The Responsio ad Lutherum, written by Thomas More under the pseudonym of Guillielmus Rosseus, represents an important phase of the violent controversy that developed between Luther and Henry VII after the publication in 1521 of the King's Assertio Septem Sacrementorum. Here, for the first time, More entered the field of polemical, religious warfare, beginning a career as Catholic apologist which he was to continue in his English works during the next ten years, The present edition is based on the 1523 Rosseus text, with full collations from the earlier, and unique, Baravellus issue and from the 1565 Louvain printing. For the first time, More's racy diatribe is fully translated into English, with the Latin and English texts printed in parallel. The editor's Introduction traces the background of the controversy and analyzes at length More's important revisions in his text as he worked out his view of the papal primacy. The Commentary traces the nature of the conflict between More and Luther, emphasizing the shades of development in Luther's though. Historical, biblical, and patristic allusions in the text are explicated and analyzed. The Responsio should no longer, in view of this volume, occupy the position which it has held for so long--the most neglected of all More's major works. Mr. Headley is associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina. The translator, Sister Scholastica Mandeville of the Order of Sisters Adorers of the Most Precious Blood, teaches at the Provincial Motherhouse, Ruma, Illinois.
Analysing the Takeover Bid Directive in light of EU Law, this important monograph examines the extent to which the Directive facilitates the exercise of the fundamental freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital in the internal market. The analysis begins with a discussion of the fundamental freedom of establishment of companies, as well as of the legal bases for the harmonization of company law and capital markets law at the EU level. Additionally, the significance of corporate mobility and of the freedom of establishment case law of the European Court of Justice for the takeover process is analysed. The author shows that, far from achieving market integration in the field of EU company law, the Takeover Bid Directive is a compromise resulting from the very different legal and policy approaches of the Member States in the field of takeover regulation. Although some provisions of the Directive are obligatory for all Member States, two key provisions have been made optional: the non-frustration rule, which requires a board of directors to obtain the prior authorization of a general meeting of shareholders before taking any action that could result in the frustration of the bid; and the breakthrough rule, which restricts significant transfer and voting rights during the time allowed for acceptance of the bid.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.