L’auteure traite des stratagèmes de propriété occulte et de vote vide orchestrés par l’entremise des instruments dérivés. Dans un premier temps, cette recherche expose les diverses perturbations occasionnées par ces stratagèmes sur le système d’alerte et de notification ainsi que sur le droit corporatif canadien. Pour illustrer ces propos, une revue de la jurisprudence est détaillée. De plus, de nombreuses solutions législatives sont proposées afin de pallier aux utilisations potentiellement abusives des instruments dérivés. La solution la mieux adaptée au contexte des marchés financiers canadiens est finalement sélectionnée. / The research paper herein deals with hidden morphable ownership schemes and empty voting strategies orchestrated through derivatives. Initially, the author exposes the various disturbances caused by these schemes on early warning systems and follows up with repercussions that reverberate through to the Canadian corporate laws framework. Detailed case reviews are also presented to highlight the practical implications of these aforementioned schemes. Legislative solutions to mitigate the potential misuse of derivatives are proposed and ultimately the preferred solution tailored to Canadian financial markets is selected.

L’investissement éthique est un investissement fondé sur des critères extra-financiers : l’investisseur cherche un enrichissement tout en poursuivant une fin non matérielle tirée du respect de certaines valeurs La coloration éthique a vocation à rejaillir sur le régime de cet investissement. Elle dicte le contenu de la politique d’investissement, oblige les intermédiaires financiers à informer les investisseurs de manière adéquate, et les contraint à veiller à la conformité éthique de l’investissement jusqu’à son dénouement.L’investissement éthique ne saurait toutefois se limiter à cela. Adoptant une démarche conséquentialiste, les investisseurs peuvent s’engager auprès des émetteurs pour y défendre leurs valeurs. D’un point de vue théorique, cet activisme actionnarial met en lumière l’échec des thèses traditionnelles à définir la finalité des sociétés. Plutôt que de raisonner en termes d’intérêt social, il conviendrait à présent de recourir à la Stakeholder Theory. / Ethical investment is based on non-financial criteria: the investor expects a return on the investment while pursuing a non-material objective, based on the respect of certain values. Ethics bring a nuance, which impacts the set of rules for this type of investment. It establishes the content of the investment policy and requires financial intermediaries to inform investors adequately. It also forces them to ensure ethical compliance of the investment to its ending. Ethical investment, however, is not limited to this. By adopting a consequentialist approach, investors can engage with issuers to defend their values. From a theoretical point of view, this shareholder activism highlights the failure of traditional theories to define the purpose of companies. Because the concept of “intérêt social”, which the French doctrine struggles to define, leads to a deadlock, a cross-disciplinary approach, the Stakeholder Theory, should be preferred.

The evolving nature of the Korean 'chaebol' - both a business group and the founding family who control the corporation - continues to intrigue scholars of corporate governance (Khanna and Yafeh, JEL 2007). In my thesis, I investigate these multi-generational controlling families to explain the chaebol's significance in the historical evolution of South Korea's political economy during the 20th century. My research first describes the origins of chaebol entrepreneurs and details their role in the growth of light industry before the the rise of state-led industrialisation during the social revolution of the 1960s in South Korea. I then consider the specific institutional features which appear to work against family control, even though they would ultimately support its proliferation: 1) progressive politics; 2) inheritance tax; and 3) ownership dispersion. Notably, my analysis of these distinctive institutions provides a clearer understanding of the contemporary behavior of the chaebols and their ability to maintain family control over many decades of growth. In order to better understand the role of controlling families, during the state-led industrialisation period (1961-1988), I analyse their corporate networks and their ability to wield political power. To do so, I employ an unconventional source of evidence: a database of marriages among chaebol families. This research is theoretically grounded in the contact capabilities hypothesis advanced by Amsden (1989) and Guillén (2001a, 2001b with Kock). My scholarly approach complements parallel research on human networks within the state. My findings have implications for: 1) the epochal nature of chaebol-political networks; and 2) the market reaction to such network events, thus demonstrating the economic significance of these informal networks. In my last chapter on the post-1998 era of financial liberalisation, I explore the evolution of the ownership structure within the business group as it relates to policy history. I do this through an analysis of The Holding Company Act of 1999, and show how the controlling families in South Korea found novel ways to use the Act to support their family ownership and corporate control in spite of the original intentions of the regulators. As I show, share buyback programmes, first popularized in Anglo-American financial markets, were crucial to the maintenance of chaebol. As it turns out, liberal policies, imported from the West, proved no more able to limit family capitalism in South Korea than domestic policy had been during the preceding state-led industrialisation era. Nonetheless, activist investor has a special role to play.

La question du niveau optimal de transparence sur les marchés financiers a trouvé un terrain de débat exemplaire : celui de la propriété économique des sociétés cotées. La conception de nouveaux produits financiers et le développement de stratégies activistes ont provoqué une remise en question des règles de déclaration de franchissements de seuils de contrôle. Cette thèse analyse les conséquences économiques des évolutions réglementaires, évalue la pertinence des déclarations de l’acquéreur, et propose un nouveau cadre conceptuel intégrant la possibilité de comportements stratégiques des acteurs concernés. Selon nos résultats empiriques, les informations contenues dans les annonces sont pertinentes, même lorsque le blockholder s’engage à rester passif. Notre modèle théorique suggère que les blockholders utilisent le délai de déclaration de manière stratégique, et qu’un raccourcissement de ce délai serait favorable aux actionnaires minoritaires. / The debate on the optimum level of transparency in financial markets found a major point of controversy: the ownership of public companies. The design of new financial products and the development of shareholder activism called the blockholding disclosure rules into question. This thesis analyzes the economic impact of changes in regulation, measures the value relevance of the content of blockholding announcements, and introduces a new conceptual framework allowing strategic behavior of the involved economic agents. According to our empirical results, the information disclosed by blockholders are value relevant, even when the blockholder commits to remain passive. Our theoretical model suggests that blockholders make a strategic use of the reporting window, and predicts that a shortening of the legal time period would be favorable to minority shareholders.

隨著企業經營規模日趨複雜、專業化，股東因人數眾多、股東意見不一，在面臨公司所有與經營分離所產生的代理成本控制上，實有困難。一般小股東因持股過低，對於公司經營事務只能消極以待，若對公司經營成果不滿意，只能選擇華爾街準則(Wall Street Walk or Vote with Feet)，而賣掉股票，甚難對管理階層進行更進一步的影響。相較之下，機構投資人基於其人力及資源優勢，能深入參與公司治理、監督管理階層，進而提昇公司經營績效，增進股東投資價值，此即為機構投資人積極主義。 本篇論文探討機構投資人行使股東權以促進公司治理發展。首先討論機構投資人積極主義之兩大基礎支柱－其一，良好公司治理確能對公司績效表現有所助益，其二機構投資人促進公司治理乃其善盡受託義務之體現。 由於美國機構投資人主義高度成熟發展，而國內機構投資人積極主義仍屬起步階段，本篇論文即以比較研究法，探討美國機構投資人行使股東權如股東提案、委託書投票、直接與管理階層溝通、發布黑名單、團體訴訟與股東提名董事草案等，及分析說明我國公司治理相關條文與機構投資人行使表決權時所會遭逢之困境。 此外，本論文經由案例研究，深入蒐集資料並訪談兩個在促進公司治理領域夙負盛名的退休基金-美國威斯康辛州投資委員會與加拿大安大略省教師退休計畫，從而細膩地觀察美國及加拿大機構投資人積極主義之發展、瓶頸與挑戰。 最後，本論文提出促進機構投資人提出公司治理及表決權行使政策、鼓勵機構投資人於股東提案權與表決權等議案進行合作及建置對機構投資人餐與公司治理友善之法規環境等建議，期能對於我國機構投資人積極主義之發展有所助益。 / The increase in institutional funds has been extraordinarily rapid. Comparing with the minority shareholders, the institutional shareholders’ size and expertise can minimize the collective choice problem and agency costs. Their resources enable them to investigate and monitor management in corporate governance field. This is the “Institutional Shareholder Activism“. This article discusses the institutional shareholder’s enhancement of corporate governance. It explores from the two backbones of the Institutional Shareholder Activism: Firstly, the correlation between corporate governance