Sunday, 22 April 2012

My two new journal articles on insider dealing and market manipulation

I always feel a bit bad when I use this blog to promote my own research (though this has not stopped me from doing it!). But, then, earlier this week a post on ‘is blogging or tweeting about research papers worth it?’ (available on the LSE impact blog) answered this question with ‘yes’ as well. So, let’s do it again: time to promote two of my articles on EU market abuse law (ie insider dealing and market manipulation) just published a few days ago:
  • The first one is with Amedeo De Cesari on ‘The Law and Finance of Share Repurchases in Europe’, published in the Journal of Corporate Law Studies, ssrn version available here. It’s an empirical article, using original data from twenty Member States. Our main result is that the EU law on share repurchases even seems to matter where it did not really change the law in a positive way – so to all Europhiles: please read.
  • The second one is with Matthijs Nelemans on ‘The Reform of the EU Market Abuse Law: Revolution or Evolution?, published in The Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, ssrn version available here.  It discusses the proposals to transform the Market Abuse Directive (nicely called ‘MAD’) into a regulation (‘MAR’? which sounds less catchy), as well as having a new Directive harmonising criminal sanctions. All this further Europeanisation is very controversial – so to all Europhobes (and Europhiles) please download as well.

Sunday, 15 April 2012

Blogging stats – do I need to change?

First, my audience in terms of page-views per country (all-time): 1. United Kingdom (5,396); 2. United States (4,329); 3. Germany (1,557); 4. France (1,308); 5. Russia (511); 6. Netherlands (468); 7. Japan (449); 8. Canada (400); 9. Australia (334); 10. South Korea (305) –    comments: ok, my places of residence (UK) and origin (Germany) are no surprise; also the most populous English-speaking country (US), and I have a couple of links to the Netherlands and Japan; a bit surprised about France – but then what about the other big non-English speaking European countries: anywhere there from Italy, France, Poland etc?

Second, my most popular posts in terms of page-views (all time): 1. Siemslegal World Law Journal Ranking 2011 (3,403); 2. Law Journal Rankings (2,259); 3. (Law) Journal Ranking of Australian Research Council (371); 4. Citation Ranking of UK Universities (Law) (285); 5. The Driest Part of the UK (268); 6. Times Good University Guide 2011 (195); 7. Refinement of law journal ranking?; 8. Cartesio: Daily Mail still good law! (163); 9. REF 2014: what did the law sub-panel members submit (150); 10. Guardian university league table 2011 (123) –    comments: well, people are interesting in rankings, the REF, the ECJ case law in Cartesio and the weather – not really a big surprise; but, still the extent to which the posts on law journal rankings lead the field may be interesting (or worrying) – thus, also:

Third, my most popular posts in terms of page-views (last 30 days only): 1. Siemslegal World Law Journal Ranking 2011 (226); 2. Law Journal Rankings (97); 3. What will happen to the Russell Group? (45); 4. Should I have taught ‘crowdfunding’ (35); 5. various posts (all 14) –   comments: that’s now really a bit worrying. The two posts from 2011 on law journal rankings top the ranking again, with only some of my recent posts (3. and 4.) receiving some attention. So what would be a rational thing to do? Stop blogging, or change my blog to focus entirely on law journal rankings? But, then, I don’t really think that law journal rankings are that useful; also, to refer to my ‘blogging philosophy’, I’m not supposed to be that opportunistic: so perhaps let’s leave things as they are….

Friday, 6 April 2012

Should I have taught ‘crowdfunding’ in my company law course?

In this year’s company law course, I taught two lectures on ‘offering securities to the public’, in particular, the EU Prospectus Directive, and I was just wondering whether I should have dealt with crowdfunding as well. The idea of crowdfunding has recently received a lot of attention, not least due to the proposed new US law (for a good analysis see Bradford’s article; also useful the report from the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment (UKIE)). To be sure, crowdfunding is structured in a way that it does not fall under the extensive prospectus requirements. Still, it can be a useful example to show how small businesses can raise finance by way of using the exemptions to these requirements (see also the overview of UK/EU law in ‘Keynotes crowdfunding’).
But, then, crowdfunding is not only done by way of issuing securities. Usually three or four models are distinguished (eg, Bradford, ibid: donation, reward, pre-purchase and equity; UKIE, ibid: donation, lending, investment) and for some of them company law is not relevant at all, but it is a question of financial law, investment law, partnership law, pure private contracting etc. It is also a topic that is currently discussed by the Business Funding Taskforce of the UK government (see newspaper article here).
So, to answer the question, well, I guess, I could have mentioned it, but it also seems fair enough to wait a bit in order to see how the different models will evolve in practice and whether and how UK and EU law-makers will react.