Overview and Conclusions
|2. Quasi-Partnership Companies||320|
|(1) Over-protection of the minority||321|
|(2) Inappropriateness of corporate norms||322|
|4. Comparison between Jurisdictions||328|
This book began by dividing companies into three broad categories, and
identifying the most commonly expressed complaints of minority shareholders in each category of company. It is therefore appropriate to end by
examining the extent to which solutions can be found to those complaints.
1. LISTED COMPANIES
As regards listed companies, institutional shareholders can be distinguished from other categories of minority shareholder because although no
single institution may have a controlling shareholding in a company,
collectively institutions will usually own a substantial majority of its shares.
This creates opportunities for self-help in the form of collective institutional pressure.
The influence of the institutions has the potential to combat all of the
identified complaints, either by direct action or by the introduction of
structural changes. To the extent that these measures are successful, they
generally benefit all shareholders, except that the institutions' very success
in establishing better lines of communication with the companies in which
they invest has arguably weakened the channels of information which are
available to all shareholders. The area in which institutional activism has
probably had least success is in preventing self-interested conduct by the
directors, particularly in respect of remuneration. This is at least partly