24 avril 2020

Publications

This interview was conducted in French with Olivia Dufour, for an article published in French in the digital publication Actualité Juridique.

Its subject is  the confrontation between the current health crisis situation and the Compliance Law. 

 

Summary. After defining Compliance Law, distinguishing the procedural and poor definition and the substantial and rich definition, the starting point is to admit the aporia: the type of health crisis caused by Covid-19 will be renewed and it is imperative to prevent it, even to manage it, then to organize the crisis exit. Public Authorities are legitimate to do so, but because this type of crisis being global and the State being consubstantially linked to borders, States are hardly powerful. Their traditional International Law shows their  limits in this current crisis and one cannot hope that this configulration will improve radically.

In contrast, some companies and markets, notably the financial markets, are global. But the markets are not legitimate to carry out such missions and counting on the generosity of certain large companies is far too fragile in front of the "monumental goal" that is the prevention of the next health crisis, crisis which must never happen.

How to get out of this aporia?

By Compliance Law, basis of, in a literal and strong sense, the "Law of the Future". 

We need to be inspired by the Banking and Financial Compliance Law. Designed in the United States after the 1929 crisis to tend towards the "monumental goal" of the absence of a new devastating crisis in the country and the world,  this set of new legal mechanisms gave duty and power of supervision, regulation and compliance to market authorities and central bankers. These are independent of governments but in constant contact with them. Today, they claim to have as first priority the fight against climate change. Now and for the future, they must also be given the responsibility and the powers to prevent a global health disaster, similar to a global ecological disaster, similar to a global financial disaster. This does not require a modification of the texts because their mandate consists in fighting instability. Stability must become a primary legal principle, of which the fight against monetary instability was only a first example. By the new use that central banks must make of it by preventing and managing health crises, Compliance Law will ensure that the future will be not catastrophic.

17 novembre 2011

Conférences

Le cabinet d’avocats Hogan Lovells a étudié avec le Financial Times l’évolution des fusions/acquisitions pour la mise en place des stratégies dans le nouveau paysage de ces opérations. La méthode a consisté à interroger 160 managers ou responsables de M&A. Il ressort de l’étude que d’une façon massive la règlementation (State Regulation) est perçue comme un poids impactant très lourdement le marché des M&A, voire faisant obstacle aux acquisitions. Les managers semblent avoir une vision négative de ces régulations en ce qu’ils les associent à un certain arbitraire des Etats, par exemple à travers le contrôle des concentrations. Plus encore, ils reprochent aux régulations en elles-mêmes leur grande incertitude, soit par leur complexité présente, soit par leur imprévisibilité pour le futur. Cette incertitude pour apprécier la cible devient alors un obstacle définitif pour son acquisition