ABA (1990) Committee on Corporate Laws, ‘Changes in the Revised Model Business Corporation Act – Amendments Pertaining to Closely Held Corporations’ (1990) 46 Business Lawyer 297Google Scholar

ABA (2016) American Bar Association Business Law Section Corporate Laws Committee, Model Business Corporation Act (2016 Revision): Official Text with Official Comment & Statutory Cross-References (American Bar Association 2016)Google Scholar

ADB (2015) Asian Development Bank, Asia SME Finance Monitor 2014 (Mandaluyong, Philippines, Asian Development Bank 2015)Google Scholar

Afterman (1969) Afterman, Allen B., ‘Statutory Protection for Oppressed Minority Shareholders: A Model for Reform’ (1969) 55 Virginia LRev 1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aizawa (2006) Aizawa, Tetsu (ed.), Ritsuan Tantōsha ni yoru Shin-Kaisha Hō no Kaisetsu [The Drafters’ Commentary on the New Companies Act] (Bessatsu Shōji Hōmu vol. 295, Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2006)Google Scholar

Aizawa (2009) Aizawa, Tetsu (ed.), Ichimon Ittō: Shin-Kaisha Hō [Q&A: The New Companies Act] (rev ed., Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2009)Google Scholar

Aizawa & Kōriya (2006a) Aizawa, Tetsu & Daisuke, Kōriya, ‘Kaisha Hōsei no Gendaika ni tomonau Jisshitsu Kaisei no Gaiyō to Kihonteki na Kangaekata [The Substantive Reforms Accompanying the Modernization of the Corporate Law System: Overview and Fundamental Approaches]’ in Aizawa (2006)Google Scholar

Aizawa & Kōriya (2006b) Tetsu, Aizawa & Daisuke, Kōriya, ‘Mochibun-Kaisha [Membership Companies]’ in Aizawa (2006)Google Scholar

Aizawa et al. (2006) Aizawa, Tetsu, Masami, Hadama & Daisuke, Kōriya (eds.), Ronten Kaisetsu Shin-Kaisha Hō: Senmon no Michishirube [Commentary on the New Companies Act: A Thousand-Question Guide] (Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2006)Google Scholar

ALI (1994) American Law Institute, Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations, vol. 2 (St Paul, MN, American Law Institute Publishers 1994)Google Scholar

Altmeppen (2012) Altmeppen, Holger, ‘Die Dogmatik des Abfindungsanspruchs und die offenen Fragen zum Ausscheiden aus der GmbH [The Doctrine on Membership Interest Compensation Claims and Open Questions on Exit from the GmbH]’ [2012] Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 1685Google Scholar

AmJur2d (2019) American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, vol. 37 (West 2019) Fraud and Deceit § 17Google Scholar

Andersson (2010) Andersson, Jan, ‘Minority Shareholder Protection in SMEs: A Question of Information Ex Post and Bargaining Power Ex Ante?’ in Neville & Sørensen (2010)Google Scholar

Angell & Ames (1832) Angell, Joseph K. & Ames, Samuel, Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations Aggregate (1st ed., Boston, MA, Hilliard, Gray, Little & Wilkins 1832)Google Scholar

Aotake (1979) Aotake, Shōichi, Shō-Kibo Heisa Kaisha no Hōkisei [Legal Regulation of Small-Scale Closed Corporations] (Tokyo, Bunshindō 1979)Google Scholar

Armour (2009) Armour, John, ‘Enforcement Strategies in UK Corporate Governance: A Roadmap and Empirical Assessment’ in Armour, John & Payne, Jennifer (eds.), Rationality in Company Law: Essays in Honour of DD Prentice (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2009)Google Scholar

Armour et al. (2009a) Armour, John, Deakin, Simon, Lele, Priya & Siems, Mathias, ‘How Do Legal Rules Evolve? Evidence from a Cross-Country Comparison of Shareholder, Creditor and Worker Protection’ (2009) 57 AJCL 579Google Scholar

Armour et al. (2009b) Armour, John, Black, Bernard, Cheffins, Brian & Nolan, Richard, ‘Private Enforcement of Corporate Law: An Empirical Comparison of the United Kingdom and the United States’ (2009) 6 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 687Google Scholar

Armour et al. (2017) Armour, John, Fleischer, Holger, Knapp, Vanessa & Winner, Martin, ‘Brexit and Corporate Citizenship’ (2017) 18 EBOR 225Google Scholar

Armour & Enriques et al. (2017) Kraakman, Reinier, Armour, John, Davies, Paul, Enriques, Luca, Hansmann, Henry, Hertig, Gerard, Hopt, Klaus, Kanda, Hideki, Pargendler, Mariana, Ringe, Wolf-Georg, Rock, Edward, Cools, Sofie & Goto, Gen, The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (3rd ed., Oxford University Press 2017)Google Scholar

Arner (2002) Arner, Douglas, ‘Development of the American Law of Corporations to 1832’ (2002) 55 Southern Methodist University LRev 23Google Scholar

Art (2003) Art, Robert C., ‘Shareholder Rights and Remedies in Close Corporations: Oppression, Fiduciary Duties, and Reasonable Expectations’ (2003) 28 Journal of Corporation Law 371Google Scholar

Ayres (1992) Ayres, Ian, ‘Judging Close Corporations in the Age of Statutes’ (1992) 70 Washington University LQ 365Google Scholar

Ayres (1999) Ayres, Ian, ‘Empire or Residue: Competing Visions of the Contractual Canon’ (1999) 26 Florida State University LRev 897Google Scholar

Ayres (2003) Ayres, Ian, ‘Response: Valuing Modern Contract Scholarship’ (2003) 112 Yale LJ 881CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ayres (2012) Ayres, Ian, ‘Regulating Opt-Out: An Economic Theory of Altering Rules’ (2012) 121 Yale LJ 2032Google Scholar

Bacher & von Blumenthal (2008) Bacher, Philipp & von Blumenthal, Wolfram, ‘Die Verwertung von GmbH-Geschäftsanteilen bei Ausscheiden eines Gesellschafters [The Valuation of GmbH Membership Interests in the Case of a Member’s Exit]’ [2008] Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht 406Google Scholar

Bachmann (2008) Bachmann, Gregor, ‘Introductory Editorial: Renovating the German Private Limited Company – Special Issue on the Reform of the GmbH’ (2008) 9 German LJ 1063Google Scholar

Bachmann et al. (2014) Bachmann, Gregor, Eidenmüller, Horst, Engert, Andreas, Fleischer, Holger & Schön, Wolfgang, Regulating the Closed Corporation (Berlin, De Gruyter 2014)Google Scholar

Bachner (2009) Bachner, Thomas, Creditor Protection in Private Companies: Anglo-German Perspectives for a European Legal Discourse (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2009)Google Scholar

Bainbridge (1997) Bainbridge, Stephen M., ‘Community and Statism: A Conservative Contractarian Critique of Progressive Corporate Law Scholarship’ (1997) 82 Cornell LRev 856Google Scholar

Bainbridge (2002) Bainbridge, Stephen M., Corporation Law and Economics (New York, Foundation Press 2002)Google Scholar

Bahls (1990) Bahls, Steven C., ‘Resolving Shareholder Dissension: Selection of the Appropriate Equitable Remedy’ (1990) 15 Journal of Corporation Law 285Google Scholar

Bainbridge (2020) Bainbridge, Stephen M., Corporate Law (4th ed., St Paul, MN, Foundation Press 2020)Google Scholar

Balz (1984a) Balz, Gerhard K., Die Beendigung der Mitgliedschaft in der GmbH: Eine empirische und dogmatische Untersuchung zur Ausschließung und zum Austritt von Gesellschaftern [The Termination of Membership in the GmbH: An Empirical and Doctrinal Study of Expulsion and Withdrawal of Members] (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot 1984)Google Scholar

Balz (1984b) Balz, Gerhard K., ‘Rechte und Pflichten des Gesellschafters nach Austritt aus der GmbH [Rights and Duties of the Member After Withdrawal from the GmbH]’ [1984] Der Betrieb 1865Google Scholar

Barnert (2003) Barnert, Thomas, Die Gesellschafterklage im dualistischen System des Gesellschaftsrechts [The Shareholder Suit in the Dualistic Corporate Law System] (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2003)Google Scholar

Baum & Goto (2016) Baum, Harald & Goto, Gen, ‘Die japanische LLP im gesellschaftsrechtlichen Kontext [The J-LLP in the Corporate Law Context]’ (2016) No. 41 ZJapanR/JJapanL 89Google Scholar

Baum & Puchniak (2012) Baum, Harald & Puchniak, Dan W, ‘The Derivative Action: An Economic, Historical and Practice-Oriented Approach’ in Puchniak et al. (2012)Google Scholar

Baum & Takahashi (2011) Baum, Harald & Takahashi, Eiji, ‘Klagen gegen fehlerhafte Hauptversammlungsbeschlüsse im japanischen Aktienrecht [Legal Challenges against Flawed Shareholder Meeting Resolutions in Japanese KK Law]’ (2011) No. 32 ZJapanR/JJapanL 153Google Scholar

Baumbach & Hueck (2013) Baumbach, Adolf & Hueck, Alfred (eds.), GmbHG: Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung [GmbH Law] (20th ed., Munich, C. H. Beck 2013)Google Scholar

Becht et al. (2008) Becht, Marco, Mayer, Colin & Wagner, Hannes F., ‘Where Do Firms Incorporate? Deregulation and the Cost of Entry’ (2008) 14 Journal of Corporate Finance 241Google Scholar

Becker (1985) Becker, Michael, Der Austritt aus der GmbH: Durchsetzung eines unentziehbaren Individualrechts im Interesse effektiven Minderheitenschutzes [Withdrawal from the GmbH: Implementation of an Inalienable Individual Right in the Interests of Effective Minority Protection] (Kehl am Rhein, N. P. Engel 1985)Google Scholar

BEIS (2020) Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (UK), Statistical Release: Business Population Estimates for the UK and Regions 2020 (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 8 October 2020), archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/P83Q-BRRDGoogle Scholar

Belcredi & Ferrarini (2013) Belcredi, Massimo, & Ferrarini, Guido (eds.), Boards and Shareholders in European Listed Companies: Facts, Context and Post-Crisis Reforms (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2013)Google Scholar

Bell (2006) Bell, John, Judiciaries Within Europe: A Comparative Review (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2006)Google Scholar

Bell (2011) Bell, John, ‘Legal Research and the Distinctiveness of Comparative Law’ in Mark, Van Hoecke (ed.), Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? (Oxford, Hart 2011)Google Scholar

Ben-Shahar (2011) Ben-Shahar, Omri, ‘Fixing Unfair Contracts’ (2011) 63 Stanford LRev 869Google Scholar

Ben-Shahar & Pottow (2006) Ben-Shahar, Omri, & Pottow, John A. E., ‘On the Stickiness of Default Rules’ (2006) 33 Florida State University LRev 651Google Scholar

Bennedsen (2014) Bennedsen, Morten, ‘Centuries-Old Japanese Family-Owned Inn a Model for Succession’, South China Morning Post (28 February 2014) www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/1436947/centuries-old-japanese-family-owned-inn-model-successionaccessed 4 June 2019Google Scholar

Berghof (2006) Berghoff, Hartmut, ‘The End of Family Business? The Mittelstand and German Capitalism in Transition, 1949–2000’ (2006) 80 Business History Review 263Google Scholar

Beurskens & Noack (2008) Beurskens, Michael & Noack, Ulrich, ‘The Reform of German Private Limited Company: Is the GmbH Ready for the 21st Century?’ (2008) 9 German LJ 1069Google Scholar

BIS (2012) Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, ‘Archived Documents: Company Law Review’ (UK Government Web Archive, 1 November 2012) http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121029131934/http:/www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-law/company-and-partnership-law/company-law/publications-archiveGoogle Scholar

Bishop (1995) Bishop, Carter G., ‘Treatment of Members Upon Their Death and Withdrawal from a Limited Liability Company: The Case for a Uniform Paradigm’ (1995) 25 Stetson LRev 255Google Scholar

Bittle & Hinson (2015) Bittle, Lyndon & Hinson, Kelli, ‘Texas Turns A Corner: Resolving Shareholder Disputes in Closely Held Businesses After Ritchie v Rupe’ (2015) 67 Baylor LRev 339Google Scholar

Black & Kraakman (1996) Black, Bernard, & Kraakman, Reinier, ‘A Self-Enforcing Model of Corporate Law’ (1996) 109 Harvard LRev 1911Google Scholar

Blair & Stout (2001) Blair, Margaret M., & Stout, Lynn A, ‘Trust, Trustworthiness, and the Behavioral Foundations of Corporate Law’ (2001) 149 University of Pennsylvania LRev 1735Google Scholar

Blath (2012) Blath, Simon, ‘Der Vollzug des Ausscheidens aus der GmbH – dogmatische und praktische Fragen [Executing Exit from the GmbH: Doctrinal and Practical Issues]’ [2012] GmbH-Rundschau 657Google Scholar

Bloomberg (2019) Bloomberg, ‘Company Overview of Cisco Systems Netherlands Holdings B.V.’ (Bloomberg LP, 1 June 2019), archived 1 June 2019 at https://web.archive.org/web/20190601170934/https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=8175804Google Scholar

BMJ (1969) Bundesministerium der Justiz [Federal Ministry of Justice] (ed.), Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes über Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung [Ministry of Justice Draft on an Act on Companies with Limited Liability] (Cologne, Dr Otto Schmidt 1969)Google Scholar

Borg-Barthet (2013) Borg-Barthet, Justin, ‘Free at Last? Choice of Corporate Law in the EU following the Judgment in VALE’ (2013) 62 International & Comparative LQ 503Google Scholar

BMWi (2021) Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (Germany), ‘The German Mittelstand As a Model for Success’ (BMWi – Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, 2021) archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/BBW4-QXYYGoogle Scholar

Boros (1995) Boros, Elizabeth J., Minority Shareholders’ Remedies (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1995)Google Scholar

Boyle (2002) Boyle, A. J., Minority Shareholders’ Remedies (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2002)Google Scholar

Branson (2001) Branson, Douglas M., ‘The Very Uncertain Prospect of “Global” Convergence in Corporate Governance’ (2001) 34 Cornell International LJ 321Google Scholar

Brinkman (2002) Brinkman, Tobias, ‘Minority Protection under Section 459 of the Companies Act 1985: A Comparison with the Law of the German GmbH (Private Limited Company)’ (2002) 13 European Business LRev 55Google Scholar

