Abstract
The regulation of related party transactions (RPTs) is today the single most important yardstick for the quality of corporate governance systems. It is also one of the thorniest issues because RPTs are a well-documented cause of abuse by corporate insiders, yet they could be valuable and sometimes simply inevitable. This paper analyzes reform measures adopted in Israel with a view to improving corporate governance in general and RPT regulation in particular. Whereas one set of measures revolved around procedural safeguards based on disinterested informed approval (a property-like rule), another set purported to establish a Delaware-like business court that would implement an “entire fairness” review (a liability-like rule). The latter trend came to dominate the former notwithstanding applicable statutory and case law, thus engendering regression instead of progress in RPT regulation. This case suggests lessons for law makers, be they judges or legislators, who contemplate mimicking the “corporate capital of the world”.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.