Featured Articles

If there is any logical thread to what certain parties were really concerned about, it's a deeper, subtler point.  I'll give an example.  If a truly global company proposes to the board of a domestic Japanese company, say in the metals industry, that it would like to merge with that Japanese company, the advantages of combining with a larger global player in terms of synergies, scale merits, and increased efficiencies may be very great. The synergies may be so large that the board might feel that in terms of fiduciary duty it would be under pressure from shareholders to closely consider the proposed transaction because they might justify good pricing terms for shareholders, or will result in much better profitability and growth. 

If you're concerned about a “threat” like that from your own shareholders, then you're basically a board member who is seeking to avoid his or her fiduciary obligations to those shareholders and who is not on the side of increasing “corporate value” or long-term growth.

The fact of the matter is that the board has a fiduciary duty to consider such transactions if they might be good for the company and good for shareholders.  It would be a dereliction of duty to seek to avoid these things.  For this very reason, certain executives seem to have thought that life would be much easier for them if constraints could be added to the new law such that no proposals would ever be made in the first place.  To lobby for that, a “foreign buyout threat” had to be manufactured.  Luckily, the constraints have not been added.

What opportunities do you see for foreign companies looking to provide their services to the changing landscape in Japan?

Benes: Not just this law, but also other laws that have been passed, anticipate or enable a broader range of different transactions that can be designed.  There will be a continuing increase in the need for professional advice across the full range of activities, meaning legal, accounting, and consulting advice.  This is infrastructure that has improved over the last few years, but there is still is sort of a backlog of demand.  Demand for such services will continue to increase in the coming years.  The ACCJ is in favor of relaxing rules that hamper the supply and optimal provision of such services.