Bugay (2013) Bugay, Arthur L., ‘Minority Shareholder Freeze-Out Litigation in Pennsylvania: Remedies Provided at Common Law and by Section 1767 of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law’ (2013) 84 Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 113Google Scholar

Bussani & Mattei (2012) Bussani, Mauro, & Mattei, Ugo (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2012)Google Scholar

Butler & Ribstein (1990) Butler, Henry N., & Ribstein, Larry E., ‘Opting Out of Fiduciary Duties: A Response to the Anti-Contractarians’ (1990) 65 Washington LRev 1Google Scholar

Cabrelli & Siems (2015) Cabrelli, David, & Siems, Mathias, ‘Convergence, Legal Origins, and Transplants in Comparative Corporate Law: A Case-Based and Quantitative Analysis’ (2015) 63 AJCL 109Google Scholar

Callison & Vestal (2009) Callison, J. William, & Vestal, Allan W., ‘Contractarianism and Its Discontents: Reflections on Unincorporated Business Organization Law Reform’ (2009) 42 Suffolk University LRev 493Google Scholar

Carney (1987) Carney, William J., ‘The Theory of the Firm: Investor Coordination Costs, Control Premiums and Capital Structure’ (1987) 65 Washington University LQ 1Google Scholar

Carney (1995) Carney, William J., ‘Limited Liability Companies: Origins and Antecedents’ (1995) 66 University of Colorado LRev 855Google Scholar

Carney (1998) Carney, William J., ‘The Production of Corporate Law’ (1998) 71 Southern California LRev 715Google Scholar

Charny (1990) Charny, David, ‘Nonlegal Sanctions in Commercial Relationships’ (1990) 104 Harvard LRev 375Google Scholar

Charny (1991) Charny, David, ‘Hypothetical Bargains: The Normative Structure of Contract Interpretation’ (1991) 89 Michigan LRev 1815Google Scholar

Chayes (1960) Chayes, Abram, ‘Madame Wagner and the Close Corporation’ (1960) 73 Harvard LRev 1532Google Scholar

Cheffins (1997) Cheffins, Brian R., Company Law: Theory, Structure and Operation (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1997)Google Scholar

Chen-Wishart (2018) Chen-Wishart, Mindy, Contract Law (6th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press 2018)Google Scholar

Chesterman (1973) Chesterman, M. R., ‘The “Just and Equitable” Winding Up of Small Private Companies’ (1973) 36 MLR 129Google Scholar

Chrisman (2009) Chrisman, Rodney D., ‘LLCs Are the New King of the Hill: An Empirical Study of the Number of New LLCs, Corporations and LPs Formed in the United States Between 2004–2007 and How LLCs Were Taxed for Tax Years 2002–2006’ (2009) 15 Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law 459Google Scholar

Chun (2018) Chun, Kyung-Hoon, ‘Multiple Derivative Actions: Debates in Korea and the Implications for a Comparative Study’ (2018) 15 Berkeley Business LJ 306Google Scholar

Cisco (2019) Cisco, ‘Kaisha Gaiyō [Company Overview]’ (Cisco), archived 3 February 2019 at https://web.archive.org/web/20190203043809/https://www.cisco.com/c/ja_jp/about/corporate-profile.htmlGoogle Scholar

Clark (1989) Clark, Robert C., ‘Contracts, Elites, and Traditions in the Making of Corporate Law’ (1989) 89 Columbia LRev 1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark (2011) Clark, Jr, William, H., ‘The Relationship of the Model Business Corporation Act to Other Entity Laws’ (2011) 74(1) Law & Contemporary Problems 56Google Scholar

CLRSG (1999) Company Law Review Steering Group, Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: The Strategic Framework (URN 99/654, February 1999)Google Scholar

CLRSG (2000a) Company Law Review Steering Group, Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: Developing the Framework (URN 00/656, London, Department of Trade and Industry, March 2000)Google Scholar

CLRSG (2000b) Company Law Review Steering Group, Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: Completing the Structure, vol. 1 (URN 00/1335, London, Department of Trade and Industry, November 2000)Google Scholar

CLRSG (2001) Company Law Review Steering Group, Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: Final Report, vol. 1 (URN 01/942, London, Department of Trade and Industry, June 2001)Google Scholar

Coffee (1988) Coffee, Jr, John, C., ‘No Exit: Opting Out, the Contractual Theory of the Corporation and the Special Case of Remedies’ (1988) 53 Brooklyn LRev 919Google Scholar

Coffee (1989) Coffee, Jr, John, C., ‘The Mandatory/Enabling Balance in Corporate Law: An Essay on the Judicial Role’ (1989) 89 Columbia LRev 1618Google Scholar

Cohen (1945) Cohen Committee, Report of The Committee on Company Law Amendment (Cmd 6659, 1945)Google Scholar

Comment (1965) Comment, ‘Oppression as a Statutory Ground for Corporate Dissolution’ [1965] Duke LJ 128Google Scholar

Companies House (2015) Companies House, Statistical Release: Companies Register Activities 2014/15 (August 2015), archived 2 June 2019 at https://web.archive.org/web/20190602093156/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456824/Incorporated_Companies_in_the_UK_2014_15_P1-7.pdfGoogle Scholar

Companies House (2016) Companies House, ‘Companies House official statistics: definitions to accompany statistical releases’ (Gov.uk, 24 August 2016), archived 2 June 2019 at https://web.archive.org/web/20190602093034/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/definitions-to-accompany-our-statistical-releases/companies-house-official-statistics-definitions-to-accompany-statistical-releasesGoogle Scholar

Companies House (2020) Companies House, ‘Companies Register Activity 2019/20’ (Gov.uk, 25 June 2020), archived 16 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/Z8RX-EJVVGoogle Scholar

Connelly et al. (2011) Connelly, Brian L., Certo, S. Trevis, Ireland, R. Duane & Reutzel, Christopher R., ‘Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment’ (2011) 37 Journal of Management 39Google Scholar

Cooter & Ginsburg (2003) Cooter, Robert, & Ginsburg, Tom, ‘Leximetrics: Why the Same Laws are Longer in Some Countries than Others’ (2003) U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No LE03-012 https://ssrn.com/abstract=456520Google Scholar

Copp (2000) Copp, Stephen, ‘Company Law: Individual Shareholder Rights’ (2000) 11 International Company & Commercial LRev N6Google Scholar

Cross (2005) Cross, Frank B., ‘Law and Trust’ (2005) 93 Georgetown LJ 1457Google Scholar

Cutts (1990) Cutts, Robert L., ‘Power from the Ground Up: Japan’s Land Bubble’ (1990) 68(3) Harvard Business Review 164Google Scholar

Dalley (2004) Dalley, Paula J., ‘The Misguided Doctrine of Stockholder Fiduciary Duties’ (2004) 33 Hofstra LRev 175Google Scholar

Dammann & Schündeln (2011) Dammann, Jens, & Schündeln, Matthias, ‘The Incorporation Choices of Privately Held Corporations’ (2011) 27 Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 79Google Scholar

Davies (2020) Davies, Paul, Introduction to Company Law (3rd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press 2020)Google Scholar

Davies et al. (2013) Davies, Paul, Hopt, Klaus J., Nowak, Richard & van Solinge, Gerard (eds.), Corporate Boards in Law and Practice: A Comparative Analysis in Europe (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies & Worthington (2016) Davies, Paul L., & Worthington, Sarah, Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law (10th ed., London, Sweet & Maxwell 2016)Google Scholar

Davis (1917) Davis, Joseph Stancliffe, Essays in the Earlier History of American Corporations, vol. 2 (Cambridge, Harvard University Press 1917)Google Scholar

Dawson (2014) Dawson, James, ‘Ritchie v Rupe and the Future of Shareholder Oppression’ (2014) 124 Yale LJ Forum 89Google Scholar

Destatis (2020) Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office], Finanzen und Steuern: Umsatzsteuerstatistik (Voranmeldungen) 2018 [Finances and Taxes: Value Added Tax Statistics (Tax Returns) 2018] (Wiesbaden, Statistisches Bundesamt, 24 March 2020), archived 10 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/9A5C-D5DYGoogle Scholar

Dignam & Lowry (2016) Dignam, Alan, & Lowry, John, Company Law (9th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press 2016)Google Scholar

Djankov et al. (2008) Djankov, Simeon, Porta, Rafael La, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei, ‘The Law and Economics of Self-Dealing’ (2008) 88 Journal of Financial Economics 430Google Scholar

DJT (2020) ‘djt at a glance’ (Deutscher Juristentag eV, 2020) archived 10 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/Z5JZ-GDNQGoogle Scholar

Dodd (1954) Dodd, Edwin Merrick, American Business Corporations Until 1860, with Special Reference to Massachusetts (Cambridge, Harvard University Press 1954)Google Scholar

Donald (2005) Donald, David C., ‘Shareholder Voice and Its Opponents’ (2005) 5 JCLS 305Google Scholar

Donohoe et al. (2015) Donohoe, Michael P., Lisowsky, Petro & Mayberry, Michael A., ‘Who Benefits from the Tax Advantages of Organizational Form Choice?’ (2015) 68 National Tax Journal 975Google Scholar

DTI (1998) Department of Trade and Industry, Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy (London, Department of Trade and Industry, March 1998)Google Scholar

Easterbrook & Fischel (1986) Easterbrook, Frank H., & Fischel, Daniel R., ‘Close Corporations and Agency Costs’ (1986) 38 Stanford LRev 271Google Scholar

Easterbrook & Fischel (1989) Easterbrook, Frank H., & Fischel, Daniel R., ‘The Corporate Contract’ (1989) 89 Columbia LRev 1416Google Scholar

Easterbrook & Fischel (1991) Easterbrook, Frank H., & Fischel, Daniel R., The Economic Structure of Corporate Law (Cambridge, Harvard University Press 1991)Google Scholar

EC (2019) European Commission, ‘2019 SBA Fact Sheet: United Kingdom’ (2019), archived 1 February 2021 at https://perma.cc/GQP3-VYDTGoogle Scholar

ECMA (2017) Andersen, Paul Krüger et al., ‘European Model Companies Act (EMCA) 2017 1st Edition’ (2 November 2017) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2929348 accessed 1 July 2020.Google Scholar

Economist (2004) Economist, The, ‘The Business of Survival – The World’s Oldest Companies’, The Economist (16 December 2004) www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2004/12/16/the-business-of-survival accessed 4 June 2019Google Scholar

Economist (2008) Economist, The, ‘Sayonara, Salaryman – Employment in Japan’ The Economist (3 January 2008) www.economist.com/briefing/2008/01/03/sayonara-salaryman accessed 4 June 2019Google Scholar

Egashira (2005a) Egashira, Kenjirō, Kabushiki Kaisha Hō, Yūgen Kaisha Hō [*Laws of Stock Corporations and Limited Liability Companies] (4th ed., Tokyo, Yūhikaku 2005)Google Scholar

Egashira (2005b) Egashira, Kenjirō, ‘“Kaisha Hōsei no Gendaika ni kansuru Yōkō-an” no Kaisetsu [Commentary on the ‘Draft Principles for the Modernization of the Corporate Law Regime’]’ in Henshūbu, Bessatsu Shōji Hōmu (ed.), Kaisha Hōsei Gendaika no Gaiyō [Outline of the Modernization of Corporate Law] (Bessatsu Shōji Hōmu vol. 288, Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2005)Google Scholar

Egashira (2011) Egashira, Kenjirō, ‘Gōdō-Kaisha Seido no MERITTO: Shimedashi Bōshi-saku no Sokumen [The Merits of the GK Regime: The Aspect of Squeeze-out Prevention Measures]’ in Hideki, Matsushima, Makoto, Itō & Takahisa, Fukuda (eds.), Monguchi Masahito Saibankan Taikan Kinen: Atarashii Jidai no Minji Shihō [Festschrift in Celebration of Judge Monguchi Masahito’s Retirement: Civil Justice in a New Age] (Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2011)Google Scholar

Egashira (2017) Egashira, Kenjirō, Kabushiki Kaisha Hō [*The Laws of Stock Corporations] (7th ed., Tokyo, Yūhikaku 2017)Google Scholar

Egashira & Monguchi (2008) Kenjirō, Egashira & Masahito, Monguchi (eds.), Kaisha Hō Taikei: Kaisha Hōsei, Kaisha Gairon, Setsuritsu [Compendium on Corporate Law: The Corporate Law System, Corporate Law Theory, Formation], vol. 1 (Tokyo, Seirinshoin 2008)Google Scholar

Egashira & Nakamura (2012) Egashira, Kenjirō & Naoto, Nakamura (eds.), Ronten Taikei Kaisha Hō: Kabushiki Kaisha IV, Mochibun Kaisha [A Systematic Exposition of Issues in Corporate Law: Stock Corporations IV and Membership Companies], vol. 4 (Tokyo, Dai’ichihōki 2012)Google Scholar

Egashira et al. (1990) Egashira, Kenjirō, Shigeru, Morimoto, Shinsaku, Iwahara, Tomonobu, Yamashita & Hideki, Kanda, ‘Zadankai: Shōhō Kaisei-jikō ni tsuite no Ronten [Panel Discussion: Issues on Commercial Code Reform]’ (1990) 1215 Shōji Hōmu 48Google Scholar

Egashira et al. (2011) Egashira, Kenjirō, Ken’ichi, Ōsugi, Hiroshi, Niinomi, Tsuyoshi, Itō & Yutaka, Kuroda, ‘Zadankai: Gōdō Kaisha-tō no Jittai to Kadai (jō) [Panel Discussion: The Reality and Issues of GKs, etc]’ (2011) 1944 Shōji Hōmu 6Google Scholar

Eidenmüller (2014) Eidenmüller, Horst, ‘Analytical Framework’ in Bachmann et al. (2014)Google Scholar

Eisenberg (1974) Eisenberg, Melvin Aron, ‘The Model Business Corporation Act and the Model Business Corporation Act Annotated’ (1974) 29 Business Lawyer 1407Google Scholar

Eisenberg (1989) Eisenberg, Melvin Aron, ‘The Structure of Corporation Law’ (1989) 89 Columbia LRev 1461Google Scholar

Eisenberg (1995) Eisenberg, Melvin Aron, ‘The Limits of Cognition and the Limits of Contract’ (1995) 47 Stanford LRev 211Google Scholar

