Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

EU Mobility Directive: Adding the Appraisal Remedy But Questions Remain

By Rich Bodnar on November 7, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

[Guest Post by Professor Alexandros Seretakis]*

In 2019 the European Union adopted the Mobility Directive, which introduces significant amendments to the legal framework for cross-border mergers aimed at enhancing legal certainty and diminishing the transaction costs of such operations. Most notably, the Directive introduces an appraisal remedy as a protection mechanism for minority shareholders in cross-border mergers in the EU. The adoption of a harmonized shareholder remedy was considered to be necessary because of the dangers posed by the change of the applicable company law for shareholders of the merging company after the cross-border merger. In the absence of appraisal rights, shareholders of the acquired company could involuntarily become members of a company incorporated in a jurisdiction with weak minority shareholder protection leaving them exposed to expropriation by controlling shareholders.

Overall, the adoption of a harmonized appraisal regime in the EU is a welcome development. It signals that the EU legislator recognizes the importance of appraisal rights for the protection of minority shareholders. Indeed, academic research has univocally documented that investor protection is crucial for capital market development and economic growth Nevertheless, significant scope of improvement remains. The appraisal regime, currently applicable only to cross-border mergers in the EU, should also be extended to domestic mergers, which also pose dangers to minority shareholders, such as an inadequate merger consideration or expropriation by controlling shareholders. Moreover, the new appraisal regime does not achieve full harmonization in crucial areas, such as the calculation of fair value where Member States accord differing importance to different valuation methods.

Read the working paper here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4931617

**RKS does not practice outside the United States and presents this information for educational purposes only. For legal issues, consult a licensed professional in your relevant jurisdiction.

Photo of Rich Bodnar Rich Bodnar

Rich is an experienced securities litigator focusing on value-generating legal strategy.  Rich brings to each matter a deep knowledge of the quantitative methods side of securities litigation, especially damages computation, event studies, econometrics/economics and the theories, tools, and strategies involved in the preservation…

Rich is an experienced securities litigator focusing on value-generating legal strategy.  Rich brings to each matter a deep knowledge of the quantitative methods side of securities litigation, especially damages computation, event studies, econometrics/economics and the theories, tools, and strategies involved in the preservation and maximization of the value of client’s securities claims.

Read more about Rich BodnarEmailRichard's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial
  • Blog:
    Valuation Litigation & Shareholder Rights Blog
  • Organization:
    Rolnick Kramer Sadighi LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo