No description available.

Envisagé d'un point de vue qualitatif, le choix de la réparation intéresse peu la doctrine française, priorité étant donnée aux difficultés relatives à l'étendue, au quantum, de la réparation. A l'exemple du thème du coût de la réparation ou encore, de la question de la réparation indirecte, qui mènent à porter la focale sur les mesures agissant sur la source du préjudice ou tendant à financer la réparation en nature de celui-ci, nombre de problèmes afférents au choix de l'aspect de la réparation sont injustement délaissés. Le constat apparaît d'autant plus regrettable que les enjeux, qui ne se limitent pas à la nécessité de préserver l'intérêt de la victime, sont souvent d'une importance majeure. Riche, complexe, la question de la détermination de la forme de la réparation, qui place naturellement le juge au centre de la réflexion, peut être appréhendée sous deux angles distincts articulant chacun théorie et pratique : celui du choix d'une mesure effectivement apte, de par sa forme, à réparer ; celui du choix de la meilleure mesure, soit, ici, de la mesure qualitativement la plus adaptée. / When examined from a qualitative standpoint, French doctrine places a priority on issues relative to the scope and quantum of compensation, and has little, if anything, to say about the form of compensation. Several issues affecting how to choose the exact form or type of compensation, such as questions involving the cost of compensation or the possibility of indirect compensation, which would bring into focus measures affecting the origin of the prejudice or tending to support damages in kind, are wrongly neglected. This finding appears all the more regrettable when it is taken into consideration that the issues surrounding a settlement, not limited merely to the need to preserve the interests of the victim, are often of major importance. Rich and complex, the question of how to determine the form of compensation, which obviously places the judge at the center of such the thinking process, can be understood from two distinct perspectives, each articulated by its own theory and practice : the choice of a measure which, by form, is effectively capable of compensating; the choice of the best measure, one that is the most adapted in qualitative terms.

Recent research has suggested that interest alignment, i.e., the degree to which members of an organization are motivated to behave in line with organizational goals, is a source of competitive advantage that can generate rents for the firm (Gottschlag and Zollo, 2007). Drawing on agency theory, this dissertation tests whether the interest alignment premise manifests itself differently in the strategic behavior of family-controlled firms when compared to their nonfamily peers. In particular, for firms in the S&P 500, I evaluate the results of two important strategic policies; mergers and acquisitions, as well as CEO compensation practices. In studying acquisitions made by family and nonfamily firms in the S&P 500 index from 1992-2006, I find that family firms are more careful when embarking on actions leading to mergers than non-family firms, as evidenced by their selection of smaller targets and targets who are in related businesses. I also find that there is a preponderance of cash purchases by family firms that does not vary with market movements and that completion times for merger transactions are shorter than for non family firms. The care and concern with which family-controlled firms choose their "mates" translates into higher stock returns when compared with non-family firms. Overall, I believe that family-controlled firms derive value from their merger and acquisition strategy. With regard to CEO compensation practices, I find that family firms provide strong incentives to the CEO for superior performance but pay significantly lower than nonfamily firms in terms of both salary and stock-based pay. The pay-for-performance sensitivity between annual stock returns and total compensation is significantly greater for family firms in general, and for family CEOs when compared with compensation of CEOs in nonfamily firms. The pay-for-performance sensitivity is in turn positively related to firm performance, suggesting that firms with greater pay-for-performance sensitivity (family controlled firms) also perform better. The analyses in my thesis thus illustrate that family-controlled firms and non-family firms in the S&P 500 differ in their strategic decision-making. It would be fair to say that family firms have longer investment horizons and give deliberate thought to expending resources whether for acquisitions or for CEO pay, and may suffer lower agency costs than nonfamily firms due to family governance (and public monitoring) which may lead to their relative superior performance. This dissertation finds that each acquisition made by a family controlled firm generates an extra return of 0.50% when compared with a nonfamily firm, and family controlled firms earn 0.50% every year directly attributable to pay-for-performance sensitivity. The study thus underlines and reiterates the importance of instilling the long-term view in the management of all firms, lowering agency costs, and aligning the interests of managers with those of stockholders for superior financial performance / Ph. D.