AbstractsHistory

During the last century, not only the legal literature but also the literature in many fields along with government efforts on all levels, were all mainly devoted to the debate of trade liberalization in general, and specifically to the case of the expected gains from using international agreements as a tool to remove the trade barriers. Meanwhile, all the parties have paid little attention to profound questions about identifying the impediments that they are facing and the other possible options that might maximize the general welfare, which are the cross-border merger and acquisition transactions. This dissertation will address that under-researched question, and it will try to identify some of those impediments that are facing the cross-border merger and acquisition transactions. The dissertation will mainly focus on the different premerger control laws that are adopted around the globe, as an impediment that faces the cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and it will try to identify the drawbacks of those laws and most importantly develop and examine reforming proposals. The underlying result of this dissertation will reveal that the multijurisdictional premerger control laws across the globe have numerous drawbacks that are actual impediments that face mergers and acquisitions in general, and especially the cross-border transactions. In addition to that, the best reformative option is the abolishing of the premerger control laws, or in other words the deregulation of the cross-border merger and acquisition transactions. The conclusion of this dissertation is that using the law as a useful tool should be reinvented on two dimensions, at one end of the spectrum the law should enable the state possibilities that are required to give a hand and facilitate the entry to markets, by abolishing the premerger control laws i.e. deregulating mergers and acquisitions, and at the other end of the spectrum the law should grant the state the power to monitor and challenge those practices that might cause harm to employees or consumers, before the courts, along with the primary power to challenge anticompetitive behaviors.