III - Withdrawal in Comparative Perspective

Summary

Chapter III centres on the jurisdiction-neutral analytical framework applied in Chapters IV–VII, the target jurisdiction-specific chapters. The analysis covers the history, grounds, scope of protection, applicable parties, and the mandatory/default nature of each jurisdiction’s withdrawal remedy. Key findings from each jurisdictional chapter are summarised and compared, with salient similarities and differences, such as the fault/non-fault distinction, between the jurisdictions in these aspects highlighted. Observations about the legal actors (judges, legislators, scholars) involved in the creation and development of withdrawal regimes, and other themes emerging from this, are made. Further, this Chapter identifies the phenomenon of ‘spontaneous functional convergence’ of the four jurisdictions towards two distinct conceptual models of withdrawal (‘corrective’ and ‘insurance’ models), situating this contribution within the broader corporate law convergence and divergence debate. The comparative findings and insights from the four target jurisdictional studies in this Chapter form the basis of a model withdrawal remedy that is presented in Chapter VIII.