No description available.

The duty of loyalty of a member of a business company This thesis deals with the topic closely connected with the field of corporate governance which is a part of corporate law. According to the American legal theory is duty of loyalty one of the fiduciary duties. The traditional classification of fiduciary duties is based on dualism - duty of loyalty and duty of care. But this concept is changing over time mainly due to case law. There is no settled opinion on the basic question how many fiduciary duties there are. Current opinion of the respected authority in this field - Delaware' Supreme Court is based on dualism of fiduciary duties, but not in the traditional meaning. The duty of loyalty includes according to the opinion of the judges not only conflicts of interests and self-dealing situations, but breach of good faith as well. On the other hand the traditional point of view was settled on two fiduciary duties - loyalty and care as well. Duty of loyalty was connected with conflicts of interest situations between principal and agent, when the personal financial interest of the agent was present. Duty of loyalty protected the legal position of the principal when agent managed entrusted property. The duty of care was connected with the interest of the principal and due performance of the agent with the...

O estudo da responsabilidade civil dos administradores de companhias abertas na doutrina nacional trata usualmente dos deveres fiduciários, do ato regular de gestão e da teoria ultra vires, da culpa ou dolo do administrador, das ações ut universi e ut singuli e da solidariedade entre a responsabilidade do administrador e a da companhia. Poucos abordam as causas extintivas dessa responsabilidade, e raro são os que tratam da hipótese de exclusão de responsabilidade do artigo 159, § 6º, da Lei nº 6.404/76. Como a disciplina dos deveres fiduciários prevista na lei societária brasileira tem forte influência do Direito norte-americano, buscou-se na legislação, doutrina e jurisprudência daquele país os fundamentos necessários à melhor interpretação e aplicação da regra de exclusão e, em especial, na business judgment rule, doutrina que protege os administradores contra responsabilização por prejuízos à companhia decorrentes de decisões por eles adotadas, proteção esta também conferida pela hipótese do artigo 159, § 6º, da Lei nº 6.404/76, ao administrador leal e de boa-fé. / The study of corporate directors civil liability in national doctrine usually deals with fiduciaries duties, regular management act and the ultra vires theory, directors malpractice or deceit, ut universi and ut singuli actions and solidarity between directors and companies responsibility. Few address the extinctive causes of such liability, and rare are those who address the liability exclusion hypothesis of the Article 159, § 6º, of the Law n. 6.404/76. Whereas that the fiduciary duties discipline provided for in Brazilian corporate law has strong influence of American law, was sought in the legislation, doctrine and jurisprudence of that country the fundamentals for a better understanding and application of the exclusion rule and, particularly, in the business judgment rule, a doctrine that protects directors against liability for damages to the company arising from their acts, protection also afforded by the Article 159, § 6º, of the Law n. 6.404/76, to the loyal and good faith director.

La première source de la business judgment rule a été la jurisprudence. Celle-ci a été la source des codifications incitatives et contraignantes. Nos recherches ont mis en évidence deux types de formulations de la business judgment rule. Le premier type est la formulation prétorienne lato sensu et stricto sensu. Le second type est la formulation codifiée (Model Business Corporation Act, Corporate Director's Guidebook, Principles of Corporate Governance, lois limitant la responsabilité personnelle des dirigeants). De plus, nos recherches ont dégagé 9 types de termes qui se retrouvent dans tous les types des formulations. Les 4 premiers types de termes correspondent respectivement (1) aux pouvoirs des dirigeants et à leur discrétion, (2) au statut des dirigeants, (3) aux devoirs des dirigeants, (4) aux degrés de devoirs requis et à la gravité de la transgression de ces devoirs sanctionnée (standard of conduct). Les cinq types de termes suivants correspondent respectivement (1) au droit à l'erreur, (2) à la présomption de comportement/conduite, (3) au refus d'un contrôle judiciaire, (4) à la charge de la preuve, (5) à la justification de la business judgment rule (standard of revision). Les deux différences fondamentales entre les formulations de la business judgment rule sont les suivantes. La première différence se situe au niveau des conditions d'application de la règle et concerne la relation entre le standard de conduite, c'est-à-dire le type des devoirs, le degré des devoirs et la gravité de la transgression des devoirs, et le standard de responsabilité, c'est-à-dire les devoirs examinés quand la business judgment rule s'applique. La seconde différence fondamentale entre les formulations se situe au niveau des effets de la règle et concerne l'étendue d'un contrôle judiciaire sur le résultat de l'action ou de l'omission des dirigeants, c'est-à-dire le prix grossièrement inadéquat, l'abus de discrétion, le dépassement grossier, etc. / The first source of the « business judgment rule » is the jurisprudence. The jurisprudence was the source of the « soft law » and « hard law » codifications. The research showed two types of formulations of the « business judgment rule ». The first type is the jurisprudence formulation lato sensu_and stricto sensu. The second type is the codification formulation (Mode) Business Corporation Act, Corporate Director's Guidebook, Principles of Corporate Governance, lois limitant la responsabilité personnelle des dirigeants). The research showed nine types of terms which may be found in the formulations of the « business judgment rule». The first four terms correspond respectively to (1) the powers of the governors of the corporation and their discretion ; (2) their status ; (3) their duties, and (4) the degree of their duties. This first type of terms constitutes the standard of conduct. The next five types of terms correspond respectively to (1) the right to the error; (2) the presumption of the conduct; (3) the refusal of judicial review; (4) the burden of proof; (5) the justification of the « business judgment rule ». This second type of terms constitutes the standard of revision. There are two fundamental differences between the formulations of the « business judgment rule ». The first difference is situated at the level of the conditions of application of the « business judgment rule », and concerns the relations between the standard of conduct and the standard of revision. The second difference is situated at the level of the effects of the « business judgment rule » and concerns the scope of judicial review.

O estudo da responsabilidade civil dos administradores de companhias abertas na doutrina nacional trata usualmente dos deveres fiduciários, do ato regular de gestão e da teoria ultra vires, da culpa ou dolo do administrador, das ações ut universi e ut singuli e da solidariedade entre a responsabilidade do administrador e a da companhia. Poucos abordam as causas extintivas dessa responsabilidade, e raro são os que tratam da hipótese de exclusão de responsabilidade do artigo 159, § 6º, da Lei nº 6.404/76. Como a disciplina dos deveres fiduciários prevista na lei societária brasileira tem forte influência do Direito norte-americano, buscou-se na legislação, doutrina e jurisprudência daquele país os fundamentos necessários à melhor interpretação e aplicação da regra de exclusão e, em especial, na business judgment rule, doutrina que protege os administradores contra responsabilização por prejuízos à companhia decorrentes de decisões por eles adotadas, proteção esta também conferida pela hipótese do artigo 159, § 6º, da Lei nº 6.404/76, ao administrador leal e de boa-fé. / The study of corporate directors civil liability in national doctrine usually deals with fiduciaries duties, regular management act and the ultra vires theory, directors malpractice or deceit, ut universi and ut singuli actions and solidarity between directors and companies responsibility. Few address the extinctive causes of such liability, and rare are those who address the liability exclusion hypothesis of the Article 159, § 6º, of the Law n. 6.404/76. Whereas that the fiduciary duties discipline provided for in Brazilian corporate law has strong influence of American law, was sought in the legislation, doctrine and jurisprudence of that country the fundamentals for a better understanding and application of the exclusion rule and, particularly, in the business judgment rule, a doctrine that protects directors against liability for damages to the company arising from their acts, protection also afforded by the Article 159, § 6º, of the Law n. 6.404/76, to the loyal and good faith director.

Magister Legum - LLM / The so called business judgment rule (hereinafter referred to as ―the BJR or the rule‖) that serves to protect directors from liability for negative consequences of honest, reasonable business decisions that went wrong, was developed by the American judiciary in the early 19th Century.2 Percy v. Millaudon, a Louisiana Supreme Court decision quoted above, articulated what is now referred to as the BJR.3 This case provides the earliest expression of the American BJR.4 Delaware courts subsequently issued a series of cases formulating the BJR as a presumption.5 Although the earliest expression of the rule was provided by a Louisiana court, the dissertation will focus on the Delaware case law formulation of the rule.6 The essence of the BJR is that judges should not second guess directors‘ decisions if certain elements of the BJR are fulfilled.7 Courts are required to exercise caution when dealing with claims brought by either stakeholders or shareholders against directors who have made bona fide, also referred to as good faith, business decisions.8 In order to be protected by the BJR and for it to act as a safe harbour, the court will determine whether certain requirements have been met before applying the rule.9 The Delaware courts formulated the BJR as a presumption and in order for directors to be protected by the rule they must have made an informed business decision, in good faith and in the honest belief that the decision will be in the best interest of the company.10 As will be discussed later, this formulation of the rule is referred to as the traditional BJR. In addition to the aforementioned formulation, another formulation was provided by the American Law Institute (hereafter referred to as the ―ALI formulation‖).11 Initially there had been difficulties codifying the ALI version of the rule but later it was successfully codified in paragraph 4.01(c) of the ALI Corporate Governance Project.12 This formulation requires a director to ensure that he has no personal interest in the matter, he is reasonably informed of the matter prior to making the decision and he rationally believes the decision will be in the best interest of the company.13 If the director complies with the aforementioned requirements, the director will be considered to have acted in good faith.14 Directors owe fiduciary duties to the company and in instances where they breach one or more of these duties they can incur personal liability.15 The rule thus emerged because of the need to protect directors and it serves as a safe harbour for those individuals who made a decision in conformity with the aforementioned requirements.16 In commercial terms the rule bestows economic freedoms and freedom of entrepreneurship to directors guided, in any case, by ―the best interest of the company‖.17 The most commonly cited reasons for the existence of the rule are that it promotes risk taking, encourages competent persons to serve as directors, prevents judicial second-guessing and promotes judicial efficiency. It further provides directors with sufficient freedom to manage the company and it ensures that the interest of shareholders and those of directors are balanced.18

