Angebote zu "Compensation" (9 Treffer)

Kategorien

Shops

Dollinger, Markus: The fair squeeze-out compens...
69,90 € *
ggf. zzgl. Versand

Erscheinungsdatum: 01.07.2008, Medium: Taschenbuch, Einband: Kartoniert / Broschiert, Titel: The fair squeeze-out compensation, Autor: Dollinger, Markus, Verlag: Europäischer Hochschulverlag, Sprache: Englisch, Schlagworte: Aktiengesellschaft // AG // Börse // Börsenhandel, Rubrik: Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Arbeitsrecht, Seiten: 88, Informationen: Paperback, Gewicht: 139 gr, Verkäufer: averdo

Anbieter: averdo
Stand: 12.07.2020
Zum Angebot
The 'fair' squeeze-out compensation
98,00 € *
ggf. zzgl. Versand

The 'fair' squeeze-out compensation ab 98 € als pdf eBook: Die angemessene Barabfindung für Minderheitsgesellschafter in einem Squeeze-Out. 1. Auflage. Aus dem Bereich: eBooks, Wirtschaft,

Anbieter: hugendubel
Stand: 12.07.2020
Zum Angebot
The 'fair' squeeze-out compensation
148,00 € *
ggf. zzgl. Versand

The 'fair' squeeze-out compensation ab 148 € als Taschenbuch: Die angemessene Barabfindung für Minderheitsgesellschafter in einem Squeeze-Out. Aus dem Bereich: Bücher, Wissenschaft, Wirtschaftswissenschaft,

Anbieter: hugendubel
Stand: 12.07.2020
Zum Angebot
The fair squeeze-out compensation
69,90 € *
ggf. zzgl. Versand

The fair squeeze-out compensation ab 69.9 € als Taschenbuch: . Aus dem Bereich: Bücher, Wissenschaft, Jura,

Anbieter: hugendubel
Stand: 12.07.2020
Zum Angebot
The 'fair' squeeze-out compensation
98,00 € *
ggf. zzgl. Versand

The 'fair' squeeze-out compensation ab 98 EURO Die angemessene Barabfindung für Minderheitsgesellschafter in einem Squeeze-Out. 1. Auflage

Anbieter: ebook.de
Stand: 12.07.2020
Zum Angebot
The fair squeeze-out compensation
69,90 € *
ggf. zzgl. Versand

This thesis analyses squeeze-outs – a deal where a controlling shareholder has the right to buy out minority shareholders at a fair compensation. As expected, the term “fair” can have very different meanings depending on who you ask. On the one hand, minority shareholders often argue perceiving the squeeze-out as a legal expropriation and accordingly demand a significant squeeze-out premium. On the other hand, controlling shareholders have the clear and simple intention to pay as little as possible when acquiring the remaining stake in the company. Even law, often seen as the last resort, leaves out a clear and definite description of the expression “fair” why the squeeze-out compensation turned out to be the crucial point in almost all past squeeze-out processes. Squeeze-outs, in the US called “freeze-outs”, usually follow a public tender offer where a shareholder has acquired the necessary shareholding (e.g. 90 percent) and consequently obtained the right to exclude the remaining minority shareholders by paying an adequate compensation. In this context the squeeze-out rule, providing the legal framework, has the intention to make public takeovers more attractive. However, in the recent years, more and more minority shareholders executed their own right to challenge the proposed “fair” squeeze-out compensation in court with the objective to improve the value of the initial squeeze-out offer. For example, minority shareholders of the German Hamburg-Mannheimer AG that protested against the squeeze-out resolution and requested a judicial appraisal of majority shareholder’s initially proposed “fair” squeeze-out compensation in June 2002 could, after a costly lawsuit that lasted two years, finally more than double the amount offered under the terms of majority shareholder’s original squeeze-out proposal. Hence, squeeze-outs under prevailing German as well as Austrian law are often seen as a free call option with exercise price equal to majority shareholder’s initially proposed “fair” squeeze-out compensation. This option is almost for free since the court costs due to the appraisal are covered by the majority shareholder and minority shareholders only have to pay for their own lawyer. Moreover, prevailing opinion assumes that the judicial appraisal can’t result in a decrease of majority shareholder’s initially proposed “fair” squeeze-out compensation.

