Droits à l’information des actionnaires et actions sociales des associés en france et allemagne. considérations de droit comparé en relation avec les directives américaines
Alain Alcouffe
Christian Kalweit
Most recently, the focus of the increasingly broad discussion on corporate
governance has been on the role shareholders play within the corporate governance
system of stock companies. Applying a comparative approach, the present paper
examines one of the legal institutions supporting the position of shareholders of large
public corporations : the information rights. These rights have gained importance
for many questions of corporate governance, e.g. for the formulation of
shareholders’ derivative suits as an instrument to control the activities of executive
as well as supervisory boards, a matter which has also found considerable academic
interest. The determination of the respective legal positions of shareholders and
other stakeholders to a large extent depends on how the interest groups to whom the
corporation is obliged, put them into operation. Recently, France and Germany had
to face some kind of backlog demand in that, in those interest of the competitiveness
of corporations on the capital markets, the neglected interests of stockholders needed
to be rediscovered and reactivated.
As opposed to US-American law, under German and French company law information rights of stockholders typically are determined and specified by mandatory
statutory rules. German company law – de lege lata – does not consider the
stockholders to be “watchdogs of the law” having a general control function vis-à-vis the administration, but merely offers them the possibility of exercising certain
membership rights. Consequently, information rights of stockholders do not amount
to a comprehensive claim of the stockholders to be fully informed by the executive
board nor does the executive board merely act as trustee of the stockholders. Rather,
the objective of the information right is to put minority stockholders in a position to
uncover opportunistic behaviour of major shareholders, and to prevent such
behaviour by way of seeking injunctive relief and bringing suit for compensation or
damages. Therefore, it is not to be expected that, by relying alone on shareholders
making use of their rights, the capital market will become sufficiently informed and
transparent.
By contrast, in a model of corporate governance providing for informational investor
protection, as is the case under US-American law, corporate information rights of
stockholders do have a more important role to play. The nexus-of-contracts theory
of the firm tries to construe corporations as a network of interlinked relationships of
parties. This is why, due to a tradition of conceiving of stock companies as a
contractual arrangement between shareholders, a shareholder primacy norm will
meet with less opposition under Anglo-American law than under German company
law. Instead of establishing mandatory rules of company law, the contract theory of
the company trusts in the market mechanisms as a way to control the company.
Moreover, by providing for the possibility of derivative suits akin to an actio pro
socio, US-American law has strengthened the role of shareholders with respect to the
control of the activities of the executive board. Obviously, information rights of
stockholders will gain importance accordingly, since, in the absence of sufficient
information, it would be difficult to successfully sue for damages in case of breach
of duties of care or of duties of loyalty.
• 1 INTRODUCTION
• 2 LE DROIT À L’INFORMATION DES ACTIONNAIRES
DE LEGE LATA EN ALLEMAGNE ET EN FRANCE
— 2.1 Le droit à l’information de l’actionnaire dans le droit
des sociétés allemand
— 2.2 Le droit à l’information de l’actionnaire dans le droit
des sociétés en France
• 3 LE DROIT À L’INFORMATION DES ACTIONNAIRES
DEVANT LES PLAINTES DES ACTIONNAIRES
DANS LE GOUVERNEMENT D’ENTREPRISE
— 3.1 Le rôle du droit à l’information de l’actionnaire
dans le système institutionnel de l’entreprise en Allemagne
et en France
— 3.2 Le rôle du droit à l’information de l’actionnaire
dans un système de protection informationnelle
de l’investisseur (contexte juridique anglo-américain)
• 4 CONCLUSIONS