Strumenti finanziari partecipativi e "nuovi" canali di finanziamento delle societa' per azioni

Il lavoro affronta il tema degli strumenti finanziari partecipativi e non partecipativi che possono essere emessi dalle società per azioni, alla luce della disciplina introdotta dalla riforma del diritto societario. Lo studio è diretto a fornire un inquadramento sistematico di queste modalità di finanziamento rispetto alla dicotomia azioni-obbligazioni, anche sotto il profilo contabile, per poi individuare le conseguenti implicazioni in termini di disciplina applicabile. Affrontando il dibattito dottrinale sulla collocazione complessiva degli strumenti ibridi rispetto alle forme di finanziamento tradizionali, si sposa l’opinione secondo cui tutti gli strumenti finanziari non possono essere ricompresi in una categoria unitaria, ma occorre mantenere distinti gli strumenti finanziari partecipativi indicati dall’art. 2346, comma 6, c.c., dagli altri strumenti finanziari ex art. 2411, comma 3, c.c., riconoscendo nei primi delle modalità di raccolta assimilabili al capitale di rischio e nei secondi delle forme di provvista di capitale di debito. Il connotato distintivo tra strumenti finanziari partecipativi e non partecipativi viene individuato non nell’attribuzione di diritti amministrativi – che possono anche non essere assegnati ai titolari di strumenti di cui all’art. 2346, comma 6 – bensì nell’assenza o nella presenza di un obbligo di rimborso dell’apporto fornito all’impresa. Il lavoro esamina inoltre vari profili di disciplina di entrambe le categorie di strumenti, concentrandosi prevalentemente sui diritti patrimoniali ad essi attribuibili, tra cui la partecipazione agli utili e alle perdite e i diritti in sede di liquidazione. Infine si esaminano le previsioni recentemente introdotte dal d.l. n. 83/2012 in tema di titoli obbligazionari, al fine di valutarne l’impatto sull’impianto complessivo della disciplina vigente. In particolare, viene data attenzione alle nuove disposizioni relative alle obbligazioni subordinate e/o partecipative che possono essere emesse dalle società non quotate, mettendo in evidenza le criticità dal punto di vista sistematico in tema di possibile partecipazione agli utili degli obbligazionisti.

The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!

Determinants of the Economic Use of Patented Inventions: An Analysis of European Patents

The purpose of this research is to provide empirical evidence on determinants of the economic use of patented inventions in order to contribute to the literature on technology and innovation management. The current work consists of three main parts, each of which constitutes a self-consistent research paper. The first paper uses a meta-analytic approach to review and synthesize the existing body of empirical research on the determinants of technology licensing. The second paper investigates the factors affecting the choice between the following alternative economic uses of patented inventions: pure internal use, pure licensing, and mixed use. Finally, the third paper explores the least studied option of the economic use of patented inventions, namely, the sale of patent rights. The data to empirically test the hypotheses come from a large-scale survey of European Patent inventors resident in 21 European countries, Japan, and US. The findings provided in this dissertation contribute to a better understanding of the economic use of patented inventions by expanding the limits of previous research in several different dimensions.