Anbieter: Dodax
Stand: 12.07.2020
Zum Angebot
Government against Itself
23,90 CHF *
ggf. zzgl. Versand

As workers in the private sector struggle with stagnant wages, disappearing benefits, and rising retirement ages, unionized public employees retire in their fifties with over $100,000 a year in pension and healthcare benefits. The unions defend tooth and nail the generous compensation packages and extensive job security measures they've won for their members. However, the costs they impose crowd out important government services on which the poor and the middle class rely. Attempts to rein in the unions, as in Wisconsin and New Jersey, have met with massive resistance. Yet as Daniel DiSalvo argues in Government against Itself, public sector unions threaten the integrity of our very democracy. DiSalvo, a third generation union member, sees the value in private sector unions. But in public sector, unions do not face a genuine adversary at the bargaining table. Moreover, the public sector can't go out of business no matter how much union members manage to squeeze out of it. Union members have no incentive to settle for less, and the costs get passed along to the taxpayer. States and municipalities strain under the weight of their pension obligations, and the chasm between well-compensated public sector employees and their beleaguered private sector counterparts widens. Where private sector unions can provide a necessary counterweight to the power of capital, public employee unionism is basically the government bargaining with itself; it's no wonder they almost always win. The left is largely in thrall to the unions, both ideologically and financially; the right would simply take a hatchet to the state itself, eliminating important and valuable government services. Neither side offers a realistic vision of well-run government that spends tax dollars wisely and serves the public well. Moving beyond stale and unproductive partisan divisions, DiSalvo argues that we can build a better, more responsive government that is accountable to taxpayers. But we cannot do it until we challenge the dominance of public sector unions in government. This carefully reasoned analysis of the power of public sector unions is a vital contribution to the controversial debates about public versus private unions, increasing inequality, and the role of government in American life

Anbieter: Orell Fuessli CH
Stand: 12.07.2020
Zum Angebot
Government against Itself
21,10 € *
ggf. zzgl. Versand

As workers in the private sector struggle with stagnant wages, disappearing benefits, and rising retirement ages, unionized public employees retire in their fifties with over $100,000 a year in pension and healthcare benefits. The unions defend tooth and nail the generous compensation packages and extensive job security measures they've won for their members. However, the costs they impose crowd out important government services on which the poor and the middle class rely. Attempts to rein in the unions, as in Wisconsin and New Jersey, have met with massive resistance. Yet as Daniel DiSalvo argues in Government against Itself, public sector unions threaten the integrity of our very democracy. DiSalvo, a third generation union member, sees the value in private sector unions. But in public sector, unions do not face a genuine adversary at the bargaining table. Moreover, the public sector can't go out of business no matter how much union members manage to squeeze out of it. Union members have no incentive to settle for less, and the costs get passed along to the taxpayer. States and municipalities strain under the weight of their pension obligations, and the chasm between well-compensated public sector employees and their beleaguered private sector counterparts widens. Where private sector unions can provide a necessary counterweight to the power of capital, public employee unionism is basically the government bargaining with itself; it's no wonder they almost always win. The left is largely in thrall to the unions, both ideologically and financially; the right would simply take a hatchet to the state itself, eliminating important and valuable government services. Neither side offers a realistic vision of well-run government that spends tax dollars wisely and serves the public well. Moving beyond stale and unproductive partisan divisions, DiSalvo argues that we can build a better, more responsive government that is accountable to taxpayers. But we cannot do it until we challenge the dominance of public sector unions in government. This carefully reasoned analysis of the power of public sector unions is a vital contribution to the controversial debates about public versus private unions, increasing inequality, and the role of government in American life

Anbieter: Thalia AT
Stand: 12.07.2020
Zum Angebot