Enriques & Tröger (2019) Enriques, Luca, & Tröger, Tobias (eds.), The Law and Finance of Related Party Transactions (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Entwurf (1891) Entwurf eines Gesetzes betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung nebst Begründung und Anlagen, mtliche Ausgabe [Draft Act on Companies with Limited Liability with Explanatory Statement and Annexes, Official Version] (Berlin, Franz Dahlen 1891)Google Scholar

Entwürfe (1972)Entwürfe a) eines Gesetzes über Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbHG), b) eines Einführungsgesetzes zum Gesetz über Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung, BT-Drs VI/3088 (31 January 1972)Google Scholar

Entwürfe (1973) Entwurf eines Gesetzes über Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbHG), Entwurf eines Einführungsgesetzes zum Gesetz über Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung, BT-Drs 7/253 (26 February 1973)Google Scholar

Esch (1981) Esch, Günter, ‘Die mitgliedschafts- und steuerrechtlichen Wirkungen der Ausschließung oder des Austritts aus einer GmbH aus wichtigem Grund [Consequences for Membership Rights and Tax Law Implications of Expulsion or Withdrawal on wichtiger Grund from the GmbH]’ [1981] GmbH-Rundschau 25Google Scholar

Eschenlohr (2000) Eschenlohr, Harald, ‘Beschränkungen der Austritts- und Kündigungsmöglichkeiten des Gesellschafters einer Familien-GmbH [Restrictions on Possibility of Withdrawal and Resignation of the Member of a Family-GmbH]’ in Hommelhoff, Peter, Schmidt-Diemitz, Rolf & Sigle, Axel (eds.), Familiengesellschaften: Festschrift für Walter Sigle zum 70. Geburtstag (Cologne, Otto Schmidt 2000)Google Scholar

Farrar & Hamill (1998) Farrar, Laurel Wheeling, & Hamill, Susan Pace, ‘Dissociation from Alabama Limited Liability Companies in the Post Check-The-Box Era’ (1998) 49 Alabama LRev 909Google Scholar

Fastrich (2013a) Fastrich, Lorenz, ‘Einleitung [Introduction]’ in Baumbach & Hueck (2013)Google Scholar

Fastrich (2013b) Fastrich, Lorenz, ‘Anhang nach § 34 Ausschluss und Austritt von Gesellschaftern [Appendix to Section 34: Expulsion and Withdrawal of Members]’ in Baumbach & Hueck (2013)Google Scholar

Fichtner (1967) Fichtner, Dieter, ‘Austritt und Kündigung bei der GmbH [Withdrawal and Resignation in the GmbH]’ [1967] Betriebs-Berater 17Google Scholar

Field (2009) Field, Heather M., ‘Checking in on Check-the-Box’ (2009) 42 Loyola of Los Angeles LRev 45Google Scholar

Fleckner & Hopt (2013) Fleckner, Andreas M., & Hopt, Klaus J. (eds.), Comparative Corporate Governance: A Functional and International Analysis (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2013)Google Scholar

Fleischer (2001) Fleischer, Holger, ‘Grundfragen der ökonomischen Theorie im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht [Fundamental Issues of Economic Theory in Corporate and Capital Market Law]’ [2001] Zeitschrift für Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht 1Google Scholar

Fleischer (2014) Fleischer, Holger, ‘Shareholder Conflicts in Closed Corporations’ in Bachmann et al. (2014)Google Scholar

Fleischer (2016) Fleischer, Holger, ‘A Guide to German Company Law for International Lawyers – Distinctive Features, Particularities, Idiosyncrasies’ in Fleischer et al. (2016)Google Scholar

Fleischer (2018a) Fleischer, Holger, ‘Comparative Corporate Governance in Closely Held Corporations’ in Gordon & Ringe (2018)Google Scholar

Fleischer (2018b) Fleischer, Holger, ‘Einleitung [Introduction]’ in Fleischer & Goette (2018)Google Scholar

Fleischer & Goette (2016) Fleischer, Holger, & Goette, Wulf (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung – GmbHG [Munich Commentary on the Law on Limited Liability Corporations], vol. 2 (2nd ed., Munich, C. H. Beck 2016)Google Scholar

Fleischer & Goette (2018) Fleischer, Holger, & Goette, Wulf (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung – GmbHG [Munich Commentary on the Law on Limited Liability Corporations] (3rd ed., Munich, C. H. Beck 2018)Google Scholar

Fleischer et al. (2016) Fleischer, Holger, Kanda, Hideki, Kim, Kon Sik & Mülbert, Peter (eds.), German and Asian Perspectives on Company Law: Law and Policy Perspectives (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2016)Google Scholar

Fletcher (2020) Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations, vol 16A, § 8099 (September 2020)Google Scholar

Folk (1966) Folk, III, Ernest, L., ‘Corporation Statutes: 1959–1966’ [1966] Duke LJ 875Google Scholar

Frankenberg (2016) Frankenberg, Günter, Comparative Law as Critique (Cheltenham, Elgar 2016)Google Scholar

Freedman (1994) Freedman, Judith, ‘Small Businesses and the Corporate Form: Burden or Privilege?’ (1994) 57 MLR 555Google Scholar

Freedman (2000) Freedman, Judith, ‘Limited Liability: Large Company Theory and Small Firms’ (2000) 63 (3) MLR 317Google Scholar

freee (2013) freee, KK, ‘Shiranai to son suru? Gōdō Kaisha no MERITTO, DEMERITTO [At a Disadvantage If You Don’t Know? Pros and Cons of GKs]’ (Keiei HAKKĀ [Management Hacker], 27 September 2013), archived 28 October 2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20171028160912/https://keiei.freee.co.jp/2013/09/27/goudougaisya/Google Scholar

French (2015) French, Derek, Applications to Wind Up Companies (3rd ed., Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar

Friedman (2004) Friedman, Howard M., ‘The Silent LLC Revolution: The Social Cost of Academic Neglect’ (2004) 38 Creighton LRev 35Google Scholar

Garner (2014) Garner, Bryan A. (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed., St Paul, Thomson West 2014)Google Scholar

Geis (2019) Geis, George S., ‘Information Litigation in Corporate Law’ (2019) 71 Alabama LRev 407Google Scholar

Gerner-Beuerle & Schuster (2014) Gerner-Beuerle, Carsten, & Edmund-Philipp, Schuster, ‘The Evolving Structure of Directors’ Duties in Europe’ (2014) 15 EBOR 191Google Scholar

Geu (1992) Geu, Thomas Earl, ‘Understanding the Limited Liability Company: A Basic Comparative Primer (Part One)’ (1992) 37 South Dakota LRev 44Google Scholar

Gevurtz (1995) Gevurtz, Franklin A., ‘Squeeze-Outs and Freeze-Outs in Limited Liability Companies’ (1995) 73 Washington University LQ 497Google Scholar

Gigerenzer (2007) Gigerenzer, Gerd, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Subconscious (New York, Viking 2007)Google Scholar

Gillette (1985) Gillette, Clayton P., ‘Commercial Rationality and the Duty to Adjust Long-Term Contracts’ (1985) 69 Minnesota LRev 521Google Scholar

Gilson (2001) Gilson, Ronald J., ‘Globalizing Corporate Governance: Convergence of Form or Function’ (2001) 49 AJCL 329Google Scholar

Goddard (1999a) Goddard, Robert, ‘Enforcing the Hypothetical Bargain: Sections 459–461 of the Companies Act 1985’ (1999) 20(3) Company Lawyer 66Google Scholar

Goddard (1999b) Goddard, Robert, ‘Re Legal Costs Negotiators Ltd: An Oppressed Majority?’ (1999) 20(7) Company Lawyer 241Google Scholar

Goddard (1999c) Goddard, Robert, ‘Closing the Categories of Unfair Prejudice’ (1999) 20(10) Company Lawyer 333Google Scholar

Goette (2014) Goette, Maximilian, Der Exit der Minderheit aus der GmbH [Exit of the Minority from the GmbH] (Cologne, Carl Heymanns 2014)Google Scholar

Gordon (1989) Gordon, Jeffrey N., ‘The Mandatory Structure of Corporate Law’ (1989) 89 Columbia LRev 1549Google Scholar

Gordon & Ringe (2018) Gordon, Jeffrey N., & Ringe, Wolf-Georg (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Oxford University Press 2018)Google Scholar

Gordon & Roe (2004a) Gordon, Jeffrey N., & Roe, Mark J. (eds.), Convergence and Persistence in Corporate Governance (Cambridge University Press 2004)Google Scholar

Gordon & Roe (2004b) Gordon, Jeffrey N., & Roe, Mark J., ‘Introduction’ in Gordon & Roe (2004a)Google Scholar

Görner (2013) Görner, André, ‘§ 34 Einziehung von Geschäftsanteilen [Section 34: Redemption of Membership Interests]’ in Rowedder, Heinz & Schmidt-Leithoff, Christian (eds.), Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbHG): Kommentar [The Law on Limited Liability Corporations: A Commentary] (5th ed., Munich, Franz Vahlen 2013)Google Scholar

Goto, Koh & Puchniak (2020) Goto, Gen, Koh, Alan K. & Puchniak, Dan W., ‘Diversity of Shareholder Stewardship in Asia: Faux Convergence’ (2020) 53 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 829Google Scholar

Gower (1953) Gower, L. C. B. (Laurence Cecil Bartlett) , ‘The English Private Company’ (1953) 18 Law & Contemporary Problems 535Google Scholar

Gower (1956) Gower, L. C. B. (Laurence Cecil Bartlett), ‘Some Contrasts Between British and American Corporation Law’ (1956) 69 Harvard LRev 1369Google Scholar

Graziadei (2019) Graziadei, Michele, ‘Comparative Law, Transplants, and Receptions’ in Reimann & Zimmermann (2019)Google Scholar

Grunewald (1991) Grunewald, Barbara, ‘Probleme bei der Aufbringung der Abfindung für ausgetretene GmbH-Gesellschafter [Problems in the Funding of Compensation to Withdrawing Members]’ [1991] GmbH-Rundschau 185Google Scholar

Hadden (1977) Hadden, Tom, Company Law and Capitalism (2nd ed., London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1977)Google Scholar

Hamada (1974) Hamada, Michiyo, AMERIKA Heisa Kaisha Hō: Sono Genjō oyobi Nihon Hō e no Teigen [American Close Corporation Law: Its Current State and Its Suggestions for Japanese Law] (Tokyo, Shōji Hōmu Kenkyū-kai 1974)Google Scholar

Hamada (1983) Hamada, Michiyo, ‘Kabunushi no Mujōken Kabushiki Kaitori Seikyū-ken (ichi) [The Shareholder’s Right to Demand a Share Buyout at Will (Part 1)]’ (1983) 982 Shōji Hōmu 59Google Scholar

Hamada (1986a) Hamada, Michiyo, ‘Kabushiki, Mochibun no Kaitori Seikyū-ken: Kaisha-hō Kaisei Shi’an ni okeru sono Kōsō ni tsuite [The Right to Demand Repurchase of Shares and Membership Interests: On their Conception in the Corporate Law Reform Proposal]’ (1986) 1093 Shōji Hōmu 2Google Scholar

Hamada (1986b) Hamada, Michiyo, ‘Forthcoming Legislative Reform of Japanese Corporation Law: Comparative Study of Japanese and American Close Corporation Law’ (research paper, Harvard Law School 1986)Google Scholar

Hamada (1990) Hamada, Michiyo, ‘Heisa-kaisha ni okeru Kabushiki Seido no Kaisei [Reform of the Share System in Closed Corporations]’ (1990) 963 Jurisuto 48Google Scholar

Hamada (1993) Hamada, Michiyo, ‘Shō-kibo Kaisha ni kansuru Rippō-jō no Mondaiten [Issues in Legislating for Small-scale Corporations]’ in Kitazawa & Hamada (1993)Google Scholar

Hamill (1995) Hamill, Susan Pace, ‘The Taxation of Domestic Limited Liability Companies and Limited Partnerships: A Case for Eliminating the Partnership Classification Regulations’ (1995) 73 Washington University LQ 565Google Scholar

Hamill (1996) Susan Pace, Hamill, ‘The Limited Liability Company: A Catalyst Exposing the Corporate Integration Question’ (1996) 95 Michigan LRev 393Google Scholar

Hamill (1998) Hamill, Susan Pace, ‘The Origins Behind the Limited Liability Company’ (1998) 59 Ohio State LJ 1459Google Scholar

Hamill (1999) Hamill, Susan Pace, ‘From Special Privilege to General Utility: A Continuation of Willard Hurst’s Study of Corporations’ (1999) 49 American University LRev 81Google Scholar

Hannigan (1988) Hannigan, Brenda, ‘Section 459 of the Companies Act – A Code of Conduct for the Quasi-Partnership?’ [1988] LMCLQ 60Google Scholar

Hannigan (2018) Hannigan, Brenda, Company Law (5th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press 2018)Google Scholar

Hansen (2018) Hansen, Hans, ‘Fallacies’ in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), archived 18 March 2019 at https://web.archive.org/web/20190318072821/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/fallacies/Google Scholar

Hansmann & Kraakman (2001) Hansmann, Henry, & Kraakman, Reinier, ‘The End of History for Corporate Law’ (2001) 89 Georgetown LJ 439Google Scholar

Hansmann et al. (2006) Hansmann, Henry, Kraakman, Reinier & Squire, Richard, ‘Law and the Rise of the Firm’ (2006) 119 Harvard LRev 1333Google Scholar

Harris (2013) Harris, Ron, ‘The Private Origins of the Private Company: Britain 1862–1907’ (2013) 33(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 339Google Scholar

Hart (1988) Hart, Oliver D., ‘Incomplete Contracts and the Theory of the Firm’ (1988) 4 Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 119Google Scholar

Hart (1995) Hart, Oliver, Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1995)Google Scholar

Hayashi (2012) Hayashi, Hirokazu, ‘Dai-575-jō [Article 575]’ in Egashira & Nakamura (2012)Google Scholar

Haynsworth (1986) Haynsworth, Harry J., ‘The Effectiveness of Involuntary Dissolution as a Remedy for Close Corporation Dissension’ (1986) 35 Cleveland State LRev 25Google Scholar

Heckschen (2010) Heckschen, Heribert, ‘Einziehung, Zwangsabtretung und Ausschluss in der Insolvenz eines GmbH-Gesellschafters [Cancellation, Forced Transfer, and Expulsion in the Insolvency of a GmbH Member]’ [2010] Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht 521Google Scholar

