M48 - Accounting and Auditing: Government Policy and RegulationReturn

Minority shareholders in almost 470 companies received almost CZK 17.8 billion of payments in squeeze-outs between 2005 and 2013. Courts are in charge of consideration for settlement in many cases. It is an urgent problem of Czech justice, which requires a solution to the question of what category of value is relevant in these cases. Although value category choice in squeeze-outs has been stabilized by court rulings, Kohoutek et al. (2018) present already abandoned conclusions, and they came with opinion that laws, resp. experts are not unambiguous in these cases. Unfortunately, the courts mostly do not define assignment of expertise as accurately as we would like to and rightly assume the ability of the expert to interpret the assignment in the context of the purpose of the expertise. This paper brings a comprehensive economic and logical interpretation of already derogated and currently effective legal regulations related to the determination of consideration (settlement) for shares in squeeze-outs. It follows that the settlement at settlement should be at least at the level of the proportional share of the market value of the equity of the target company, at most at the level of the market value of the share in the controlling interest.

This paper deals with the government proposal of the new law on expert, expert offices and institutes. Paper summarizes the parts of the law, identified by the author of the paper as troubling, and shows their analysis, as well as the analysis of their consequences. We can say that the actual proposal of experts' regulation law update can slow down many law suits held by both the civil and penal courts. Further, its consequence can be distortion of the composition of expert public towards adverse selection and it can increase the motivation of some experts to provide or distorted expertises.