing Corporate Governance Paradigm: Implications for Transition and Developing Countries”, in: Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1999 (Washington: World Bank 2000) 135–162.Google Scholar
Berle, Adolf A. and Means, Gardiner C.. 1933. The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York: Macmillan, reprint 1982).Google Scholar
Bianchi, Marcello, Magda, Bianco, AND Luca, Enriques. 2001. Pyramidal Groups and the Separation Between Ownership and Control in Italy, in: Fabrizio, Barca and Marco, Becht eds., Who controls corporate Europe?: 154–187. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Bianchi, Marcello and Luca, Enriques. 2001. “Corporate Governance in Italy after the 1998 Reform: What Role for Institutional Investors?”, in: Quaderni di Finanza Consob (2001) No. 43 (available also in Social Sciences Research Network Electronic Library, <http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=203112>).CrossRef).>Google Scholar
Bianchi, Marcello, Stefano, Fabrizio and Giovanni, Siciliano. 1998. “La proprieta circolare nei gruppi quotati italiani”, in: Rapporto IRS sul mercato azionario 1998 (Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore Libri 1998) 203–222.Google Scholar
Bin, Marino. 1989. “Funzione uniformatrice della Cassazione e valore del precedente giudiziario”, Contratto e impresa (1989) 545–558.Google Scholar
Black, Bernard S. 1990. “Is Corporate Law Trivial?: A Political and Economic Analysis”, 84 Northwestern University Law Review (1990) 542–597.Google Scholar
Black, Bernard S. 2001a. “The Legal and Institutional Preconditions for Strong Securities Markets”, 48 UCLA Law Review (2001) 781–855.Google Scholar
Black, Bernard S. 2001b. “The Core Fiduciary Duties of Outside Directors”, Asia Business Law Review (2001) 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Bernard S. and Coffee, John C. Jr. 1994. “Hail Britannia?: Institutional Investor Behavior under Limited Regulation”, 92 Michigan Law Review (1994) 1997–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Bernard, Reinier, Kraakman, AND Anna, Tarassova. 2000. “Russian Privatization and Corporate Governance: What Went Wrong?”, 52 Stanford Law Review (2000) 1731–1808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonelli, Franco. 1985. Gli amministratori di societa per azioni (Milano: Giuffre 1985).Google Scholar
Bonelli, Franco. 1992. La responsabilità degli amministratori di società per azioni (Milano: Giuffre 1992).Google Scholar
Brown, Jeffrey, Gordon, Hopkins and Michael, Morgan. 2001. “Telecoms Bid Flattens Pirelli,” Financial Times (London), Tuesday, 31 03 2001, 15.Google Scholar
Buscaglia, Edgardo and Maria, Dakolias. 1999. “An Analysis of the Causes of Corruption in the Judiciary” (Washington D.C.: World Bank 1999).Google Scholar
Cafaggi, Fabrizio. 2001. “Riforma del diritto societario: II ruolo delle ‘clausole generali’”, Stato e mercato (2001) 45–77.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Guido. 2000. “Two Functions of Formalism”, 67 University of Chicago Law Review (2000) 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campobasso Gian, Franco. 1998. Diritto commerciale, 2, Diritto delle società, 4th ed. (Torino: Utet 1998).Google Scholar
Cavalli, Gino, Marco, Marulli, AND Cesare, Silvetti. 1996. Le società per azioni, 2, Gli organi e il controllo giudiziari, 3rd ed. (Torino: UTET 1996).Google Scholar
Civinini, Maria Giuliana. 2000. “La specializzazione del giudice”, Questione Giustizia (2000) 605–628.Google Scholar
Cheffins, Brian R. 2000. “Current Trends in Corporate Governance: Going from London to Milan Via Toronto”, 10 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law (2000) 5–42.Google Scholar