and corporate performance, and secondly, fiduciary duties of the Institutional Shareholder. It makes two conclusions: Good corporate governance certainly helps protect shareholder interests, and contributes to superior long-term economic performance, and institutional shareholders can comply with fiduciary duties by enhancing corporate governance. Furthermore, due to America institutional shareholder activism is highly developed, while Taiwan institutional shareholder activism is not developed. This paper compares America institutional shareholder activism with Taiwan’s. It discusses America institutional shareholder activism in many aspects, such as shareholder proposal, proxy solicitation, vote, direct negotiation with the corporate management, focus list, class action, security holder director nominations bill etc. Then, it analyses some of Taiwan’s corporate governance related articles such as shareholder proposal and security holder director nominations, and some difficulties which the pension fund and the security investment trust fund face when they vote as shareholders. Moreover, through case study, this paper analyses two prestigious pension funds: State of Wisconsin Investment Board (SWIB) and The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), and investigates their stages of development and current operation and future challenges in the corporate governance field. At last, this paper provides some suggestions and inspirits the institutional shareholder activism in our country.

中文摘要 公司治理的強化已成為世界各國所共同重視的議題，我國亦不落其後自1997年起逐步推動各項公司治理政策，若仔細觀察其發展過程，主管機關應是甚為期盼公司治理能正本清源的從董事、監察人獨立性的強化這個源頭紮實做起。 惟自民國94年起引進了董監候選人提名制度，特別是上市櫃公司的獨立董事，更強制採候選人提名制度，然近幾年我國上市櫃公司掏空、內線交易、不正當利益輸送、背信、董事自肥、財報不實等案件仍時有所聞，究竟我國引進董監候選人提名制度是改進公司治理的有效解決方案嗎?即是本文探討的主題。 首先，本文先研究公司治理與董監選任制度的關聯程度，分析公司治理的意義、目標、監督機制、架構以及董監選任於公司治理的重要性。隨後簡介美國及日本的董監選任制度，希望能對我國的現行董監選任制度有所借鏡。 接著，分析我國現行董監選任制度的主要問題，包括第192-1條第1項限制股東應就董事候選人名單中選任之，係對股東權的限制而非強化；允許股東選任自己認定的理想人選與董監候選人提名制度並不衝突，在現行制度下，所當選之董監較公司法第192條之選任方式更不具獨立性，對公司治理的提升並無助益，故實無限制之必要。第192-1條第3項對於無表決權之股份，為避免計算基礎過度膨脹，保障真正少數股東之權利，應限縮解釋。第216-1條監察人選舉準用第192-1條之規定，監察人之候選人可由董事會提名，將違反公司治理精神，恐造成監察人成為董事會之附屬而無法執行監督義務。而上市櫃公司依公開發行公司獨立董事設置及應遵循事項辦法第5條強制採候選人提名制度選任獨立董事，依新近大法官釋字第733號精神涵攝，關於選舉方式之強制，恐有限制團體內部組織與事務之自主決定已逾必要程度，而有違反憲法第二十三條所定比例原則及侵害基於結社自由所含的自治精神之嫌。另現行主管機關發佈董事、監察人提名委員會組織章程參考範例，也可能因獨立性不足、權限劃分不明等原因而形同聊備一格。同時，本文亦將現行公開發行公司出席股東會使用委託書規則(以下簡稱委託書規則)其與董監候選人提名制度法律條文進行比較，發現主要差別除持股比例之要求外，委託書規則對董監資格限制可謂更為嚴謹。此外，委託書規則遇有股東會董監選舉徵求時，被選舉人資格審查無須經董事會或提名委員會審議，亦無強制公司股東僅能就委託書徵求人本人或所擬支持之候選人名單選任，但反而強制將候選人經營理念予以公開，故本文以為委託書規則不僅有董監候選人提名制度之實，又不失為一種更直接訴諸「股東民主」的制度，同時也是對股東行動主義正面回應的一種機制。 最後，本文認為，董監選任應回歸公司法第192條規定，使董監選任更具獨立性， 也無違反大法官第733號解釋之虞。若希望對散戶股東進行董監選舉時能有參考依據而堅持採董監候選人提名制度之精神，亦無需疊床架屋，另立新法條，只需放寬或廢除徵求門檻及上限，回歸現行委託書規則即可。否則，至少現行制度應針對董事會等審查機關若違法濫權等，授權審理法院得在股東會召開前或召開後，視情況採取緊急保全處分，以保障股東提名權。同時對獨立董事形式或實質獨立要件亦宜擴大認定，並可考慮拉長獨立董事的冷卻期間，來淡化利害關係並強化獨立董事之獨立性。

Si l’on considère que le rôle des actionnaires varie dans un continuum qui s’étend de la passivité à l’une des extrémités jusqu’au contrôle total de la société dans laquelle ils ont investi, on peut affirmer que si, à une certaine époque, les investisseurs institutionnels ont privilégié une certaine forme d’apathie rationnelle, cette réalité a évolué. Loins d’avoir atteint l’autre extrémité du spectre, on doit néanmoins constater que désormais, les dirigeants et les actionnaires dominants doivent faire face à un nombre limité d’actionnaires institutionnels qui se connaissent et détiennent une part importante des titres d’une société. Malgré la présence d’obstacles légaux et organisationnels qui entravent toujours aujourd’hui l’exercice des droits des actionnaires, il semble que les interventions des investisseurs institutionnels aient transcendé la règle de la majorité en ayant recours à des moyens inusités pour diminuer les risques d’opportunisme au sein des sociétés ouvertes. En effet, si l’activisme des investisseurs institutionnels est un phénomène complexe qui prend des formes multiples souvent opaques et qui est difficile à cerner avec précision, il est néanmoins possible d’affirmer que ce mécanisme de gouvernance joue un rôle des plus importants en contribuant à limiter les coûts d’agence découlant de l’extraction de bénéfices privés par les dirigeants et les actionnaires dominants. En effet, au Canada, où la structure de propriété d’une majorité de sociétés est concentrée, l’activisme actionnarial permet de faire contrepoids au vaste pouvoir discrétionnaire des dirigeants ainsi qu’à l’influence qu’exercent les actionnaires dominants afin d’assurer une certaine forme de protection aux droits des actionnaires minoritaires. / If the role of shareholders is regarded as varying along a spectrum ranging from passivity to control of the company in which they have invested, it is safe to say that whereas institutional investors have exhibited a form of rational apathy in the past, this situation has changed significantly in recent years. Although institutional investors are still far from reaching the other end of the spectrum, it is clear that senior management and controlling shareholders are now faced with a limited number of institutional shareholders who know each other and who hold a significant share of the company's stock. In spite of the legal and organizational barriers that still impede the ability of shareholders to exercise their rights, it appears that the actions of institutional investors have transcended majority rule by resorting to unusual ways of reducing the risk of opportunism within publicly held Canadian companies. While the activism of institutional investors is a complex phenomenon embodying various forms which are often opaque and difficult to fully grasp, it can nevertheless be said that this mechanism of governance plays a critical role in slimming down agency costs arising from the realization of private benefits by managers and controlling shareholders. Indeed, in Canada, where most companies have a concentrated ownership structure, shareholder activism can serve as a counterbalance to the broad discretionary powers of company leaders and the influence of controlling shareholders, thus constituting a certain measure of protection for the rights of minority shareholders.

