Business Law : Sony Corporation - Essay Example

? Business Law Final Paper Task Assignment 4 Land collateral differs across common law systems and civil law systems. The first major difference between the two systems is found on the ownership of an immovable property after the registration of the property. In a civil law system, after the collateral registration of a mortgage on land, the collateral owner changes and the former owner is only entitled to occupation on the immovable in case of a default in payment. However, in common law jurisdictions, upon the registration of a mortgage on an immovable property, such as land, transfer of title is not absolute. This means that in common law systems upon the registration of a mortgage, the former owner may retain some ownership rights on the property alongside his rights of ownership to the immovable properties. Another major difference on land collaterals between common law systems and civil law systems relates to the judicial remedies available to the company or organization upon default of payment. In civil law systems, the company or financial institution may exercise the right of disposing the immovable property through a court sale. However, in common law systems such property is disposed of through a private sale or private treaties of the mortgage taken on the immovable property. In civil law systems, limitations imposed by law on the privileges of an owner of fixed property need not be registered. However, in common law systems such limitations on an immovable property, such as land, need to be registered accordingly within the confines of the law. Finally, in civil law systems, a land collateral order may be held and exercised by multiple owners through the concept of hypotheca. This is opposed to the practice in common law systems where a land collateral order may only be held and exercised by a single mortgage holder. The property ownership laws, including immovable properties, are nationalistic in nature. This is to say that all property, especially about freehold titles, is deemed to be under the sole control of the government. The first problem presented by freehold land title systems is that Thai laws permit its freehold title to be under hypotheca theory. This presents a problem in that only the local Thai big four banks can take valuable Thai freehold land titles as their collateral. The other banks cannot get valuable Thai freehold titles as collateral thereby leading to some sort of monopoly over the mortgage industry. This practice is not only discriminative of the smaller banks, but also restrictive to the smaller banks in the provision of a level business ground. The other problem is that a quarter of Bangkok freehold titles belong to the royal family, which cannot be collateralized. This means that the other banks can only take land collaterals that are outside Bangkok. This presents a problem as it leads to reduced mortgage business for the banks outside the big four. This problem led to the ultimate collapse of the Siam city Bank of Thailand. Finally, the Thailand hypotheca does not allow secondary hypotheca without the permission of the primary hypotheca holders. The resultant effect of this is that primary hypotheca holders would never allow secondary hypotheca. Because of this, there is no distinction between hypotheca in Thailand and mortgage in common law countries. Assignment 5 Various problems may arise from FDI. The task for any leading company involved in any FDI becomes to identify the means of solving these problems when they arise. One of the most common problems facing Japanese FDI relate to labor issues (UNIDO, 2011). This is because of varying labor rules and regulations in these jurisdictions. One of the greatest problems facing Japanese FDI in Asian countries is the restructured investment laws. This is especially the case in labor disputes involving FDI, and this is not aided by the fact that most Asian countries have very strict laws for punishment against such wrongdoing. This has therefore led to various challenges on Japanese FDI. Japanese FDI in Vietnam is comprised of electronic companies, such as Sony. It also includes Toyota, which has a significant market share in the country’s market. However, a possible source of problem for Japanese FDI in Vietnam arises from the country’s labor laws. As opposed to other Asian countries, such as Thailand and Indonesia, Vietnam lacks a complete and well-defined labor relations law. It is also characterized by few trade unions, which represent employees, and thus there are no real negotiations between the employers and the employees’ unions. Instead, the disputes are left to the courts for adjudication (UNIDO, 2011). This problem thus discourages FDI into the country, and thereby limiting the use of ADR processes to settle labor disputes. Japanese FDI in china may also face problems from the Chinese new tort law of 2010. The law stipulates the liability composition, methods of assuming liability, liability of subjects, and the circumstance to waive or mitigate liability. It then goes on to list eight special tortious liabilities which may also be extended to an employer if an