Heidinger & Blath (2007) Heidinger, Andreas & Blath, Simon, ‘Das Ausscheiden eines Gesellschafters aus der GmbH [The Exit of a Member from the GmbH]’ [2007] GmbH-Rundschau 1184Google Scholar

Hertig (2004) Hertig, Gerard, ‘Convergence of Substantive Law and Convergence of Enforcement: A Comparison’ in Gordon & Roe (2004a)Google Scholar

Hetherington (1969) Hetherington, J. A. C., ‘Special Characteristics, Problems, and Needs of the Close Corporation’ [1969] University of Illinois Law Forum 1Google Scholar

Hetherington & Dooley (1977) Hetherington, J. A. C. & Dooley, Michael P., ‘Illiquidity and Exploitation: A Proposed Statutory Solution to the Remaining Close Corporation Problem’ (1977) 63 Virginia LRev 1Google Scholar

Hewitt et al. (2016) Hewitt, Ian, Howley, Simon & Parkes, James (eds.), Hewitt on Joint Ventures (6th ed., Sweet & Maxwell 2016)Google Scholar

Hillman (1982) Hillman, Robert W., ‘The Dissatisfied Participant in the Solvent Business Venture: A Consideration of the Relative Permanence of Partnerships and Close Corporations’ (1982) 67 Minnesota LRev 1Google Scholar

Hirota (2013) Hirota, Tetsuji, Shōsū Kabunushi no Hogo to Kyūsai [Minority Shareholder Protection and Remedies] (Tokyo, Dai’ichihōki 2013)Google Scholar

Hirschman (1970) Hirschman, Albert O, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press 1970)Google Scholar

Hofmann (2011) Hofmann, Christian, Der Minderheitsschutz im Gesellschaftsrecht [Minority Protection in Corporate Law] (Berlin, De Gruyter 2011)Google Scholar

Hollington (2007) Hollington, Robin, ‘Oppression of Minority Shareholders – Reflections on Blisset v Daniel’ (2007) 19 Denning LJ 5Google Scholar

Hollington (2013) Hollington, Robin, ‘Recent Cases on the Winding-Up of Hedge Funds on Treasure Islands’ in Loughrey, Joan (ed.), Directors’ Duties and Shareholder Litigation in the Wake of the Financial Crisis (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar 2013)Google Scholar

Hollington (2017) Hollington, Robin, Hollington on Shareholders’ Rights (8th ed., London, Sweet and Maxwell 2017)Google Scholar

Hōmushō (1984) Hōmushō Minji-kyoku Sanjikan-shitsu [Counsellors’ Office, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice], ‘Daishō (Kōkai, Hi-Kōkai) Kaisha Kubun Rippō oyobi Gappei ni kansuru Mondaiten – Shōwa 59-nen 5-gatsu 9-nichi (Shiryō) [Issues on Legislating Separately for Companies Based on Size Distinctions (Open, Closed) and Mergers–9 May 1984 (Materials)]’ in Takeo, Inaba, Saburō, Ōtsuka & Ichirō, Kawamoto et al. (eds.), Daishō Kaisha Kubun Rippō-tō no Ronten – Hōmushō no “Mondaiten” no Kaisetsu to Bunken Kaidai [Issues on Legislating Separately for Companies Based on Size Distinctions, etc.–Commentary on the Ministry of Justice’s “Issues” and Literature Review] (Bessatsu Shōji Hōmu No. 75, Tokyo, Shōji Hōmu Kenkyū-kai 1984)Google Scholar

Hōmushō (1986) Hōmushō Minji-kyoku Sanjikan-shitsu [Counsellors’ Office, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice], ‘Shōhō, yūgen-gaisha-hō kaisei shi’an (Shōwa 61-nen 5-gatsu 15-nichi) [Commercial Code and Limited Liability Corporation Act Reform Proposal (15.05.1986)]’ in Inaba & Ōtani (1986a)Google Scholar

Hōmushō (1987) Hōmushō Minji-kyoku Sanjikan-shitsu [Counsellors’ Office, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice] (ed.), Shōhō, Yūgen-kaisha-hō Kaisei Shi’an: Kakkai Iken no Bunseki [Analysis of Feedback from Various Sectors on the Commercial Code and Limited Liability Corporation Act Reform Proposal] (Bessatsu Shōji Hōmu No 93, Tokyo, Shōji Hōmu Kenkyū-kai 1987)Google Scholar

Hōmushō (2003) Hōmushō Minji-kyoku Sanjikan-shitsu [Counsellors’ Office, Civil Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Justice], ‘Kaisha Hōsei no Gendaika ni kansuru Yōkō Shi’an Hosoku Setsumei [Supplementary Explanations to the Preliminary Draft Principles for the Modernization of the Corporate Law Regime]’ (October 2003), archived 6 February 2013 at https://web.archive.org/web/20130206135523/http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000071773.pdfGoogle Scholar

Hopt (1997) Hopt, Klaus J., ‘Shareholder Rights and Remedies: A View from Germany and the Continent’ [1997] Company, Financial and Insolvency LRev 261Google Scholar

Hopt (2019) Hopt, Klaus J., ‘Comparative Company Law’ in Reimann & Zimmermann (2019)Google Scholar

Horwitz (1985) Horwitz, Morton J., ‘Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory’ (1985) 88 West Virginia LRev 173Google Scholar

Hōsei-Shingikai (2003) Kaishahō, Hōsei Shingikai (Gendaika Kankei) Bukai [Corporate Law (Modernization) Subcommittee, Legislative Council, Ministry of Justice], ‘Kaisha Hōsei no Gendaika ni kansuru Yōkō Shi’an [Preliminary Draft Principles for the Modernization of the Corporate Law Regime]’ (22 October 2003), archived 6 February 2013 at https://web.archive.org/web/20130206135536/http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000071772.pdfGoogle Scholar

Hōsei-Shingikai (2005) Shingikai, Hōsei [Legislative Council, Ministry of Justice], ‘Kaisha Hōsei no Gendaika ni kansuru Yōkō-an [Draft Principles for the Modernization of the Corporate Law Regime]’ (9 February 2005), archived 24 August 2017 at https://web.archive.org/web/20170824222332/http://www.moj.go.jp/shingi1/shingi_050209-1-1.htmlGoogle Scholar

Hovenkamp (1991) Hovenkamp, Herbert, Enterprise and American Law, 1836–1937 (Cambridge, Harvard University Press 1991)Google Scholar

Hueck (1947) Hueck, Alfred, Der Treuegedanke im modernen Privatrecht [The Concept of Loyalty in Modern Private Law] (Munich, Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities 1947)Google Scholar

Hurst (1970) Hurst, James Willard, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States, 1780–1970 (Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia 1970)Google Scholar

IfM (2021a) IfM Bonn, ‘KMU-Definition des IfM Bonn [IfM Bonn’s Definition of SMEs]’ (IfM Bonn: Institut für Mittelstandsforschung [Institute for Mittelstand Research], 2021), archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/V2RZ-JRVHGoogle Scholar

IfM (2021b) IfM Bonn, ‘Mittelstand im Überblick [SMEs in Overview]’ (IfM Bonn: Institut für Mittelstandsforschung [Institute for Mittelstand Research], 2021), archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/U48B-E3BEGoogle Scholar

IfM (2021c) IfM Bonn, ‘Mittelstandsdefinition des IfM Bonn [IfM Bonn’s Definition of Mittelstand]’ (IfM Bonn: Institut für Mittelstandsforschung [Institute for Mittelstand Research], 2021), archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/6LM6-S3LSGoogle Scholar

Iida (2013) Iida, Hidefusa, Kabushiki Kaitori Seikyū-ken no Kōzō to Kaitori Kakaku Santei no Kōryo Yōso [The Structure of Appraisal and Considerations in the Determination of the Purchase Price] (Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2013)Google Scholar

Illig (2006) Illig, Robert C., ‘Minority Investor Protections as Default Norms: Using Price to Illuminate the Deal in Close Corporations’ (2006) 56 American University LRev 275Google Scholar

Immenga (1970) Immenga, Ulrich, Die personalistiche Kapitalgesellschaft: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung nach deutschem GmbH-Recht und dem Recht der Corporations in den Vereinigten Staaten [The Personalistic Capital-based Company: A Comparative Study of German GmbH Law and the Law of Corporations in the United States] (Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Athenäum 1970)Google Scholar

Inaba & Ōtani (1986a) Inaba, Takeo, & Yoshio, Ōtani, Shōhō, Yūgen-kaisha-hō Kaisei Shi’an no Kaisetsu [Commentary on the Commercial Code and Limited Liability Corporation Act Reform Proposal] (Bessatsu Shōji Hōmu No. 89, Tokyo, Shōji Hōmu Kenkyū-kai 1986)Google Scholar

Inaba & Ōtani (1986b) Inaba, Takeo, & Ōtani Sadao, ‘Shōhō, Yūgen-kaisha-hō Kaisei Shi’an no Kaisetsu [Commentary on the Commercial Code and Limited Liability Corporation Act Reform Proposal]’ in Inaba & Ōtani (1986a)Google Scholar

IRS (2020) Internal Revenue Service, SOI [Statistics of Income] Tax Stats – Integrated Business Data, tbl. 1 (Tax Years 1980–2015), archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/7WBH-CEEEGoogle Scholar

Ishi (2001) Ishi, Hiromitsu, The Japanese Tax System (3rd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press 2001)Google Scholar

Jamrisko et al. (2021) Jamrisko, Michelle, Lu, Wei & Tanzi, Alexandre, ‘South Korea Leads World in Innovation as US Exits Top Ten’ (Bloomberg, 3 February 2021), archived 7 March 2021 https://perma.cc/HU5P-T95ZGoogle Scholar

Jenkins (1962) Jenkins Committee, Report of the Company Law Committee (Cmnd 1749, London, Stationery Office 1962)Google Scholar

Jensen & Meckling (1976) Jensen, Michael C., & Meckling, William H., ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure’ (1976) 3 Journal of Financial Economics 305Google Scholar

JFSA (2021) Japan Federation of Shiho-shoshi’s Associations, ‘Shiho-shoshi Profile’ (Nihon Shihō Shoshi-kai Rengōkai), archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/4UFB-HG9EGoogle Scholar

JLTC (2019) Japanese Law Translation Council, Standard Legal Terms Dictionary (version 14.0, March 2019), available at www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/dict/download?re=02 accessed 4 June 2019Google Scholar

Joffe et al. (2015) Joffe, Victor, Drake, David, Richardson, Giles, Lightman, Daniel & Collingwood, Timothy, Minority Shareholders: Law, Practice, and Procedure (5th ed, Oxford, Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar

Johnson (1983) Johnson, Richard, ‘Comments: The Limited Liability Company Act’ (1983) 11 Florida State University LRev 387Google Scholar

Jolls (1998) Jolls, Christine, ‘Behavioral Economics Analysis of Redistributive Legal Rules’ (1998) 51 Vanderbilt LRev 1653Google Scholar

Jolls & Sunstein (2006) Jolls, Christine, & Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Debiasing Through Law’ (2006) 35 Journal of Legal Studies 199Google Scholar

Jolls et al. (1998) Jolls, Christine, Sunstein, Cass R. & Thaler, Richard, ‘A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics’ (1998) 50 Stanford LRev 1471Google Scholar

Karjala (1989) Karjala, Dennis S., ‘An Analysis of Close Corporation Legislation in the United States’ (1989) 21 Arizona State LJ 663Google Scholar

Kanda (2014) Kanda, Hideki (ed.), Kaisha Hō KONMENTAARU: Mochibun Kaisha (1) [Commentary on the Companies Act: Membership Companies (1)], vol. 14 (Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2014)Google Scholar

Kanda (2021) Hideki, Kanda, Kaisha Hō [Corporate Law] (23rd ed., Tokyo, Yūhikaku 2021)Google Scholar

Kanda & Levmore (1985) Kanda, Hideki, & Levmore, Saul, ‘The Appraisal Remedy and the Goals of Corporate Law’ (1985) 32 UCLA LRev 429Google Scholar

Kanda & Milhaupt (2003) Kanda, Hideki, & Milhaupt, Curtis J., ‘Re-examining Legal Transplants: The Director’s Fiduciary Duty in Japanese Corporate Law’ (2003) 51 AJCL 887Google Scholar

Kaplow (1992) Kaplow, Louis, ‘Rules Versus Standards’ (1992) 42 Duke LJ 557Google Scholar

Katelouzou & Siems (2015) Katelouzou, Dionysia, & Siems, Mathias, ‘Disappearing Paradigms in Shareholder Protection: Leximetric Evidence for 30 Countries, 1990–2013’ (2015) 15 JCLS 127Google Scholar

Kawamoto (1990) Kawamoto, Ichirō, ‘Shōhō, Yūgen-kaisha-hō Kaisei ni tsuite no Kei’i [A Chronology of the Reform of the Commercial Code and Limited Liability Corporation Act]’ (1990) 856 Kin’yū Shōji Hanrei 12Google Scholar

Keatinge et al. (1992) Keatinge, Robert R., Ribstein, Larry E., Hamill, Susan Pace, Gravelle, Michael L. & Connaughton, Sharon, ‘The Limited Liability Company: A Study of the Emerging Entity’ (1992) 47 Business Lawyer 375Google Scholar

Keay (2016) Keay, Andrew, ‘Assessing and Rethinking the Statutory Scheme for Derivative Actions under the Companies Act 2006’ (2016) 16 JCLS 39Google Scholar

Kent (1826) Kent, James, Commentaries on American Law, vol. 1 (1st ed., New York, O. Halsted 1826)Google Scholar

Kent (1827) Kent, James, Commentaries on American Law, vol. 2 (1st ed., New York, O. Halsted 1827)Google Scholar

Kershaw (2012) Kershaw, David, Company Law in Context: Text and Materials (2nd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press 2012)Google Scholar

Kessler (1948) Kessler, William C., ‘Incorporation in New England: A Statistical Study, 1800–1875’ (1948) 8 Journal of Economic History 43Google Scholar

Kessler (1985) Kessler, Robert A., ‘The ABA Close Corporation Statute’ (1985) 36 Mercer LRev 661Google Scholar