Si l’on considère que le rôle des actionnaires varie dans un continuum qui s’étend de la passivité à l’une des extrémités jusqu’au contrôle total de la société dans laquelle ils ont investi, on peut affirmer que si, à une certaine époque, les investisseurs institutionnels ont privilégié une certaine forme d’apathie rationnelle, cette réalité a évolué. Loins d’avoir atteint l’autre extrémité du spectre, on doit néanmoins constater que désormais, les dirigeants et les actionnaires dominants doivent faire face à un nombre limité d’actionnaires institutionnels qui se connaissent et détiennent une part importante des titres d’une société. Malgré la présence d’obstacles légaux et organisationnels qui entravent toujours aujourd’hui l’exercice des droits des actionnaires, il semble que les interventions des investisseurs institutionnels aient transcendé la règle de la majorité en ayant recours à des moyens inusités pour diminuer les risques d’opportunisme au sein des sociétés ouvertes. En effet, si l’activisme des investisseurs institutionnels est un phénomène complexe qui prend des formes multiples souvent opaques et qui est difficile à cerner avec précision, il est néanmoins possible d’affirmer que ce mécanisme de gouvernance joue un rôle des plus importants en contribuant à limiter les coûts d’agence découlant de l’extraction de bénéfices privés par les dirigeants et les actionnaires dominants. En effet, au Canada, où la structure de propriété d’une majorité de sociétés est concentrée, l’activisme actionnarial permet de faire contrepoids au vaste pouvoir discrétionnaire des dirigeants ainsi qu’à l’influence qu’exercent les actionnaires dominants afin d’assurer une certaine forme de protection aux droits des actionnaires minoritaires. / If the role of shareholders is regarded as varying along a spectrum ranging from passivity to control of the company in which they have invested, it is safe to say that whereas institutional investors have exhibited a form of rational apathy in the past, this situation has changed significantly in recent years. Although institutional investors are still far from reaching the other end of the spectrum, it is clear that senior management and controlling shareholders are now faced with a limited number of institutional shareholders who know each other and who hold a significant share of the company's stock. In spite of the legal and organizational barriers that still impede the ability of shareholders to exercise their rights, it appears that the actions of institutional investors have transcended majority rule by resorting to unusual ways of reducing the risk of opportunism within publicly held Canadian companies. While the activism of institutional investors is a complex phenomenon embodying various forms which are often opaque and difficult to fully grasp, it can nevertheless be said that this mechanism of governance plays a critical role in slimming down agency costs arising from the realization of private benefits by managers and controlling shareholders. Indeed, in Canada, where most companies have a concentrated ownership structure, shareholder activism can serve as a counterbalance to the broad discretionary powers of company leaders and the influence of controlling shareholders, thus constituting a certain measure of protection for the rights of minority shareholders.