Cheffins, Brian R. 2001. “Law as Bedrock: The Foundations of an Economy Dominated by Widely Held Public Companies”, 30 Journal of Legal Studies (2001) 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffee, John C. Jr. 1989. “The Mandatory/Enabling Balance in Corporate Law: An Essay on the Judicial Role”, 89 Columbia Law Review (1989) 1618–1691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffee, John C. Jr. 1999a. “Privatization and Corporate Governance: The Lessons from Securities Market Failure”, 25 Journal of Corporation Law (1999) 1–39.Google Scholar
Coffee, John C. Jr. 1999b. “The Future As History: The Prospects for Global Convergence in Corporate Governance and Its Implications”, 93 Northwestern University Law Review (2001) 641–707.Google Scholar
Coffee, John C. Jr. 2001a. “The Rise of Dispersed Ownership: The Roles of Law and the State in the Separation of Ownership and Control”, 111 Yale Law Journal (2001) 1–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffee, John C. Jr. 2001b. “Do Norms Matter? A Cross-Country Evaluation”, 149 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2001) 2151–2177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, Giovanni E. 1994. “II bilancio d'esercizio”, in: Colombo, G.E. and Portale, G.B. (eds.), Trattato delle società per azioni, vol. 7.1, 23–573 (Torino: UTET 1994).Google Scholar
Colussi, Franco (transl.). 1993. The Italian Civil Code. Labour (Milano: Giuffrè 1993).Google Scholar
Consob, . 2001. Relazione per l'anno 2000. Dati e analisi (Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato 2001).Google Scholar
Consob, . 2002. Testo predisposto per l'audizione del prof. Luigi Spaventa alia VI Commissione Finanze della Camera dei Deputati, e acquisito agli atti parlamentari, nell'ambito dell’“Indagine conoscitiva sull'attuazione del Testo Unico della finanza”, available at <www.consob.it>..' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Consob,+.+2002.+Testo+predisposto+per+l'audizione+del+prof.+Luigi+Spaventa+alia+VI+Commissione+Finanze+della+Camera+dei+Deputati,+e+acquisito+agli+atti+parlamentari,+nell'ambito+dell’“Indagine+conoscitiva+sull'attuazione+del+Testo+Unico+della+finanza”,+available+at+.>Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert. 1998. “Expressive Law and Economics”, 27 J. Legal Stud. (1998) 585–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottino, Gastone. 1999. Le società. Diritto commerciale, vol. 1.2, 4th ed. (Padova: Cedam 2001).Google Scholar
Crespi, Alberto. 2001. “Le false comunicazioni sociali: una riforma faceta”, Rivista delle società (2001) 1345–1368.Google Scholar
Davies, Paul L. 1997. Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law, 6th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1997).Google Scholar
Delebecque, Philippe. 1998. “II ricorso dei giudici alle clausole generali in Francia”, in: Luciana Cabella, Pisu and Luca, Nanni (eds.), Clausole e principi generali nell'argomentazione giurisprudenziale degli anni Novanta (Padova: Cedam 1998) 65–72.Google Scholar
Del Giudice, Vincenzo. 2001. “Montedison-Falck, nozze in fumo”, Il Sole 24 Ore (Milan), Wednesday, 28 02 2001, 29.Google Scholar
di Majo, Adolfo. 1988. Delle obbligazioni in generale (Bologna-Roma: Zanichelli and Soc. Ed. del Foro Italiano 1988).Google Scholar
Di Sabato, F. 1999. Manuale delle societè, 6th ed. (Torino: Utet 1999).Google Scholar
Draghi, Mario. 2001. “Perché non è fallita la mia legge sull'opa”, La Repubblica (Rome), Wednesday, 8 08 2001, 13.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank H. and Fischel, Daniel R.. 1991. The Economic Structure of Corporate Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1991).Google Scholar
Enriques, Luca. 1994. “Azione sociale di responsabilità, abuso della minoranza e divieto di voto in capo ai soci amministratori”, Giurisprudenza commerciale Part 2 (1994) 125–138.Google Scholar