Kitazawa & Hamada (1983) Kitazawa, Masahiro, & Michiyo, Hamada, ‘Shō-Kibo Kabushiki Kaisha oyobi Yūgen Kaisha ni kansuru Jittai, Iken Chōsa: Chūkan Hōkoku [Surveys on the Realities and Opinions Concerning Small-Scale KKs and YKs: Interim Report]’ (1983) 962 Shōji Hōmu 21Google Scholar

Kitazawa & Hamada (1993) Kitazawa, Masahiro, & Michiyo, Hamada (eds.), Shōhō no Sōten I: Sōsoku, Kaisha [Contested Issues in Commercial Law I: General Part, Corporations] (Tokyo, Yūhikaku 1993)Google Scholar

Klausner (1995) Klausner, Michael, ‘Corporations, Corporate Law, and Networks of Contracts’ (1995) 81 Virginia LRev 757Google Scholar

Klausner (2006) Klausner, Michael, ‘The Contractarian Theory of Corporate Law: A Generation Later’ (2006) 31 Journal of Corporation Law 779Google Scholar

Klausner (2018) Klausner, Michael, ‘The “Corporate Contract” Today’ in Gordon & Ringe (2018)Google Scholar

de Kluiver (2007) de Kluiver, Harm-Jan ‘Private Ordering and Buy-Out Remedies Within Private Company Law: Towards a New Balance Between Fairness and Welfare?’ (2007) 8 EBOR 103Google Scholar

Kobayashi (2008) Kobayashi, Toshiaki, ‘Kakushu Kaisha ni okeru Tōka Shihon no Kaishū Shudan [Means of Recovering Invested Capital in Different Types of Companies]’ in Egashira & Monguchi (2008)Google Scholar

Kobayashi & Ribstein (2011) Kobayashi, Bruce H., & Ribstein, Larry E., ‘Delaware for Small Fry: Jurisdictional Competition for Limited Liability Companies’ [2011] University of Illinois LRev 91Google Scholar

Kobe (2012) Kobe, Kathryn, Small Business GDP: Update 2002–2010 (Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, January 2012), archived 19 July 2018 at https://web.archive.org/web/20180719111452/https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs390tot_1.pdfGoogle Scholar

Koehnen (2004) Koehnen, Markus, Oppression and Related Remedies (Toronto, Thomson Carswell 2004)Google Scholar

Koh (2014) Koh, Alan K., ‘Appraising Japan’s Appraisal Remedy’ (2014) 62 AJCL 417Google Scholar

Koh (2016) Koh, Alan K., ‘Reconstructing the Reflective Loss Principle’ (2016) 16 JCLS 373Google Scholar

Koh (2018) Koh, Alan K., ‘(Non-)Enforcement of Directors’ Duties in Corporate Groups’ (2018) 81 MLR 673Google Scholar

Koh (2020) Koh, Alan K., ‘Shareholder Protection and the Curious Case of Japan: The Enigmatic Past and Present of Withdrawal in a Leading Economy’ (2020) 53 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1207Google Scholar

Koh (forthcoming 2022) Koh, Alan K., ‘Direct Suits and Derivative Actions: Rethinking Shareholder Protection in Comparative Corporate Law’ Washington University Global Studies LRev (forthcoming 2022)Google Scholar

Koh & Takahashi (2015) Koh, Alan K. & Takahashi, Eiji, ‘Of Activist Mayors and Nuclear Reactors: The Ōsaka v Kansai Electric Saga and Japan’s Curious Regime Governing Shareholder Access to Minutes of Board Meetings’ (2015) No. 40 ZJapanR/JJapanL 99Google Scholar

Koh & Tang (2017) Koh, Alan K., & Tang, Samantha S., ‘Towards a “Just and Equitable Remedy” for Companies’ (2017) 133 LQR 372Google Scholar

Koh & Tang (2021) Koh, Alan K. & Tang, Samantha S., ‘Direct and Derivative Shareholder Suits: Towards a Functional and Practical Taxonomy’ in Afsharipour, Afra & Gelter, Martin (eds.), Comparative Corporate Governance (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar 2021)Google Scholar

Koide (2014a) Koide, Atsushi, ‘Dai-606-jō [Article 606]’ in Kanda (2014)Google Scholar

Koide (2014b) Koide, Atsushi, ‘Dai-607-jō [Article 607]’ in Kanda (2014)Google Scholar

Kokuzei-chō (2006) Kokuzei-chō, Chōkan-kanbō Kikaku-ka [Planning Section, Director’s Secretariat, National Tax Agency], Heisei-17-nendo-bun Zeimu Tōkei kara Mita Hōjin Kigyō no Jittai – Kaisha Hyōhon Chōsa: Chōsa Kekka Hōkoku [Assessment Year 2005 The Reality of Corporate Business Entities Based on Tax Statistics: Sampling Study of Companies: Report] (National Tax Agency, December 2006), archived 9 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/WH5J-C4N6Google Scholar

Kokuzei-chō (2016) Kokuzei-chō, Chōkan-kanbō Kikaku-ka [Planning Section, Director’s Secretariat, National Tax Agency], Heisei-26-nendo-bun Kaisha Hyōhon Chōsa: Chōsa Kekka Hōkoku: Zeimu Tōkei kara Mita Hōjin Kigyō no Jittai [Assessment Year 2014 Sampling Study of Companies: Report: The Reality of Corporate Business Entities Based on Tax Statistics] (National Tax Agency, March 2016), archived 9 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/LH6V-8ASCGoogle Scholar

Kokuzei-chō (2020) Kokuzei-chō, Chōkan-kanbō Kikaku-ka [Planning Section, Director’s Secretariat, National Tax Agency], Heisei-30-nendo-bun Kaisha Hyōhon Chōsa: Chōsa Kekka Hōkoku: Zeimu Tōkei kara Mita Hōjin Kigyō no Jittai [Assessment Year 2018 Sampling Study of Companies: Report: The Reality of Corporate Business Entities Based on Tax Statistics] (National Tax Agency, May 2020), archived 9 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/T4XM-GLG5Google Scholar

Komachiya (1951) Komachiya, Sōzō, ‘Kaisei Kabushiki Kaisha Hō Kanken [Submissions on the Reforms to the Law on the KK]’ (1951) 15 Tōhoku Hōgaku 369Google Scholar

Kōriya & Hosokawa (2006) Kōriya, Daisuke, & Mitsuru, Hosokawa, ‘Mochibun Kaisha no Keisan [Membership Company Accounting Matters]’ in Tetsu, Aizawa (ed.), Ritsuan Tantōsha ni yoru Shin-Kaisha Hō Kankei Hōmushō-rei no Kaisetsu [The Drafters’ Commentary on the Ministry of Justice Ordinances Relating to the New Companies Act] (Bessatsu Shōji Hōmu vol. 300, Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2006)Google Scholar

Kornblum (2015) Kornblum, Udo, ‘Bundesweite Rechtstatsachen zum Unternehmens- und Gesellschaftsrecht (Stand 1. 1.2015) [The State of Enterprise and Corporate Law in Germany (as of 1 January 2015)]’ [2015] GmbH-Rundschau 687Google Scholar

Kosemura (1985) Kosemura, Kunio, ‘§ 84’ in Katsurō, Ueyanagi, Tsuneo, Ōtori & Akio, Takeuchi (eds.), Shin-pan Chūshaku Kaisha Hō: Kaisha Sōsoku, Gōmei-Kaisha, Gōshi-Kaisha [Corporate Law Commentary, New Edition: General Principles, Incorporated Commercial Partnerships, Limited Partnerships], vol. 1 (Tokyo, Yūhikaku 1985)Google Scholar

Kraakman et al. (2004) Kraakman, Reinier, Davies, Paul, Hansmann, Henry, Hertig, Gerard, Hopt, Klaus, Kanda, Hideki & Rock, Edward, The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (1st ed, Oxford, Oxford University Press 2004)Google Scholar

Kraus & Scott (2009) Kraus, Jody S., & Scott, Robert E., ‘Contract Design and the Structure of Contractual Intent’ (2009) 84 New York University LRev 1023Google Scholar

Kübler & Assmann (2006) Kübler, Friedrich, & Assmann, Heinz-Dieter, Gesellschaftsrecht: Die privatrechtlichen Ordnungsstrukturen und Regelungsprobleme von Verbänden und Unternehmen [Corporate Law: The Structural Ordering and Regulatory Problems of Organizations and Enterprises in Private Law] (6th ed., Heidelberg, C. F. Müller 2006)Google Scholar

Kurimoto (2013) Kurimoto, Akira, ‘Japan’ in Cracogna, Dante, Fici, Antonio & Henrÿ, Hagen (eds.), International Handbook of Cooperative Law (Heidelberg, Springer 2013)Google Scholar

La Porta et al. (1997) La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-De-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., ‘Legal Determinants of External Finance’ (1997) 52 Journal of Finance 1131Google Scholar

La Porta et al. (1998) La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., ‘Law and Finance’ (1998) 106 Journal of Political Economy 1113Google Scholar

La Porta et al. (1999) La Porta, Rafael, Lopez‐De‐Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei, ‘Corporate Ownership around the World’ (1999) 54 Journal of Finance 471Google Scholar

La Porta et al. (2000) La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, ‘Investor Protection and Corporate Governance’ (2000) 58 Journal of Financial Economics 3Google Scholar

de Lacy (2002) John, de Lacy (ed.), The Reform of United Kingdom Company Law (London, Cavendish Publishing 2002)Google Scholar

Langevoort & Rasmussen (1997) Langevoort, Donald C., & Rasmussen, Robert K., ‘Skewing the Results: The Role of Lawyers in Transmitting Legal Rules’ (1997) 5 Southern California Interdisciplinary LJ 375Google Scholar

Langford (2015) Langford, Rosemary Teele, ‘General Law and Statutory Directors’ Duties: “Unmixed Oil and Water” or “Integrated Parts of the Whole Law”?’ (2015) 131 LQR 635Google Scholar

Langford (2019) Langford, Rosemary Teele, Company Directors’ Duties and Conflicts of Interest (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2019)Google Scholar

Laredo (2008) Laredo, Marc C., ‘Shareholder Duties and Disputes in Closely-Held Corporations in Massachusetts’ (2008) 91 Massachusetts LRev 138Google Scholar

LawComm (1996) Law Commission, Shareholder Remedies: A Consultation Paper (Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 142, London, Stationery Office 1996)Google Scholar

LawComm (1997) Law Commission, Shareholder Remedies (Law Commission Report No. 246, Cm 3769, London, Stationery Office 1997)Google Scholar

Lee (2000) Lee, John W., ‘A Populist Political Perspective of the Business Tax Entities Universe: “Hey the Stars Might Lie But the Numbers Never Do”’ (2000) 78 Texas LRev 885Google Scholar

Legrand (1996) Legrand, Pierre, ‘European Legal Systems Are Not Converging’ (1996) 45 International & Comparative LQ 52Google Scholar

Lele & Siems (2007) Lele, Priya P., & Siems, Mathias M., ‘Shareholder Protection: A Leximetric Approach’ (2007) 7 JCLS 17Google Scholar

Levmore (2000) Levmore, Saul, ‘Norms as Supplements’ (2000) 86 Virginia LRev 1989Google Scholar

Licht (2003) Licht, Amir N., ‘Cross-Listing and Corporate Governance: Bonding or Avoiding?’ (2003) 4 Chicago Journal of International Law 141Google Scholar

Lim (2013) Lim, Ernest, ‘Directors’ Fiduciary Duties: A New Analytical Framework’ (2013) 129 LQR 242Google Scholar

Lim (2015) Lim, Ernest, ‘Corporate Law, Private Law and Instrumentalism’ [2015] LMCLQ 541Google Scholar

Lim (2018) Lim, Ernest, ‘Controlling Shareholders and Fiduciary Duties in Asia’ (2018) 18 JCLS 113Google Scholar

Lim (2019) Lim, Ernest, A Case for Shareholders’ Fiduciary Duties in Common Law Asia (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2019)Google Scholar

LoPucki (2018) LoPucki, Lynn M., ‘A Rule-Based Method for Comparing Corporate Laws’ (2018) 94 Notre Dame LRev 263Google Scholar

Lowry (1996) Lowry, John, ‘The Pursuit of Effective Minority Shareholder Protection – s. 459 of the Companies Act 1985’ (1996) 17(3) Company Lawyer 67Google Scholar

Lowry (1997) Lowry, John, ‘Reconstructing Shareholder Actions: A Response to the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper’ (1997) 18(8) Company Lawyer 247Google Scholar

Lowry (2002) Lowry, John, ‘Mapping the Boundaries of Unfair Prejudice’ in de Lacy (2002)Google Scholar

Lowry & Reisberg (2012) Lowry, John, & Reisberg, Arad, Pettet’s Company Law: Company Law and Corporate Finance (4th ed., Harlow, Pearson 2012)Google Scholar

Lutter (1980) Lutter, Marcus, ‘Theorie der Mitgliedschaft: Prolegomena zu einem Allgemeinen Teil des Korporationsrechts [A Theory of Membership: Prologue to a General Part of Corporate Law]’ (1980) 180 Archiv für die civilistiche Praxis 84Google Scholar

Lutter (1992) Lutter, Marcus, ‘Die Entwicklung der GmbH in Europa und in der Welt [The Development of the GmbH in Europe and the World]’ in Lutter, Marcus, Ulmer, Peter & Zöllner, Wolfgang (eds.), Festschrift 100 Jahre GmbH-Gesetz [Festschrift 100 Years of the GmbH Law] (Cologne, Otto Schmidt 1992)Google Scholar

Lutter (2012) Lutter, Marcus, ‘§ 34 Einziehung von Geschäftsanteilen [Section 34: Redemption of Membership Interests]’ in Lutter, Marcus & Hommelhoff, Peter (eds.), GmbH-Gesetz: Kommentar [GmbH Law: Commentary] (18th ed., Cologne, Dr Otto Schmidt 2012)Google Scholar

Macdonald (1986) Macdonald, D. Charles, ‘Corporate Behavior and the Minority Shareholder: Contrasting Interpretations of Section 10–19.1–115 of the North Dakota Century Code’ (1986) 62 North Dakota LRev 155Google Scholar

Macneil (1978) Macneil, Ian R., ‘Contracts: Adjustment of Long-Term Economic Relations under Classical, Neoclassical, and Relational Contract Law’ (1978) 72 Northwestern University LRev 854Google Scholar

Mahoney (2000) Mahoney, Paul G., ‘Trust and Opportunism in Close Corporations’ in Morck, Randall K. (ed.), Concentrated Corporate Ownership (Chicago, University of Chicago Press 2000)Google Scholar

