|
Referências Bibliográficas das Cartas Dynamo nºs 71 e 72
 Ahdieh, R. (2009) The (misunderstood) genius of American corporate law. Emory University School of Law, research paper n. 10-57.
Armour, J., Skeel, D. (2006) Who whites the rules for hostile takeovers, and why? - The peculiar divergence of US and UK takeover regulation. Center for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
Armour, J. et alli (2010) A comparative analysis of hostile takeover regimes in the US, UK and Japan (with implications for emerging markets).
Armour, J. et alli (2011) The evolution of hostile takeover regimes in develop and emerging markets: an analytical framework. Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 52.
Bebchuk, L. (1992) Federalism and the corporation: the desirable limits on state competition in corporate law. Harvard Law Review, vol. 105. n.7.
Bebchuk, L. (2002) The case against board veto in corporate takeovers. The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 69.
Bebchuk, L., Ferrel, A. (1999) Federalism and Takeover law: the race to protect managers from takeovers.
Bebchuk, L., Ferrel, A. (2001) A new approach to takeover law and regulatory competition. NBER, working paper n. 8148.
Bebchuk, L., Ferrel, A. (2002) On takeover law and regulatory competition. Harvard Law School. Harvard Law School, discussion paper n. 363.
Bebchuk, L., Hamdani, A. (2002) Optimal defaults for corporate law evolution. Harvard Law School, discussion paper n. 343.
Bebchuk, L., Hamdani, A. (2002) Vigorous race or leisurely walk: reconsidering the competition over corporate charters. Harvard Law School, discussion paper n. 376.
Black, B. (2001) The principal fiduciary duties of boards of directors. Presentation at 3th Asian Roundtable on Corporate Governance.
Black, B., Kraakman, R. (2002) Delaware´s takeover law: the uncertain search for hidden value. Northwestern University Law Review, vol 96, n. 2.
Comissão de Valores Imobiliários (2007) Instrução n. 461.
Comissão de Valores Imobiliários (2010) Instrução n. 487.
Davidoff, S. (2007) The SEC and the failure of federal takeover regulation. Florida State University Law Review, vol n. 34.
Davies, H (2004) What´s left for self-regulation.
Davies, P. at alli. (2010) The takeover directive as a protectionist tool? ECGI, working paper n. 141.
Eizirik, N., at alli (2010), Proposta de criação do CAF, submetida à BM&Bovespa.
Gorga, E (2008) Changing the paradigm of stock ownership from concentrated towards dispersed ownership? Evidence from Brazil and consequences for emerging countries. Cornell Law Library, FGV Law School-SP.
Greenwood, D. (2005) Democracy and Delaware: the mysterious race to the top/bottom. University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law.
Ferrarini, G., Miller, G. (2009) Takeover regulation in the United States and Europe. Cornell International Law Journal, vol. 42.
Friedlander, J. (2008) Overturn Time-Warner three different ways. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, vol. 33.
Gilson, R. (2000) Unocal fifteen years later (and what we can do about it).
Hamermesh, L. (2006) The policy foundations of Delaware corporate law. Columbia Law Review, working paper, vol 106, n. 7, forthcoming.
Hamermesh, L. (2007) How we make law in Delaware, and what to expect from us in the future. Journal of Business & Technology Law, vol 2.
Hill, J. (2010) Takeovers, poison pills and protectionism in comparative corporate governance. University of Sidney, Faculty Law.
Iantosca, J. (2007) corporate board authority in takeover bids: a comparative analysis of the EU and US approaches. University of Lund, Faculty of Law.
Jordan, C, Hughes, P. (2007) Which way for market institutions: the fundamental question of self-regulation. Berkeley Business Law Journal.
Jr, Leo S. (2005) The Delaware way: how we do corporate law and some of the new challenges we (and Europe) face. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, vol. 30.
Jr, Lewis B. (2007) Why corporations choose Delaware? Delaware Department of State.
Kahan, M., Rock, E. (2005) Symbiotic federalism and the structure of corporate law. Vanderbilt Law Review, vol.58.
Kihlstrom, R., Watcher, M. (2005) Corporate policy and the coherence of Delaware takeover law. University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Lipton, M. at alli (2001) pills, polls and professors: a reply to professor Gilson. New York University, Center for Law and Business.
Magnuson, W. (2009) Takeover regulation in the US and Europe: an institution approach. Harvard Law School.
Mukwiri, J. (2011) The myth of tactical litigation in UK takeovers. Durham University Research.
Nilsen, A. (2004) The EU takeover directive and the competitiveness of European industry. OCGG Economy analysis, n. 1.
Patricia, K (2011) Use of derivatives by shareholder activists. Torys on M&A.
Roe, M. (1994) Strong managers, weak owners: The political roots of American corporate finance. Princeton University Press.
Roe, M. (2005) Delaware´s Politics. Harvard Law School, discussion paper n. 511.
Roe, M. (2009) Delaware and Washington as corporate lawmakers. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, vol n. 34.
Rosenzweig, B. (2007) Private versus public regulation: a comparative analysis of British and American takeover controls. Duke University School of Law.
Securities and Exchange Commission (2011) Beneficial ownership reporting requirements and security-based swaps.
Scalia, A. (1995) Common-law courts in a civil-law system: the role of US Federal Couts in interpreting the Constitution and laws. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Princeton University.
Swift, J. (2011) Takeover panel sweetens code for targets after Cadbury lesson. Thelawer.com.
The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (2009). The Takeover Code. Ninth edition.
The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (2010) Review of certain aspects of the regulation of takeover bids.
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2008) CSX x The Children´s Investment Fund Mgmt.
Williams, A. (2004) An economics theory of self-regulation. London School of Economics and Political Science.
|