Enriques, Luca. 2000a. “The Law on Company Directors' Self-Dealing: A Comparative Analysis”, 2 International and Comparative Corporate Law Journal (2000) 297–333.Google Scholar
Enriques, Luca. 2000b. Il conflitto d'interessi degli amministratori di societa per azioni (Milano: Giuffrè 2000).Google Scholar
Enriques, Luca. 2001. “II nuovo diritto societario nelle mani dei giudici: una ricognizione empirica”, Stato e mercato (2001) 79–105.Google Scholar
Fisch, Jill E. 2000. “The Peculiar Role of the Delaware Courts in the Competition for Corporate Charters”, 68 University of Cincinnati Law Review (2000) 1061–1100.Google Scholar
Fusaro, Andrea. 2001. “Massimazione: Uno sguardo comparatistico”, Rivista critica di diritto privato (2001) 141–144.Google Scholar
Galgano, Francesco. 1988. “Dei difetti della giurisprudenza, ovvero dei difetti delle riviste di giurisprudenza”, Contralto e impresa (1988) 504–509.Google Scholar
Galletti, Danilo. 2001a. E-mail to the author, 21 February 2001.Google Scholar
Galletti, Danilo. 2001b. E-mail to the author, 8 August 2001.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Nicholas N. 2000. “Discretion in the Career and Recognition Judiciary”, 7 University of Chicago Law School Roundtable (2000) 205–225.Google Scholar
Goshen, Zohar. 2000. “Voting and the Economics of Corporate Self-Dealing: Theory meets Reality,” Working Paper (available in Social Sciences Research Network Electronic Library, <http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=229273>).CrossRef).>Google Scholar
Hansmann, Henry and Reinier, Kraakman. Forthcoming. “What is Corporate Law?”, in Reinier Kraakman et al, The Anatomy of Corporate Law. A Comparative and Functional Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press forthcoming)Google Scholar
Hertig, Gerard. 1998. “Corporate Governance in the United States As Seen from Europe”, Columbia Business Law Review (1998) 27–49.Google Scholar
Hertig, Gerard (in press). “Convergence of Substantive Law and Convergence of Enforcement: A Comparison”, in: Gordon, Jeffrey N. and Roe, Mark J. (eds.), Convergence in Corporate Law: The Emerging Questions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Irrera, Maurizio. 2000. Le delibere del consiglio di amministrazione (Milano: Giuffrè 2000).Google Scholar
Istituto di Studi e Analisi Economica. 2001. Rapporto trimestrale (April 2001).Google Scholar
Jaeger Pier, Giusto. 1987. “Ancora sulla determinazione del compenso degli amministratori: conflitto d'interessi, commisurazione al ‘fatturato’, principio di ‘ragionevolezza’”, Giurisprudenza commerciale Part 2 (1987) 797–810.Google Scholar
Johnson, Dexter. 1997. “The Role of Institutional Investors After the Securities Reform Act: Will Institutional Investors Act as Lead Plaintiff?”, 25 Securities Regulation Law Journal (1997) 387–400.Google Scholar
Johnson, Simon et al. 2000. “Tunneling”, 90 American Economic Review (2000) 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamar, Ehud. 1999. “Shareholder Litigation under Indeterminate Corporate Law”, 66 University of Chicago Law Review (1999) 887–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, Rafael et al. 1997. “Legal Determinants of External Finance”, 52 Journal of Finance (1997) 1131–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, Rafael et al. 1998. “Law and Finance”, 106 Journal of Political Economy (1998) 1113–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, Florencio, Lopez-de-Silanes, AND Andrei, Shleifer. 1999. “Corporate Ownership Around the World”, 54 Journal of Finance (1999) 471–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leader, . 2001. “Flattering to Deceive”, The Economist (Europe), 4 08 2001, 13–14.Google Scholar
Lex, Column. 2001. “Burning Rubber,” Financial Times (London), Tuesday, 31 07 2001, 16.Google Scholar