Submitted by Sarah Morganna Matos Marinho (sarah.momm@gmail.com) on 2015-04-30T14:02:36Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Marinho, Sarah. Como são os laços do capitalismo brasileiro?.pdf: 5894212 bytes, checksum: b21e82cd1bbbfcf9fd6fec3cafe9196f (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Suzinei Teles Garcia Garcia (suzinei.garcia@fgv.br) on 2015-04-30T18:42:44Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Marinho, Sarah. Como são os laços do capitalismo brasileiro?.pdf: 5894212 bytes, checksum: b21e82cd1bbbfcf9fd6fec3cafe9196f (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-04T12:38:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marinho, Sarah. Como são os laços do capitalismo brasileiro?.pdf: 5894212 bytes, checksum: b21e82cd1bbbfcf9fd6fec3cafe9196f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-04-01 / O BNDES tem o objetivo de financiar empreendimentos que se relacionem com o desenvolvimento do país, sendo uma de suas modalidades o investimento por subscrição de ações. De um lado, tem-se que as regras elaboradas na estruturação societária de uma empresa podem variar de acordo com a origem do financiamento obtido, em função dos interesses que os diferentes investidores procuram proteger a partir da separação entre a sua propriedade e o controle. Por outro lado, o cenário econômico brasileiro passou por mudanças profundas nos últimos 60 anos, já que o modelo de industrialização baseado no dirigismo estatal – que marcou as décadas de 1950 a 1980 – transformou-se com o movimento de desestatização dos anos 1990. O Estado não se afastou da propriedade empresarial, mas atua agora principalmente como acionista minoritário. Hoje, paira dúvida acerca, em primeiro lugar, das reais motivações que levam determinadas empresas a receber participação do Sistema BNDES. Além disso, há pouca compreensão sobre os veículos jurídicos que viabilizam essas relações público-privadas. A partir de algumas pesquisas sobre o banco, conclui-se que a atuação da sua subsidiária de participações, a BNDESPAR, não ultrapassa objetivos de maximização de valor dos seus ativos. Não se descartou, no entanto, que a função do banco de desenvolvimento – incluindo a do seu braço de renda variável – fosse implementar políticas industriais, por mais que falhas pudessem vir a ocorrer nesse intento, reconhecido como um processo experimental. Assim, revelou-se quais interesses as regras de governança corporativa das companhias abertas financiadas pela BNDESPAR por participação acomodam para a subsidiária, elucidando-se importantes características do modelo contemporâneo de atuação empresarial do Estado e lançando-se luz sobre os objetivos que o levam a investir diretamente como acionista no cenário atual. No caso da BNDESPAR, trata-se de agente em busca de equilíbrio entre a maximização de retornos e a política industrial. De uma maneira mais geral, o BNDES procura ser auto-sustentável – como pré-requisito para existir e cumprir sua missão –, tratando sua subsidiária como a principal personagem desse objetivo dentro do Sistema. A BNDESPAR, por sua vez, acabou por se tornar executora de política voltada a apoiar a negociação das companhias brasileiras no mercado de capitais – atividade emanada da sua própria burocracia. / BNDES has the objective of financing projects related to Brazil’s development and equity purchases are one of its types of investment. On one hand, rules drawn up in a company’s corporate governance structure can vary according to the capital’s origin, since different interests that different investors seek to protect emerge from the separation of their property from the corporate control. On the other hand, Brazilian economic scenario went trough deep changes over the last 60 years, considering that the industrialization model based on State intervention, mainstream between the 1950s and the 1980s, was transformed by the privatization movement in the 1990s. This change, however, did not eliminate the State in corporate property: now it only acts more commonly as a minority shareholder. The present time is marked by doubt over the real motivation that leads some companies to receive equity investments by the BNDES System. Besides that, there is a lack of comprehension on the contractual vehicles that structure these public-private relations. Some researches concerning the bank indicate that its subsidiary investments would not undermine the objective for profit maximization. We have not ignored, however, that the development bank function – including its equity arm – might be executing industrial policies, even though failures are likely to occur during this effort, understood here as an experimental process. Thus, the research has revealed which BNDESPAR’s interests are protected through the corporate governance rules of the public traded companies invested, also revealing important features of the contemporary model of the State as an entrepreneur and clarifying some objectives that could lead the institution to purchase equity participations nowadays. BNDESPAR is an agent motivated by a balance pursuit between profit maximization and industrial policy purposes. Broadly speaking, BNDES seeks self-financial sustainability in order to continue and accomplish its mission, seeing its equity arm as the main executor of this objective inside its System. In this search for sustainability, BNDESPAR became executor of a policy effort for stock markets negotiation raised up among its own bureaucracy activities.