- •Высшая школа экономики
- •I. Company law
- •1 Read through the text quickly and decide which of these phrases (a–f) best expresses the topic of each paragraph (1–6).
- •2 Some of the important roles in company management are discussed in Reading 1 above. Which roles are mentioned?
- •3 Here is a more comprehensive list of roles in company management.
- •5 Below is an extract from the articles of incorporation of a us company. Read through the text quickly and tick the issues it addresses.
- •6 Read the text again and decide whether these statements are true or false.
- •7 For each of these words or phrases, find the italicised word(s) in the text on
- •8 Read through the text again, noting how shall and may are used.
- •10 Read the first paragraph of the article. What situation is the bill trying to improve?
- •11 Read through the entire article and decide which of the following headings (a–f) would be most appropriate for each paragraph (1–6).
- •12 Decide whether these statements are true or false.
- •13 Do you agree that the llp is long overdue? In your view, is there also a need for such an institution in your jurisdiction?
- •14 Read the first three paragraphs. What does the dispute specifically involve?
- •15 Read the whole text and choose the best answer to each of these questions.
- •16 Choose the best explanation for each of these words or phrases from the text.
- •17 Answer these questions.
- •18 What is your opinion of the case? Do you think the shareholders’ claim is justified?
- •21 In Reading 4, which deals with a dispute concerning a company’s bylaws,
- •Vocabulary: distinguishing meaning. Which word in each group is the odd one out?
- •Vocabulary: prepositional phrases. Complete these sentences using the prepositional phrase from Exercise 4 that best fits in each. For some of the sentences, there is more than one correct answer.
- •Verb–noun collocations.
- •Increase the pay to staff above a certain percentage?
- •II Contract Law
- •1 Read the text and think of a suitable title for each of the two parts. Compare them with the titles given by your group mates.
- •2 Give Russian equivalents to the following words:
- •3 Complete the sentences (try not to look at the text):
- •4 Speak on the following:
- •5 Read the text about elements that are necessary for a valid contract. The parts of the text are mixed up. Put them in the correct order from 1 - 5.
- •6 Discuss with the partner
- •7 Read the text “Contract Law and Business”
- •8 Comment upon the diagram below.
- •2 Vocabulary. Give synonyms to the following words.
- •3 Match the words with their definitions.
- •Illegal obligation oral performance property signed terms
- •Newspapers write Newspapers write Newspapers write Friendly environment
- •The g8 countries agree on climate change, and more besides
- •Vocabulary
- •Financial times
- •Vocabulary
- •III . Family Law
- •1 Read the texts about different traditions to get married and compare the traditional wedding in Britain and the us with that in Russia.
- •2 Give Russian equivalents of the italicized words and expressions
- •3 Make up a summary of the text above by answering these questions:
- •4 Read through the entire text and decide which of the following headings (a–f) would be most appropriate for each paragraph (1–6).
- •5 Discuss the following questions:
- •6 Choose a topic for a short composition (write 180 – 200 words):
- •7 Before you read the text look up the meaning of the following:
- •8 Read through the entire text and decide which of the following titles (a - g) would be most appropriate for each part (1 - 7 ):
- •9 Discuss the following topics:
- •10 Write your own opinion on the following:
- •11 Vocabulary: Find a match
- •I. Before you read discuss these questions.
- •Vocabulary
- •1. Write what you think of the problem of dividing the assets of spouses.
- •2. Read another article from the Economist. It is about autistic children.
- •Vocabulary
- •Попова Татьяна Петровна Legal Reading Учебно-методическое пособие по чтению для студентов 3-го курса факультета права
- •Часть 1
buy its own shares?
appoint or fire another director?
buy land?
bring a case to court except to collect money owed?
Increase the pay to staff above a certain percentage?
issue equities?
spend more than a stated amount?
buy shares in another company?
sell the company or part of it?
fire an employee?
Newspapers write Newspapers write Newspapers write
1 Read the article from the Economist about bosses who perform badly but earn huge salaries. Do you think all pay should be based on performance?
2| Read the article again and choose the best answer for each question.
1 Who refused to approve GSK's remuneration committee's report?
the board of directors
the shareholders
the chief executive
2 The company is now in a difficult position because
it had already agreed to the new pay packages.
it has to decide whether to approve the report or not
Jean-Pierre Gamier will take legal action.
3 What annoyed shareholders most about Garnier's pay package?
It didn't reward his performance.
His annual salary was too high.
There was no link to performance.
4 Badly performing executives are sometimes paid large sums to
encourage them to perform better.
persuade them to leave the company.
stop them from going to competitors.
5 The change in public mood will mean that in future
a salaries for chief executives will be lower.
b it will be harder to recruit chief executives.
c all executive pay will be linked to performance.
On your own
1. Give a resume of the article.
2 Exchange your opinions on the problem of large executive pay packages with your group mates.
Executive pay
The rewards of failure
The trouble with the GlaxoSmithKline pay package was its reward for failure
When the public mood changes, the realisation can take time to sink in. Behaviour that was once acceptable can overnight come to be seen as outrageous. The board of GlaxoSmithKline, a big pharmaceutical company, has found itself at the sharp end of such a mood change. Its shareholders voted to reject the company's remuneration committee report, which would have paid Jean-Pierre Gamier, its Chief Executive, $35m if he lost his job and treated him and his wife as three years older than they actually are for the purpose of increasing their pensions.
The vote is purely advisory, with no binding force. But it leaves the company in a sort of legal limbo. More importantly, it leaves Boardrooms everywhere in a difficult position. The message of shareholder discontent with large executive pay packages and poor corporate performance has never been so clear.
Company bosses have been slow to understand the new mood of outrage among shareholders. Shareholders have for years accepted that 'Tat cat" bosses paid themselves more or less whatever they liked. So it is uncomfortable to face criticism. But behind the criticism is a strong feeling that many chief executives are living according to quite a different set of rules from everyone else.
Although the value of most large companies has fallen considerably over the last few years, bosses have continued to pay themselves more. The value of their pensions has increased and they have struck lavish deals in the form of "golden parachute" severance deals to cushion their fall if they leave. Some of the aspects of Mr Garniefs package that most irritated the shareholders were ones that appeared to reward not superior performance but simply being there. Lots of bosses have such components in their pay.
Of course, companies may set up deals with bosses they no longer want in order to encourage them to go quickly and without a legal fight But a generous advance promise to reward failure is no way to encourage success. Like the "guaranteed bonus" and the lifetime free dental treatment, it offers chief executives a one-way bet
If the GSK vote makes companies cautious about such deals, that is welcome. The market for chief executives is far from perfect There is no rate for the job, positions are often quietly filled rather than openly advertised and boardroom search committees rarely ask, "Could we get someone equally good even if we paid a bit less?" If the board now has to defend its compensation decisions publicly, it may be easier to say '"We'd love to give you a golden parachute but the shareholders would make a fuss" More fuss, please, from shareholders. It's their company, after all