employee suffers loss or injury resulting from the negligence of the employer in the performance of his duty. In this case, the Chinese tort law 2010 stipulates that such injury or loss shall be calculated at the prevailing market rates. The act also adopts a wide range of liabilities including product liability, where there are provisions for warning and recall, viability of negligent conduct at work among other liabilities. The broad liabilities that may extend to the employer may present significant problems for Japanese employers in the country. Finally, the Chinese labor laws are not as flexible as the Japanese labor laws. This is because whereas Japanese labor laws allow the employment of young persons as indentured learners, the Chinese laws are strict enough to reject such flexibility in their industries. There is thus a varied age allowance for young persons to engage in paid labor. This may present a problem to Japanese FDI if their companies in china do not familiarize themselves with these laws (UNIDO, 2011). Assignment 6 Competition laws consist of the commercial anti-trust and unfair transaction laws. The administrative agency primarily responsible for the enforcement of the Japanese competition laws is the japan fair trade commission. However, despite the recent progress the commission had made in ensuring the formulation of effective and fair competition laws, the commission is still perceived as being weak in its enforcement measures. This is because there is great criticism of the commission’s record of accomplishment in the enforcement of the anti-trust laws in japan. This is one of the problems facing the Japanese competition laws. The second problem is in regard to the civil code franchise contract. In the Japanese draft amendment civil code franchise contract, it is required that there should be a provision of information and explanation before a contract of commitment is concluded. This is a problem because there may be a measure of discrimination in the franchise. Finally, there is a problem with the Japanese franchise regulation that requires the provision of detailed information on the profit of the business model. This is problematic as it can be seen as a leak of trade secrets initiated by the Japanese government. There is thus the need for the Japanese government to relax these stringent rules on franchise regulation, or adopt key amendments on the legislation to ensure that there is protection of the trade secrets without necessarily compromising the sanctity of the franchise law. A clear and precise regulation law on the management of insolvency matters is indispensable in any national jurisdiction. Japan lacks such a consolidated insolvency code unlike other jurisdictions such as Europe and the United States. The Japanese insolvency law is contained in the Composition Law, the Corporate Reorganization Law, and the Commercial Code. As these headings simply imply, these laws offer procedures to be adhered to in bankruptcy, corporate reorganization, composition, and the procedure in special liquidation of corporations. They are thus merely arrangements assembled by the government to aid in liquidation proceedings. This is a major problem in Japan’s insolvency law, as there is no clearly defined code to guide in the insolvency procedures. There is thus the need for the Japanese legislation to enact a single and conclusive Bankruptcy Act to provide meticulous procedures to be followed in insolvency matters. Entry Sheet Company name: Sony Corporation Headquarters: 1-7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075, Japan Problems faced. Sony Corporation is one of the world’s leading brands in the manufacture of audio-visual products. However, in its bid to maintain its status as the market leader in the electronics industry, Sony has faced unfair competition from its competitors in other jurisdictions. This is especially the case in china where inadequate enforcement measures of the antitrust laws have resulted in massive passing off of Sony’s products. The passing off Sony’s products amounts to a breach of the competition laws, a fact that has led to numerous lawsuits with some Chinese companies. Similarly, the Chinese franchise regulations have required Sony to provide information as to its products and profitability. This has created loopholes on the company’s secrecy policies by leaking confidential information about the company. This would have otherwise not have been available in other Asian jurisdictions such as Thailand. Because of this, the company’s profitability has been affected. Solution to the problem There should be laws that are more stringent on the enforcement of fair competitions laws and regulations. Copyright laws should be offered more protection by not only the Chinese government, but also other jurisdictions where Sony Corporation has subsidiaries. Amendments to the copyrights law should be made to offer more severe punishments aimed at discouraging the passing off of products. Reference UNIDO, (2011), Foreign Direct Investment in South East Asia: Experience and Future Direct Policy Implications for Developing Countries Retrieved 12 November 2011 from: Read More