Mergers, Acquisitions, and Controlling Shareholders: Canada and Germany Compared
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of literature on corporate governance compares Canada to the United States and/or the United Kingdom, given their Anglo-Saxon ancestry. However, this paper compares Canada to Germany and considers an often overlooked resemblance between the two: the incidence of controlling shareholders. This is particularly important given that the two countries represent two opposing corporate governance regimes. While Canada is characterized by a market-based governance regime and Germany by a bank-based governance regime, both countries exhibit concentrated ownership structures. The similarity between corporate control mechanisms in Canada and Germany is further discussed when focusing on the narrow field of mergers and acquisitions, using examples of disputes between the holders of restricted shares and holders of superior shares, and proposed transactions for change in control. The importance of recognizing the similarity between these two countries is three-fold: (i) from a policy perspective, an understanding of Canada's corporate sector path-dependence is required for the policymaker to set rules and regulations that best serve the Canadian corporate sector; (ii) from the perspective of corporate governance, the paper serves as an initial step in the examination of Canada's unique mid-way position between the United States and the United Kingdom, on the one hand, and Germany and Japan, on the other; and (iii) from the perspective of mergers and acquisitions practice, the Canadian practitioner may have points of reference other than the United States and the United Kingdom that may be more adequate at times.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".