Licht, Amir N. 2001. “The Mother of All Path Dependencies: Toward a Cross-Cultural Theory of Corporate Governance Systems”, 26 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law (2001) 147–205.Google Scholar
Macey, Jonathan R. 1989. “Courts and Corporations: A Comment on Coffee”, 89 Colum. L. Rev. (1989) 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macey, Jonathan R. 1998. “Italian Corporate Governance: One American's Perspective”, Columbia Business Law Review (1998) 121–144.Google Scholar
Marchetti, Piergaetano. 1999. “II ruolo dell'assemblea nel T.U. e nella corporate governance”, in: Assemblea degli azionisti e nuove regole del governo societario (Padova: CEDAM 1999) 7–20.Google Scholar
Marcinkiewitz, Andrea. 1990. “Condizioni per l'ispezione della societa”, Le Società (1990) 521–523.Google Scholar
Mengoni, Luigi. 1994. “L'argomentazione orientata alle conseguenze”, Rivista trimestrale di diritto eprocedura civile (1994) 1–18.Google Scholar
Merryman, John H. 1965. “The Italian Style I: Doctrine”, 18 Stanford Law Review (1965) 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John H. 1966a. “The Italian Style II: Law”, 18 Stanford Law Review (1966) 396–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John H. 1966b. “The Italian Style III: Interpretation”, 18 Stanford Law Review (1966) 583–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milhaupt, Curtis J. 1998. “Property Rights in Firms”, 84 Virginia Law Review (1998) 1145–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milhaupt, Curtis J. 2001. “Privatization and Corporate Governance in a Unified Korea”, 26 Journal of Corporation Law (2001) 199–223.Google Scholar
Minervini, Gustavo, Marcello, Bianchi, AND Luca, Enriques. 2001. “Dalle ‘piramidi’ ai conflitti d'interesse”, Il Sole 24 Ore (Milan), Wednesday, 27 08 2001, 7.Google Scholar
Nakajima, Chizu. 1999. Conflict of Interest and Duty. A Comparative Analysis in Anglo-Japanese Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International).Google Scholar
Nenova, Tatiana. 2000. “The Value of Corporate Votes and Control Benefits: A Cross-Country Analysis,” working paper, Harvard University (available in Social Sciences Research Network Electronic Library, <http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm7abstract_id=237809>).CrossRef).>Google Scholar
Oberto, Giacomo. 2001. “Recrutement et formation des magistrats: le système italien dans le cadre des principes internationaux sur le statut des magistrats et l'independence du pouvoir judiciaire”, Rivista di diritto privato (2001) 717–752.Google Scholar
Penati, Alessandro and Luigi, Zingales. 1997. “Efficiency and Distribution in Financial Restructuring: The Case of the Ferruzzi Group,” CRSP Working Paper No. 466 (available in the Social Sciences Research Network Electronic Library, <http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=224439>).).>Google Scholar
Pistor, Katharina, Martin, Raiser, AND Stanislav, Gelfer. 2000. “Law and Finance in Transition Economies”, 8 The Economics of Transition (2000) 325–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polato, Raffaella. 2001. “Telecom è sana e ridurremo i debiti Olivett”, Corriere della Sera (Milan), Tuesday, 31 07 2001, 2.Google Scholar
Pons, Giovanni. 2001. ‘“Io e Gnutti in conflitto d'interessi’ storia di un cda da 13mila miliardi”, La Repubblica (Rome), Thursday, 31 05 2001, 28.Google Scholar
Preite, Disiano. 1988. “Osservazioni a Trib. Milano, 9 novembre 1987 (in tema di conflitto d'interessi del socio e azione sociale di responsabilità)”, Giurisprudenza commerciale Part 2 (1988) 969–977.Google Scholar
Ratner, Juliana. 2001. “Telecom Italia sees no change,” Financial Times (London), Tuesday, 31 07 20.Google Scholar
Roe, Mark J. 2001. “The Quality of Law Argument and its Limits” (Columbia Law School Working Paper No. 186).Google Scholar