Manesh (2012) Manesh, Mohsen, ‘Contractual Freedom Under Delaware Alternative Entity Law: Evidence from Publicly-Traded LPs and LLCs’ (2012) 37 Journal of Corporation Law 555Google Scholar

Manning (1962) Manning, Bayless, ‘The Shareholder’s Appraisal Remedy: An Essay for Frank Coker’ (1962) 72 Yale LJ 223Google Scholar

Martinez (2014) Martinez, Stephanie, ‘The Power Paradox: The Need for Alternative Remedies in Virginia Shareholder Oppression Cases’ (2014) 49 University of Richmond LRev 287Google Scholar

Masuda & Urakawa (2010) Masuda, Masaaki & Shōji, Urakawa, ‘Gōdō-Kaisha kara no Sha’in no Taisha ni kansuru Shomondai [Issues in Member Withdrawal from the GK]’ (2010) 58–2/3 Kinki Daigaku Hōgaku 99Google Scholar

Matheson & Maler (2007) Matheson, John H., & Maler, R. Kevin, ‘A Simple Statutory Solution to Minority Oppression in the Closely Held Business’ (2007) 91 Minnesota LRev 657Google Scholar

Matsumoto (1929) Matsumoto, Jōji, Nihon Kaisha Hō Ron [On Japanese Corporate Law] (Tokyo, Ganshōdō-shoten 1929)Google Scholar

Matsumoto (2014) Matsumoto, Nobuko, ‘Dai-611-jō [Article 611]’ in Kanda (2014)Google Scholar

Mäusl (2001) Mäusl, Klaus Rudolf, ‘Der Austritt eines GmbH-Gesellschafters auf schadensrechtlicher Grundlage: Zugleich ein Beitrag zu den mitgliedschaftlichen Treuepflichten in der GmbH [Withdrawal of a GmbH Member on a Tort Basis: A Contribution towards the Membership Duties of Loyalty in the GmbH]’ (Dr iur dissertation, Free University of Berlin 2001)Google Scholar

McCahery & Vermeulen (2004) McCahery, Joseph A., & Vermeulen, Erik P. M., ‘The Evolution of Closely Held Business Forms in Europe’ in McCahery et al. (2004)Google Scholar

McCahery & Vermeulen (2008) McCahery, Joseph A., & Vermeulen, Erik P. M., Corporate Governance of Non-Listed Companies (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2008)Google Scholar

McCahery et al. (2004) McCahery, Joseph A., Raaijmakers, Theo & Vermeulen, Erik P. M. (eds.), The Governance of Close Corporations and Partnerships: US and European Perspectives (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2004)Google Scholar

McLean (1990) McLean, Robert Savage, ‘Minority Shareholders’ Rights in the Close Corporation under the New North Carolina Business Corporation Act’ (1990) 68 North Carolina LRev 1109Google Scholar

Means (2009) Means, Benjamin, ‘A Voice-Based Framework for Evaluating Claims of Minority Shareholder Oppression in the Close Corporation’ (2009) 97 Georgetown LJ 1207Google Scholar

Means (2010) Means, Benjamin, ‘A Contractual Approach to Shareholder Oppression Law’ (2010) 79 Fordham LRev 1161Google Scholar

Merkt (2018) Merkt, Hanno, ‘§ 13 Juristische Person; Handelsgesellschaft [Section 13: Legal Person; Commercial Company]’ in Fleischer & Goette (2018)Google Scholar

Merryman (1981) Merryman, John Henry, ‘On the Convergence (and Divergence) of the Civil Law and the Common Law’ (1981) 17 Stanford Journal of International Law 357Google Scholar

Merryman & Pérez-Perdomo (2007) Merryman, John Henry, & Pérez-Perdomo, Rogelio, The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America (3rd ed, Palo Alto, Stanford University Press 2007)Google Scholar

METI (2016) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan), ‘White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises in Japan 2016’ (28 November 2016), archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/KG97-SQAXGoogle Scholar

Michaels (2019) Michaels, Ralf, ‘The Functional Method of Comparative Law’ in Reimann & Zimmermann (2019)Google Scholar

Miller (1997) Miller, Sandra K., ‘Minority Shareholder Oppression in the Private Company in the European Community: A Comparative Analysis of the German, United Kingdom, and French “Close Corporation Problem”’ (1997) 30 Cornell International LJ 381Google Scholar

Miller (2001) Miller, Sandra K., ‘What Buy-Out Rights, Fiduciary Duties, and Dissolution Remedies Should Apply in the Case of the Minority Owner of a Limited Liability Company?’ (2001) 38 Harvard Journal on Legislation 413Google Scholar

Miller (2003) Miller, Sandra K., ‘A New Direction for LLC Research in a Contractarian Legal Environment’ (2003) 76 Southern California LRev 351Google Scholar

Miller (2004) Miller, Sandra K., ‘The Role of the Court in Balancing Contractual Freedom with the Need for Mandatory Constraints on Opportunistic and Abusive Conduct in the LLC’ (2004) 152 University of Pennsylvania LRev 1609Google Scholar

Mitchell (1990) Mitchell, Lawrence E., ‘The Death of Fiduciary Duty in Close Corporations’ (1990) 138 University of Pennsylvania LRev 1675Google Scholar

Mitchell (2002) Mitchell, Gregory, ‘Why Law and Economics’ Perfect Rationality Should Not Be Traded for Behavioral Law and Economics’ Equal Incompetence’ (2002) 91 Georgetown LJ 67Google Scholar

Mock (2015) Mock, Sebastian, ‘Die Gesellschafterklage (actio pro socio) [The Shareholder Suit (actio pro socio)]’ [2015] Juristiche Schulung 590Google Scholar

Molitor (2009) Molitor, Michael K., ‘Eat Your Vegetables (Or At Least Understand Why You Should): Can Better Warning and Education of Prospective Minority Owners Reduce Oppression in Closely Held Businesses?’ (2009) 14 Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law 491Google Scholar

Moll (1999) Moll, Douglas K., ‘Shareholder Oppression v. Employment At Will in the Close Corporation: The Investment Model Solution’ [1999] University of Illinois LRev 517Google Scholar

Moll (2000) Moll, Douglas K., ‘Shareholder Oppression in Close Corporations: The Unanswered Question of Perspective’ (2000) 53 Vanderbilt LRev 749Google Scholar

Moll (2001) Moll, Douglas K., ‘Reasonable Expectations v. Implied-in-Fact Contracts: Is the Shareholder Oppression Doctrine Needed?’ (2001) 42 Boston College LRev 989Google Scholar

Moll (2002) Moll, Douglas K., ‘Shareholder Oppression & Reasonable Expectations: Of Change, Gifts, and Inheritances in Close Corporation Disputes’ (2002) 86 Minnesota LRev 717Google Scholar

Moll (2004) Moll, Douglas K., ‘Shareholder Oppression and “Fair Value”: Of Discounts, Dates, and Dastardly Deeds in the Close Corporation’ (2004) 54 Duke LJ 293Google Scholar

Moll (2005) Moll, Douglas K., ‘Minority Oppression & The Limited Liability Company: Learning (or not) from Close Corporation History’ (2005) 40 Wake Forest LRev 883Google Scholar

Moll (2014) Moll, Douglas K., ‘Shareholder Oppression and the New Louisiana Business Corporation Act’ (2014) 60 Loyola LRev 461Google Scholar

Moll (2017) Moll, Douglas K., ‘Judicial Dissolution of the Limited Liability Company: A Statutory Analysis’ (2017) 19 Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law 81Google Scholar

Moll & Ragazzo (2017) Moll, Douglas K., & Ragazzo, Robert A., Closely Held Corporations (LexisNexis 2017)Google Scholar

Mori (1984) Mori, Junjirō, ‘Heisa-kaisha ni okeru Shihai no Iji to Tōka-shihon no Kaishū [Maintenance of Control and Recovery of Invested Capital in Closed Corporations]’ (1984) 56(11) Hōritsu Jihō 23Google Scholar

Morita (2014) Morita, Hatsuru, ‘Reforms of Japanese Corporate Law and Political Environment’ (2014) No. 37 ZJapanR/JJapanL 25Google Scholar

Müller (1996) Müller, Hans-Friedrich, Das Austrittsrecht des GmbH-Gesellschafters [The GmbH-Member’s Withdrawal Right] (Cologne, Carl Heymanns 1996)Google Scholar

Murdock (1990) Murdock, Charles W., ‘The Evolution of Effective Remedies for Minority Shareholders and Its Impact Upon Valuation of Minority Shares’ (1990) 65 Notre Dame LRev 425Google Scholar

Muth & FitzGerald (2012) Muth, Graham, & FitzGerald, Sean, Shareholders’ Agreements (6th ed., London, Sweet & Maxwell 2012)Google Scholar

Nakahigashi & Matsui (2010) Nakahigashi, Masafumi, & Hideyuki, Matsui, Kaishahō no Sentaku: Atarashii Shakai no Kaishahō wo Motomete [Choices in Corporate Law: The Quest for a Corporate Law for a New Society] (Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2010)Google Scholar

Navin & Sears (1955) Navin, Thomas R., & Sears, Marian V., ‘The Rise of a Market for Industrial Securities, 1887–1902’ (1955) 29 Business History Review 105Google Scholar

Nelson (1959) Nelson, Ralph L., Merger Movements in American Industry, 1895–1956 (Princeton, Princeton University Press 1959)Google Scholar

Nestler & Kupke (2003) Nestler, Anke & Kupke, Thomas, ‘Die Bewertung von Unternehmen mit dem Discounted Cash Flow-Verfahren [The Valuation of Enterprise with the Discounted Cash Flow Method]’ [2003](6) Betriebswirtschaftliche Mandantenbetreuung 163Google Scholar

Neuberger (2002) Neuberger, David, ‘Company Law Reform: The Role of the Courts’ in de Lacy (2002)Google Scholar

Neville (2010) Neville, Mette, ‘A Statutory Buy-out Right in SMEs – An Important Corporate Governance Mechanism and Minority Protection?’ in Neville & Sørensen (2010)Google Scholar

Neville (2013) Neville, Mette, ‘Shareholders Conflicts in the European Private Company (SPE)’ in Hirte, Heribert & Teichmann, Christoph (eds.), The European Private Company – Societas Privata Europaea (SPE) (Berlin, De Gruyter 2013)Google Scholar

Neville & Sørensen (2010) Neville, Mette & Sørensen, Karsten Engsig (eds.), Company Law and SMEs (Copenhagen, Thomson Reuters 2010)Google Scholar

Newmyer (1976) Newmyer, R. Kent, ‘Justice Joseph Story’s Doctrine of “Public and Private Corporations” and the Rise of the American Business Corporation’ (1976) 25 DePaul LRev 825Google Scholar

Nikkei (2016) ‘AMAZON JAPAN, “gōdō kaisha” ni ikō; ishi kettei subayaku [Amazon Japan to convert to “gōdō kaisha”; towards faster decision-making]’ (Nihon Keizai Shimbun Denshi-ban [The Nikkei online edn], 24 March 2016) www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLZO98788460T20C16A3TI5000/ accessed 4 June 2019Google Scholar

Noack & Beurskens (2008) Noack, Ulrich, & Beurskens, Michael, ‘Modernising the German GmbH – Mere Window Dressing or Fundamental Redesign?’ (2008) 9 EBOR 97Google Scholar

O’Kelley (1992) O’Kelley, Jr, Charles R., ‘Filling Gaps in the Close Corporation Contract: A Transaction Cost Analysis’ (1992) 87 Northwestern University LRev 216Google Scholar

O’Neal (1978) O’Neal, F. Hodge, ‘Close Corporations: Existing Legislation and Recommended Reform’ (1978) 33 Business Lawyer 873Google Scholar

O’Neal (1987) O’Neal, F. Hodge, ‘Oppression of Minority Shareholders: Protecting Minority Rights’ (1987) 35 Cleveland State LRev 121Google Scholar

O’Neal & Derwin (1961) O’Neal, F. Hodge, & Derwin, Jordan, Expulsion or Oppression of Business Associates: “Squeeze-Outs” In Small Enterprises (Duke University Press 1961)Google Scholar

O’Neal & Thompson (2020a) O’Neal, F. Hodge, & Thompson, Robert B., O’Neal and Thompson’s Close Corporations and LLCs: Law and Practice (rev. 3rd ed., Clark Boardman Callaghan, looseleaf) (updated Nov 2020)Google Scholar

O’Neal & Thompson (2020b) O’Neal, F. Hodge, & Thompson, Robert B., O’Neal and Thompson’s Oppression of Minority Shareholders and LLC Members: Protecting Minority Rights in Squeeze-Outs and Other Intracorporate Conflicts (rev. 2nd ed., Clark Boardman Callaghan, looseleaf) (updated May 2020)Google Scholar

Oda (2005) Oda, Hiroshi, ‘The “Americanisation” of Japanese Corporate Law? – American Freedom, Japanese Discipline’ (2005) 69 Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 47Google Scholar

OECD (2010) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (Paris, OECD 2010)Google Scholar

Oesterle & Gazur (1997) Oesterle, Dale A., & Gazur, Wayne M., ‘What’s in a Name: An Argument for a Small Business Limited Liability Entity Statute (With Three Subsets of Default Rules)’ (1997) 32 Wake Forest LRev 101Google Scholar

Ōga (1988) Yoshimitsu, Ōga, ‘Hi-Kōkai Kaisha ni okeru Shōsū-ha Kabunushi, Sha’in no Yokuatsu kara no Kyūsai: Kabushiki, Mochibun no Kaitori Seikyū Seido [Relief from Oppression of Shareholders/Members in Non-Open Corporations: The Share/Membership Interest Buyout Regime]’ (1988) 10 Shūdō Hōgaku 275Google Scholar

Olson (1985) Olson, Joseph Edward, ‘A Statutory Elixir for the Oppression Malady’ (1985) 36 Mercer LRev 627Google Scholar

Ōsugi (2004) Ōsugi, Ken’ichi, ‘LLC-seido no Dōnyū [Introduction of the LLC Regime]’ (2004) 56 Kigyō Kaikei 206Google Scholar

