Protecting minority shareholders in blockholder-controlled companies: evaluating the UK's enhanced listing regime in comparison with investor protection regimes in New York and Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The London Stock Exchange (LSE) is a vibrant capital market which attracts issuers from all over the world, bringing companies with diverse corporate governance practices and norms into the UK-listed landscape. The dominant mode of corporate governance in UK public companies has historically been dispersed ownership.1 However, during the last decade or so, the UK Listing regime has found itself addressing unfamiliar governance issues arising at companies with a concentrated ownership structure. Such companies have typically originated from the natural resources/mining sectors of various developing economies, and initially appealed to investors due to their strong growth prospects.2 Unfortunately, a series of high-profile scandals at Bumi (now renamed Asia Mineral Resources), Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) (now de-listed) and Essar Energy, have tarnished the reputation of such foreign listings and led the UK Listing Authority (the Financial Conduct Authority) to introduce new corporate governance standards as part of its Listing Regime for companies with controlling shareholders (thereafter ‘The Enhanced Listing Regime’). The new rules came into force in May 2014.3
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".