Roe, Mark J. 2002. “Corporate Law's Limits”, 31 Journal of Legal Studies (2002) 233–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojo, Anjel. 1993. “La sociedad anónima como problema”, in: Pietro, Abbadessa and Anjel, Rojo (eds.), Il diritto delle società per azioni: Problemi, esperienze, progetti (Milano: Giuffrè 1993) 1–25.Google Scholar
Romano, Roberta. 1993. The Genius of American Corporate Law (Washington D.C.: The AEI Press 1993).Google Scholar
Sacco, Rodolfo. 1992. Intmduzione al diritto comparato (Torino: UTET 1992).Google Scholar
Sanfilippo, Pierpaolo M. 2000. Funzione amministrativa e autonomia statutaria nelle società per azioni (Torino: Giappichelli 2000).Google Scholar
Savona, Ernesto U. and Laura, Mezzanotte. 1998. La corruzione in Europa (Roma: Carocci 1998).Google Scholar
Sbisà, Giuseppe. 1989. “Certezza del diritto e flessibilità del sistema (la motivazione della sentenza in common law e civil law)”, Contralto e impresa (1989) 519–525.Google Scholar
Shleifer, Andrei and Vishny, Robert W.. 1997. “A Survey of Corporate Governance”, 52 Journal of Finance (1997) 737–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanghellini, Lorenzo. 1995. “Corporate Governance in Italy: Strong Owners, Faithful Managers. An Assessment and a Proposal for Reform”, 6 Indiana International and Comparative Law Review (1995) 91–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanghellini, Lorenzo. 1999. “Family and Government Owned Firms in Italy: Some Reflections on an Alternative System of Corporate Governance,” paper presented at the Corporate Group Meeting Symposium, Venice, 25-26 June 1999.Google Scholar
Taruffo, Michele. 1975. La motivazione della sentenza civile (Padova: Cedam 1975).Google Scholar
Taruffo, Michele. 1988. Lafisionomia della sentenza in Italia, in La sentenza in Europa. Metodo, tecnica e stile (Padova: Cedam 1988) 180–214.Google Scholar
Taruffo, Michele. 1994. “Precedente ed esempio nella decisione giudiziaria”, Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile (1994) 19–36.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, Guido Uberto. 1988. “II controllo giudiziario sulla gestione”, in: Colombo, G.E. and Portale, G.B. (eds.), Trattato delle società per azioni, vol. 5 (Torino: UTET 1988) 189–303.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, Guido Uberto. 2000. “La prima denuncia al tribunale della Consob ex art. 152 d.lgs. 58/98”, Le Società (2000) 1456–1460.Google Scholar
The Economist (Europe). 2001a. “Plenty of Bravado, but not Bravo”, 4 August 2001, 52–53.Google Scholar
Weigmann, Marco. 1996. “Gli strumenti per il controllo del patrimonio d'impresa in forma di società di capitali: Statuto sociale e patti parasociali”, Rivista del dottori commercialisti (1996) 903–921.Google Scholar
Weigmann, Roberto. 1991. “Compensi esagerati agli amministratori di società a base ristretta”, in: Giurisprudenza italiana Part 1.2 (1991) 793–802.Google Scholar
Weigmann, Roberto 2000. “Osservazioni a Trib. Milano, 21 ottobre 1999”, Giurisprudenza italiana (2000) 555–557.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, Herbert. 1991. “Zu den Treuepflichten im Gesellschaftsrecht”, in: Kübler, F., Mertens, H.J., Werner, W. (eds.), Festschrift Heinsius 949–966 (Berlin: de Gruyter 1991).Google Scholar
Yablon, Charles M. 1991. “On the Allocation of the Burden of Proof in Corporate Law: An Essay on Fairness and Fuzzy Sets”, 13 Cardozo Law Review (1991) 497–518.Google Scholar
Zingales, Luigi. 1994. “The Value of the Voting Right: A Study of the Milan Stock Exchange”, 7 Review of Financial Studies (1994) 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweigert, Konrad and Hein, Kötz. 1998. Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1998).Google Scholar