Ōsugi (2013) Ken’ichi, Ōsugi, ‘Mochibun Kaisha, Minpō Kumiai no Hōritsu Mondai [Legal Issues in Membership Companies and Civil Law Partnerships]’ in Shinsaku, Iwahara, Tomonobu, Yamashita & Hideki, Kanda (eds.), Kaisha, Kin’yū, Hō (jō-kan) [Corporations, Finance, Law (vol. 1 of 2)] (Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2013)Google Scholar

Ōsumi & Imai (1991) Ōsumi, Ken’ichirō, & Hiroshi, Imai, Kaisha Hō Ron jōkan [On Corporate Law, vol. 1 of 3] (3rd ed., Tokyo, Yūhikaku 1991)Google Scholar

Ōta (2008) Ōta, Minoru, ‘Mochibun-kaisha no Sha’in no Ka’nyū to Taisha [Joining and Exit of Membership Companies’ Members]’ in Egashira & Monguchi (2008)Google Scholar

Ozeki (2014) Ozeki, Yukimi, ‘Dai-597-jō [Article 597]’ in Kanda (2014)Google Scholar

Palmer & Borowski (2012) Palmer, Vernon Valentine, & Borowski, Harry, ‘Louisiana’ in Palmer, Vernon Valentine (ed.), Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide: The Third Legal Family (2nd ed., Cambridge University Press 2012)Google Scholar

Paredes (2004) Paredes, Troy A., ‘A Systems Approach to Corporate Governance Reform: Why Importing U.S. Corporate Law Isn’t the Answer’ (2004) 45 William & Mary LRev 1055Google Scholar

Paterson (2006) Paterson, Paul, ‘A Criticism of the Contractual Approach to Unfair Prejudice’ (2006) 27 (7)Company Lawyer 204Google Scholar

Petska et al. (2005) Petska, Thomas, Parisi, Michael, Luttrell, Kelly, Altounian, Lucy & Scoffic, Matt, ‘An Analysis of Business Organizational Structure and Activity from Tax Data’ (2005) 98 Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association 40Google Scholar

Pistor & Xu (2003) Pistor, Katharina, & Xu, Chenggang, ‘Fiduciary Duty in Transitional Civil Law Jurisdictions: Lessons from the Incomplete Law Theory’ in Milhaupt, Curtis J. (ed.), Global Markets, Domestic Institutions: Corporate Law and Governance in a New Era of Cross-Border Deals (New York, Columbia University Press 2003)Google Scholar

Pistor et al. (2002) Pistor, Katharina, Keinan, Yoram, Kleinheisterkamp, Jan & West, Mark D., ‘The Evolution of Corporate Law: A Cross-Country Comparison’ (2002) 23 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 791Google Scholar

Prentice (1972) Prentice, D., ‘Protection of Minority Shareholders: Section 210 of the Companies Act 1948’ [1972] Current Legal Problems 124Google Scholar

Prentice (1986) Prentice, D. D., ‘Minority Shareholder Oppression: Valuation of Shares’ (1986) 102 LQR 179Google Scholar

Prentice (1988) Prentice, D. D., ‘The Theory of the Firm: Minority Shareholder Oppression: Sections 459–461 of the Companies Act 1985’ (1988) 8 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 55Google Scholar

Prentice & Payne (1999) Prentice, D. D., & Payne, Jennifer, ‘Section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 – the House of Lords’ View’ (1999) 115 LQR 587Google Scholar

Puchniak (2007) Puchniak, Dan W., ‘The Japanization of American Corporate Governance? Evidence of the Never-Ending History for Corporate Law’ (2007) 9 Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal 7Google Scholar

Puchniak (2012) Puchniak, Dan W., ‘The Derivative Action in Asia: A Complex Reality’ (2012) 9 Berkeley Business LJ 1Google Scholar

Puchniak & Kim (2017) Puchniak, Dan W., & Kim, Kon-Sik, ‘Varieties of Independent Directors in Asia: A Taxonomy’ in Puchniak et al. (2017)Google Scholar

Puchniak & Lan (2017) Puchniak, Dan W. & Lan, Luh Luh, ‘Independent Directors in Singapore: Puzzling Compliance Requiring Explanation’ (2017) 65 AJCL 265Google Scholar

Puchniak et al. (2012) Puchniak, Dan W., Baum, Harald & Ewing-Chow, Michael (eds.), The Derivative Action in Asia: A Comparative and Functional Approach (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2012)Google Scholar

Puchniak et al. (2017) Puchniak, Dan W., Baum, Harald & Nottage, Luke (eds.), Independent Directors in Asia: A Historical, Contextual and Comparative Approach (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2017)Google Scholar

Quinlan & Kennedy (1998) Quinlan, William R., & Kennedy, John F., ‘The Rights and Remedies of Shareholders in Closely Held Corporations Under Illinois Law’ (1998) 29 Loyola University of Chicago LJ 585Google Scholar

Rachlinski (2003) Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., ‘The Uncertain Psychological Case for Paternalism’ (2003) 97 Northwestern University LRev 1165Google Scholar

Raiser & Veil (2015) Raiser, Thomas, & Veil, Rüdiger, Recht der Kapitalgesellschaften: Ein Handbuch für Praxis und Wissenschaft [The Law of Capital-based Companies: A Handbook for Practice and Scholarship] (6th ed., Munich, Franz Vahlen 2015)Google Scholar

Rajak (1972) Rajak, H., ‘The Oppression of Minority Shareholders’ (1972) 35 MLR 156Google Scholar

Reimann & Zimmermann (2019) Reimann, Mathias & Zimmermann, Reinhard (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2019)Google Scholar

Reusch (2019) Reusch, Ute (tr.), ‘Limited Liability Companies Act’ (Juris BMJ, 2019), archived 17 June 2019 at https://web.archive.org/web/20190617060654/http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gmbhg/englisch_gmbhg.pdfGoogle Scholar

Reuter (1973) Reuter, Dieter, Privatrechtliche Schranken der Perpetuierung von Unternehmen: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Gestaltungsfreiheit im Recht der Unternehmensformen [Barriers in Private Law to the Perpetuation of Enterprise: A Contribution on the Problem of Freedom of Design in the Law of Corporate Forms] (Frankfurt am Main, Athenäum 1973)Google Scholar

Reuter (1977) Reuter, Dieter, ‘Nochmals: Das Kündigungsrecht des GmbH-Gesellschafters [Once Again: The GmbH Member’s Right to Resign]’ [1977] GmbH-Rundschau 77Google Scholar

Reuter (1984) Reuter, Dieter, ‘Welche Maßnahmen empfehlen sich, insbesondere im Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht, um die Eigenkapitalausstattung der Unternehmen langfristig zu verbessern? [What Measures are Recommended, Particularly in Corporate and Securities Law, for the Long-term Improvement of Capital Adequacy of Enterprises?]’ in Ständigen Deputation des Deutschen Juristentages [Standing Deputation of the Association of German Jurists] (ed.), Verhandlungen des fünfundfünfzigsten Deutschen Juristentages Hamburg 1984, Bd I (Gutachten) Teil B [Proceedings of the 55th German Jurists Forum, vol. 1 (Expert Opinions) Part B] (Munich, C. H. Beck 1984)Google Scholar

Ribstein (1995a) Ribstein, Larry E., ‘Statutory Forms for Closely Held Firms: Theories and Evidence from LLCs’ (1995) 73 Washington University LQ 369Google Scholar

Ribstein (1995b) Ribstein, Larry E., ‘A Critique of the Uniform Limited Liability Company Act’ (1995) 25 Stetson LRev 311Google Scholar

Ribstein (2010) Ribstein, Larry E., The Rise of the Uncorporation (New York, Oxford University Press 2010)Google Scholar

Ribstein (2011) Ribstein, Larry E., ‘Close Corporation Remedies and the Evolution of the Closely Held Firm’ (2011) 33 Western New England LRev 531Google Scholar

Ribstein & Keatinge (2020) Keatinge, Robert R., Ribstein, Larry E. & Rutledge, Thomas E., Ribstein and Keatinge on Limited Liability Companies (2nd ed., Eagan, West, looseleaf) (updated July 2020)Google Scholar

Ribstein & Kobayashi (2001) Ribstein, Larry E., & Kobayashi, Bruce H., ‘Choice of Form and Network Externalities’ (2001) 43 William & Mary LRev 79Google Scholar

Riley (1992) Riley, Christopher A., ‘Contracting Out of Company Law: Section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 and the Role of the Courts’ (1992) 55 MLR 782Google Scholar

Riley (2003) Riley, Christopher, ‘Implicit Dimensions of Contract and Oppression of Shareholders’ in Campbell, David, Collins, Hugh & Wightman, John (eds.), Implicit Dimensions of Contract: Discrete, Relational and Network Contracts (Oxford, Hart Publishing 2003)Google Scholar

Ringe (2013) Ringe, Wolf-Georg, ‘Corporate Mobility in the European Union: A Flash in the Pan? An Empirical Study on the Success of Lawmaking and Regulatory Competition’ (2013) 10 ECFR 230Google Scholar

Robert Bosch (2019) Bosch, Robert GmbH, ‘Bosch Annual Report 2018’ (2019), archived 10 May 2019 at https://web.archive.org/web/20190510034048/https://assets.bosch.com/media/global/bosch_group/our_figures/pdf/bosch-annual-report-2018.pdfGoogle Scholar

Rock (2002) Rock, Edward, ‘Securities Regulation as Lobster Trap: A Credible Commitment Theory of Mandatory Disclosure’ (2002) 23 Cardozo LRev 675Google Scholar

Rock & Wachter (1999) Rock, Edward B., & Wachter, Michael L., ‘Waiting for the Omelet to Set: Match-Specific Assets and Minority Oppression in Close Corporations’ (1999) 24 Journal of Corporation Law 913Google Scholar

Röder (2014) Röder, Erik, ‘Die Kommanditgesellschaft im Rechtsvergleich: Hintergründe der unterschiedlichen Karriere einer Rechtsform [The KG in Comparative Law: Factors Underlying the Differing Careers of a Legal Form]’ (2014) 78 Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 109Google Scholar

Rodger (2010) Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, ‘Judges and Academics in the United Kingdom’ (2010) 29 University of Queensland LJ 29Google Scholar

Röhricht (1991) Röhricht, Volker, ‘Zum Austritt des Gesellschafters aus der GmbH [On the Withdrawal of a Member from the GmbH]’ in Goerdeler, Reinhard, Hommelhoff, Peter, Lutter, Marcus, Odersky, Walter & Wiedemann, Herbert (eds.), Festschrift für Alfred Kellermann zum 70. Geburtstag am 29. November 1990 (Berlin, Walter de Gruyter 1991)Google Scholar

Roitzsch (1981) Roitzsch, Frank, Der Minderheitenschutz im Verbandsrecht [Minority Protection in the Law of Associations] (Königstein im Taunus, Hanstein 1981)Google Scholar

Roth & Kindler (2013) Roth, Günter H., & Kindler, Peter, The Spirit of Corporate Law: Core Principles of Corporate Law in Continental Europe (Munich, C. H. Beck 2013)Google Scholar

Rutledge (1937) Rutledge, Jr, Wiley B., ‘Significant Trends in Modern Incorporation Statutes’ (1937) 22 Washington University LQ 305Google Scholar

Sacco (1991) Sacco, Rodolfo, ‘Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Installment I of II)’ (1991) 39 AJCL 1Google Scholar

Sakamaki (1973) Sakamaki, Toshio, Heisa-teki Kaisha no Hōri to Rippō [Close Corporations: Doctrine and Legislation] (Tokyo, Nipponhyōronsha 1973)Google Scholar

Schindler (1999) Schindler, Hendrik, Das Austrittsrecht in Kapitalgesellschaften: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum Austrittsrecht als Mittel des Individual- und Minderheitenschutzes im deutschen und französischen Kapitalgesellschaftsrecht [The Right to Withdraw in Capital-based Companies: A Comparative Study on the Right to Withdraw as a Means of Individual and Minority Protection in German and French Capital-based Companies] (Munich, C. H. Beck 1999)Google Scholar

Schlesinger (1945) Schlesinger, Arthur M., The Age of Jackson (Boston, Little, Brown 1945)Google Scholar

Schmidt (2002) Schmidt, Karsten, Gesellschaftsrecht [Corporate Law] (4th ed., Cologne, Carl Heymanns 2002)Google Scholar

Schmidt (2008) Schmidt, Jessica, ‘The New Unternehmergesellschaft (Entrepreneurial Company) and the Limited – A Comparison’ (2008) 9 German LJ 1093Google Scholar

Schmolke (2012) Schmolke, Klaus Ulrich, ‘Expulsion and Valuation Clauses – Freedom of Contract vs. Legal Paternalism in German Partnership and Close Corporation Law’ (2012) 9 ECFR 380Google Scholar

Scholz (1930) Scholz, Franz, Der Austritt aus der GmbH [Exit from the GmbH] (Cologne, Dr Otto Schmidt 1930)Google Scholar

Scholz (1942) Scholz, Franz, Ausschließung und Austritt eines Gesellschafters aus der GmbH [Expulsion and Withdrawal of a Member from the GmbH] (2nd ed., Cologne, Otto Schmidt 1942)Google Scholar

Scholz (1950) Scholz, Franz, Ausschließung und Austritt aus der GmbH [Expulsion and Withdrawal from the GmbH] (3rd ed., Cologne, Dr Otto Schmidt 1950)Google Scholar

Schubert (1985a) Schubert, Werner (ed.), Entwurf des Reichsjustizministeriums zu einem Gesetz über die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung von 1939 [Reich Ministry of Justice Draft on an Act on Companies with Limited Liability of 1939] (Heidelberg, Recht und Wirtschaft 1985)Google Scholar

Schubert (1985b) Schubert, Werner, ‘Einführung [Introduction]’ in Schubert (1985a)Google Scholar

Schulz & Wasmeier (2012) Schulz, Martin, & Wasmeier, Oliver, The Law of Business Organizations: A Concise Overview of German Corporate Law (Berlin, Springer 2012)Google Scholar

Schweitzer et al. (2006) Schweitzer, Maurice E., Hershey, John C. & Bradlow, Eric T., ‘Promises and Lies: Restoring Violated Trust’ (2006) 101 Organizational Behaviour & Human Decision Processes 1Google Scholar

Schwerdtner (1976) Schwerdtner, Peter, ‘Das Kündigungsrecht des GmbH-Gesellschafters [The Right of Resignation of GmbH-Members]’ [1976] GmbH-Rundschau 101Google Scholar

