Homer and Mickey in a 21st Century-Disney?: The modern implications of mergers and acquisitions in the entertainment industry

Naomi Owolabi, LLB student, King’s College London

After Star Wars: The Last Jedi achieved $220 million[1] in its opening weekend late last year, Disney’s potential purchase of 21st Century Fox and its subsidiaries for $52.4 billion[2] (£39 billion) may end up conferring to the company dominance over Hollywood. Disney has publicly stated that its aim with this deal is to enter the market of online streaming and rival its competitors in the sector, the most direct one currently being Netflix.

The Disney-21st Century Fox merger, formally proposed last December, is only the latest and most visible example of a trend of convergence among the big players in the Entertainment and Media (E&M) industry in the last few decades. A convergence that is at the centre of the academic and public eye by reason of its potential compatibility with antitrust regulation and potential economic fallouts. This article seeks to explain the direct and broader economic and legal consequences of this negotiating monumental international merger, which is attracting both praises and critiques from Washington.

Continue reading

Corporate governance after the financial crisis: Overview of some major evolutions in the United Kingdom and in Switzerland

Elsa Muhaxheri, LLM in International Financial Law

The global financial crisis between 2007 and 2009 resulted in the resounding collapse of a number of large financial institutions and highlighted weaknesses in the financial sector. Factors such as the democratisation of house mortgages, complex credit securitisation, the wrong evaluation of financial products by rating agencies and the underestimation of risks taken by financial institutions played a significant role. Failures in corporate management and lack of efficient control mechanisms also contributed to the financial crisis and highlighted the need for reform in bank corporate governance rules across all states. Although such reforms are important to reassure investors and contribute to the good functioning of the financial sector, they need to be balanced against issues of competitiveness and dynamism in the industry.

The following article attempts to give an overview of the main regulatory responses by global institutions in the wake of the financial crisis. An analysis of the normative developments in the United Kingdom and Switzerland will serve to highlight how States have adapted their corporate governance regulations to prevent further failures within banking and financial institutions.

Continue reading

In search of (legal) symmetry in the Economic and Monetary Union: ‘Off the beaten track’

Federico Di Dario, Ph.D. Candidate in International Perspectives in Corporate Governance and Public Administration, University of Teramo, Faculty of Political Science

1. Old Asymmetries: Is more economic integration the answer?

The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is characterized by an asymmetrical design: on the one side, monetary policy is conducted at a supranational level, while on the other, economic policy is managed by national authorities[1]. This asymmetry showed all its limits during the euro crisis and it is perceived as the main threat to EMU’s future. The development of a budgetary capacity to overcome the economic crisis and asymmetrical shocks within a federal political system would be the best solution to the problem of asymmetry. Nevertheless, there are overwhelming legal and political constraints to fiscal integration[2].

Continue reading

A COMMENT ON OPINION 2/15 AND INVESTOR STATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. THE PRICE OF PRESERVING THE DIVISION OF POWERS

Giorgia Sangiuolo, Lawyer, Ph.D. Candidate, King’s College London

Opinion 2/15 on the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union (EU) and Singapore (EUSFTA) constitutes another significant chapter in the relationship between the EU and its Member States, and is destined to shape the EU’s role on the international plane for years to come. The European Court of Justice was called once again to arbiter on the dynamics of the renegotiation of powers between the EU and its Member States, as it had done in cases surrounding fundamental rights[1] and internal competencies.[2]  This time, the ‘battleground’ regarded EU’s external relations. Continue reading