Scogin (1993) Scogin, Jr, Hugh T., ‘Withdrawal and Expulsion in Germany: A Comparative Perspective on the “Close Corporation Problem”’ (1993) 15 Michigan Journal of International Law 127Google Scholar

Sealy (1976) Sealy, L. S., ‘Book Review: Squeeze-outs of Minority Shareholders: Expulsion or Oppression of Business Associates’ (1976) 35 Cambridge LJ 362Google Scholar

Seibt (2012) Seibt, Christoph H., ‘Anhang § 34: Austritt und Ausschließung eines Gesellschafters [Appendix to Section 34: Withdrawal and Expulsion of a Member]’ in Scholz, Franz (ed.), Kommentar zum GmbH-Gesetz [Commentary on the GmbH Law], vol. 1 (11th ed., Cologne, Dr Otto Schmidt 2012)Google Scholar

Sekiguchi & Nishigaki (2008) Sekiguchi, Norihiro, & Kengō, Nishigaki, ‘Gōdō-Kaisha ya Yūgen-Sekinin-Jigyō-Kumiai no Jitsumu-jō no Riyōrei to Mondaiten [GK and J-LLPs: Practical Examples and Issues]’ (2008) 80(11) Hōritsu Jihō 18Google Scholar

Setsuyaku-Shachō (2015) Setsuyaku Shachō, Henshūbu [Thrifty CEO Editorial Board], ‘Kabushiki Kaisha wa mō Jidai Okure!? Gōdō Kaisha ga Kyūzō suru Riyū to wa [The KK Is Already Behind the Times!? Reasons for the Rapid Increase in GKs]’ (Setsuyaku Shachō [Thrifty CEO], 8 July 2015), archived 1 June 2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20190601164132/https://setsuyaku.ceo/post/505/株式会社はもう時代遅れ-合同会社が急増する理Google Scholar

Shapira (2000) Shapira, Giora, ‘The Hand That Giveth Is the Hand That Taketh Away – O’Neill v Phillips and Shareholder “Legitimate Expectations”’ (2000) 11 Australian Journal of Corporate Law 260Google Scholar

Shapira (2015) Shapira, Roy, ‘A Reputational Theory of Corporate Law’ (2015) 26 Stanford Law & Policy Review 1Google Scholar

Shimoda (2016) Shimoda, Sayuri A, ‘Time to Retire: Is Lifetime Employment in Japan Still Viable?’ (2016) 39 Fordham International LJ 753Google Scholar

Shishido (1984a) Shishido, Zen’ichi, ‘Heisa Kaisha ni okeru Naibu Funsō no Kaiketsu to Keizai-teki Kōsei (ichi) [*Ways to Achieve Financial Fairness in Coping with Internal Dissension in the Closely Held Corporation (Part 1)]’ (1984) 101 Hōgaku Kyōkai Zasshi 505Google Scholar

Shishido (1984b) Shishido, Zen’ichi, ‘Heisa Kaisha ni Okeru Naibu Funsō no Kaiketsu to Keizai-teki Kōsei [*Ways to Achieve Financial Fairness in Coping with Internal Dissension in the Closely-Held Corporation]’ (1984) 46 Shihō 237Google Scholar

Shishido (1990) Shishido, Zenichi, ‘Problems of the Closely Held Corporation: A Comparative Study of the Japanese and American Legal Systems and a Critique of the Japanese Tentative Draft on Close Corporations’ (1990) 38 AJCL 337Google Scholar

Shishido (2009) Shishido, Zen’ichi, ‘Gōdō Kaisha Keitai Sōsetsu no Igi to Riyō [The GK Form: Its Usage and the Significance of its Creation]’ in Michiyo, Hamada & Shinsaku, Iwahara (eds.), Kaisha Hō no Sōten [Contested Issues in Corporate Law] (Tokyo, Yūhikaku 2009)Google Scholar

Shishido (2013) Shishido, Zen’ichi, ‘Gōdō Gōben-Kaisha [GK Joint Ventures]’ in Atsushi, Koide, Sōichirō, Kozuka, Gen, Gotō & Aken, Ban (eds.), Maeda Shigeyuki-sensei Koki Kinen: Kigyō Hō, Kin’yū Hō no Shin-Chōryū [Festschrift in Celebration of Maeda Shigeyuki’s 70th Birthday: New Trends in Enterprise Law and Finance Law] (Tokyo, Shōjihōmu 2013)Google Scholar

Shishido (2014a) Shishido, Zen’ichi, ‘Dai 3-ppen Zenchū [Introductory Notes to Part 3]’ in Kanda (2014)Google Scholar

Shishido (2014b) Shishido, Zen’ichi, ‘Dai-590-jō [Article 590]’ in Kanda (2014)Google Scholar

Shishido (2014c) Shishido, Zen’ichi, ‘Gōdō-Kaisha no Taisha-in no Mochibun Hyōka: Jōto Seigen Kabushiki no Hyōka to no Hikaku [Valuation of the Membership Interests of Withdrawing Members from the GK: A Comparison with the Valuation of Shares with Transfer Restrictions]’ in Masayoshi, Deguchi, Ken’ichi, Yoshimoto, Hiromasa, Nakajima & Hiroyasu, Tanabe (eds.), Kigyō Hō no Genzai: Aotake Shō’ichi-sensei Koki Kinen [Enterprise Law’s Present: Festschrift in Celebration of Aotake Shōichi’s 70th Birthday] (Tokyo, Shinzansha 2014)Google Scholar

Shishido (2015) Shishido, Zenichi, ‘Legislative policy of alternative forms of business organization: the case of Japanese LLCs’ in Hillman, Robert W. & Loewenstein, Mark J. (eds.), Research Handbook on Partnerships, LLCs and Alternative Forms of Business Organizations (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar 2015)Google Scholar

Shishido et al. (2015) Shishido, Zenichi, Fukuda, Munetaka & Umetani, Masato, Joint Venture Strategies: Design, Bargaining, and the Law (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar 2015)Google Scholar

Siegel (2011) Siegel, Mary, ‘An Appraisal of the Model Business Corporation Act’s Appraisal Rights Provisions’ (Winter 2011) 74(1) Law & Contemporary Problems 231Google Scholar

Siems (2005) Siems, Mathias M., ‘Numerical Comparative Law: Do We Need Statistical Evidence in Law in Order to Reduce Complexity?’ (2005) 13 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 521Google Scholar

Siems (2007) Siems, Mathias M., Convergence in Shareholder Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2007)Google Scholar

Siems (2008) Siems, Mathias M., ‘Shareholder Protection Around the World (Leximetric II)’ (2008) 33 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 111Google Scholar

Siems (2010) Siems, Mathias M., ‘Convergence in Corporate Governance: A Leximetric Approach’ (2010) 35 Journal of Corporation Law 729Google Scholar

Siems (2014) Siems, Mathias M., ‘Bringing in Foreign Ideas: The Quest for “Better Law” in Implicit Comparative Law’ (2014) 9(2) Journal of Comparative Law 119Google Scholar

Siems (2017) Siems, Mathias M., ‘The Methods of Comparative Corporate Law’ in Tomasic, Roman (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Corporate Law (Abingdon, Routledge 2017)Google Scholar

Siems (2018a) Siems, Mathias, ‘Malicious Legal Transplants’ (2018) 38 Legal Studies 103Google Scholar

Siems (2018b) Siems, Mathias, Comparative Law (2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2018)Google Scholar

Siems & Cabrelli (2013) Siems, Mathias & Cabrelli, David (eds.), Comparative Company Law: A Case-Based Approach (Oxford, Hart 2013)Google Scholar

Simon (1957) Simon, Herbert A., Models of Man: Social and Rational (New York, John Wiley & Sons 1957)Google Scholar

Sitkin & Roth (1993) Sitkin, Sim B., & Roth, Nancy L., ‘Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust’ (1993) 4 Organization Science 367Google Scholar

Skeel (2004) Skeel, Jr, David A., ‘Corporate Anatomy Lessons’ (2004) 113 Yale LJ 1519Google Scholar

Skeel (2005) Skeel, David, Icarus in the Boardroom: The Fundamental Flaws in Corporate America and Where They Came From (New York, Oxford University Press 2005)Google Scholar

SMEA (2020) Chūshōkigyōchō [Small and Medium Enterprise Agency] (Japan) (ed.), Chūshō Kigyō Hakusho 2020-nen-ban [2020 White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises in Japan] (24 April 2020), archived 7 March 2021 at https://perma.cc/N4AV-2EHEGoogle Scholar

Smith (2004) Smith, Stephen A., Contract Theory (Oxford, Clarendon Press 2004)Google Scholar

Sneirson (2008) Sneirson, Judd F., ‘Soft Paternalism for Close Corporations: Helping Shareholders Help Themselves’ [2008] Wisconsin LRev 899Google Scholar

Solomon & Solomon (1987) Solomon, Lewis D., & Solomon, Janet Stern, ‘Using Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques to Settle Conflicts among Shareholders of Closely Held Corporations’ (1987) 22 Wake Forest LRev 105Google Scholar

Sōmu-shō (2016, 2020) Sōmu-shō Tōkei-kyoku [Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications], ‘Shōgyō, Hōjin Tōki (Nenji-hyō) [Business and Corporation Registrations (Multiyear Statistics with Yearly Breakdowns)]’ (e-stat: Portal Site of Official Statistics of Japan, 29 May 2020 and 31 May 2016), Tables 19–00–16 https://perma.cc/98N2-MXBH, 19–00–18 https://perma.cc/S7TY-DYUV, 19–00–19 https://perma.cc/UF3X-PE79, 19–00–20 https://perma.cc/QXW5-3TCZ, 15–00–16 https://perma.cc/R6W9-THDY, 15–00–18 https://perma.cc/J4BV-EUZC, 15–00–19 https://perma.cc/2KUK-28SS, 15–00–20 https://perma.cc/45LW-KWNU.Google Scholar

Sosnitza (2010) Sosnitza, Olaf, ‘Anhang § 34 Ausschluss und Austritt von Gesellschaftern [Appendix to Section 34: Expulsion and Withdrawal of Members]’ in Michalski, Lutz (ed.), Kommentar zum Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH-Gesetz) [Commentary on the Law on Limited Liability Corporations], vol. 1 (2nd ed., Munich, C. H. Beck 2010)Google Scholar

Spamann (2010) Spamann, Holger, ‘The “Antidirector Rights Index” Revisited’ (2010) 23 Review of Financial Studies 467Google Scholar

Storm (2002) Storm, Timothy J., ‘Remedies for Oppression of Non-Controlling Shareholders in Illinois Closely-Held Corporations: An Idea Whose Time Has Gone’ (2002) 33 Loyola University of Chicago LJ 379Google Scholar

Strohn (2018) Strohn, Lutz, ‘§ 34 Einziehung von Geschäftsanteilen [Section 34 Redemption of Membership Interests]’ in Fleischer & Goette (2018)Google Scholar

Subaru-Juku (2015) Subaru Juku Un’ei Kanri-nin [Operations Manager, Subaru School], ‘Gōdō Kaisha to Kabushiki Kaisha no Chigai wo Osaeru 14 no POINTO [The Differences Between the GK and the KK in 14 Points]’ (Subaru Juku [Subaru School], 27 May 2015), archived 28 October 2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20171028160612/http://subaru-juku.com/llc-joint%E2%80%90stock-company-difference-867Google Scholar

Sugarman (1997) Sugarman, David, ‘Reconceptualising Company Law: Reflections on the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on Shareholder Remedies: Part 1’ (1997) 18(8) Company Lawyer 226Google Scholar

Sunstein (2014) Sunstein, Cass R., Why Nudge? The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism (New Haven, Yale University Press 2014)Google Scholar

Sunstein & Thaler (2003) Sunstein, Cass R., & Thaler, Richard H., ‘Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron’ (2003) 70 University of Chicago LRev 1159Google Scholar

Suzuki (1994) Suzuki, Takeo, Shin-pan Kaisha Hō [Corporate Law: New Edition] (5th rev. ed., Tokyo, Kōbundō 1994)Google Scholar

Swire (1993) Swire, Peter P., ‘Safe Harbors and a Proposal to Improve the Community Reinvestment Act’ (1993) 79 Virginia LRev 349Google Scholar

Takahashi (1998) Takahashi, Eiji, Jūzoku Kaisha ni okeru Shōsū Kabu’nushi no Hogo [Protection of Minority Shareholders in Dependent Subsidiaries] (Tokyo, Yūhikaku 1998)Google Scholar

Takahashi (2010) Takahashi, Eiji, ‘Nihon ni okeru Heisa-teki Shihon-kaisha no Hatten to Hō [The Development and the Law of Closed-type Companies of Capital]’ (2010) 1914 Shōji Hōmu 4Google Scholar

Takahashi (2012a) Takahashi, Eiji, ‘Mochibun-Kaisha to Kigyō Ketsugō Hōsei (ge) [Membership Companies and the Legal Regime for Corporate Groups (Part 2 of 2)]’ (2012) 1969 Shōji Hōmu 4Google Scholar

Takahashi (2012b) Takahashi, Eiji, DOITSU Kaisha Hō Gaisetsu [Principles of German Corporation Law] (Tokyo, Yūhikaku 2012)Google Scholar

Takahashi (2014) Takahashi, Eiji, Kaisha Hō Gaisetsu [Principles of Corporation Law] (2nd ed., Tokyo, Chūōkeizaisha 2014)Google Scholar

Takahashi (2015) Takahashi, Eiji, ‘“Reception” and “Convergence” of Japanese and German Corporate Law’ (2015) 12 University of St Thomas LJ 228Google Scholar

Takahashi (2016) Takahashi, Eiji, Kaisha Hō no Keiju to Shūren [Reception and Convergence of Corporate Law] (Tokyo, Yūhikaku 2016)Google Scholar

Takahashi & Shimizu (2005) Takahashi, Eiji & Shimizu, Madoka, ‘The Future of Japanese Corporate Governance: The 2005 Reform’ (2005) No. 19 ZJapanR/JJapanL 35Google Scholar

Tan (2014) Tan, Zhong Xing, ‘Unfair Prejudice from Beyond, Beyond Unfair Prejudice: Amplifying Minority Protection in Corporate Group Structures’ (2014) 14 JCLS 367Google Scholar

Tan (2015) Tan, Zhong Xing, ‘Reverse Oppression and the Residual Nature of the Shareholder’s Commercial Unfairness Remedy’ (2015) 27 Singapore Academy of LJ 122Google Scholar