IN ENGLISH The purpose of this paper is to analyse all segments of the duty of due managerial care of member of an elective body of a limited company and propose de lege ferenda approach to segments of the duty. Another goal of this master's thesis was to examine new business judgment rule and present an alternative British model of the rule. To provide a comparative approach the paper utilizes the British company law approach. The first chapter introduces the origin of the duty of due managerial care, in particular its roots in Roman law and Austrian civil code. The second chapter is divided into five subchapters. The first subchapter highlights the recent changes to the duty of due managerial care after recodification of private law. The second subchapter examines duty of care as one of two integral parts of the duty of due managerial care. Firstly, it analyzes the quality of care expected of directors. Secondly, it focuses on the test for determination of necessary standard of care. Thirdly, following a critical examination of the test for determination of a standard of care, the paper suggests de lege ferenda test of due care. Finally, the first subchapter considers the British duty of care, skill and diligence. The third subchapter covers the duty of loyalty including duties derived from it...

This diploma thesis deals with the regulation of the duty of due managerial care of members of a governing body of a limited company. The aim is to evaluate Czech national law with respect to the relevant British law rules. Another objective is to propose de lege ferenda amendments to current state of law. The thesis is divided into three chapters The first chapter defines the duty of due managerial care and the content of duties imposed on members of a governing body of a company in Great Britain. Judicial decisions of both jurisdictions reveal that directors are not expected to have a knowledge possessed by a specialist. However, good general knowledge is required. Subsequently, the dual objective / subjective standard is introduced. Lord Hoffmann borrowed the test set by the Insolvency Act 1986 and stated that such a test should not just apply during insolvency. The second chapter is dedicated to fiduciary duties and the position of duty of loyalty within the scope of due managerial care. The aim is to present the subjective test covering acts exercised to promote the success of a company. The standard rests upon the idea that directors must exercise their discretion bona fide in what they consider, not what the court may consider, is in the interest of the company. Another field of interest is...

Šio darbo tikslas – ištirti verslo sprendimo vertinimo taisyklės galimybes Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje. Šiam tikslui pasiekti pasitelkiami ryškiausi bendrosios ir kontinentinės teisės sistemų atskirų valstybių verslo sprendimo vertinimo taisyklės taikymo pavyzdžiai. Darbe analizuojama šios taisyklės samprata pasirinktose valstybėse bei Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje. Taip pat darbe keliamas klausimas ar Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje apskritai egzistuoja verslo sprendimo vertinimo taisyklė. Pažymima, jog šiuo metu Lietuvoje egzistuoja nuomonių dėl verslo sprendimo vertinimo taisyklės egzistavimo dualumas tarp Lietuvos mokslininkų. Analizuojant verslo sprendimo sampratą, pastebimas ir užsienio valstybių mokslininkų nuomonių dėl verslo sprendimo vertinimo taisyklės taikymo daugiareikšmiškumas. Ši taisyklė gali būti suprantama kaip atsakomybės standartas, numatanti kaip įmonės valdymo organų nariai turi vykdyti jiems nustatytas pareigas, kaip teisminio susilaikymo doktrina, užkertanti kelią teismams vertinti priimamų verslo sprendimų esmę bei ją keisti, bei netgi kaip neliečiamybės doktrina. Taip pat verslo sprendimo vertinimo taisyklė turi procesinę bei materialią dalis. Pažymima, jog pagal tai, kaip konkrečios valstybės teisinėje sistemoje ši taisyklė įtvirtinama, skiriami skirtingi jos taikymo modeliai. Toks verslo sprendimo vertinimo taisyklės daugiareikšmiškumas sąlygoja šios taisyklės taikymo galimybių ribas, kurios darbe vertinamos Lietuvos teisinės sistemos atžvilgiu. ... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The aim of this paper is to examine the possibilities of application of the business judgement rule in Lithuanian legal system. In order to achieve this aim, the most prominent cases of application of the business judgement rule in different common and continental law countries are analysed. The paper also compares the conception of this rule in selected countries and in Lithuanian legal system. The analysis of the descriptions, although short, of the business judgement rule found in the works of Lithuanian scholars, has shown a dual approach to the application of the business judgement rule. The paper also raises the question of the existence of this rule in Lithuanian legal system. The analysis of the conception of business judgement rule has also demonstrated various attitudes to the application of this rule among foreign scholars. This rule can be regarded as standard of liability, indicating the way in which the members of the company’s management bodies have to perform their duties; as judicial abstention doctrine, preventing courts from evaluating and changing the essence of business decisions; even as doctrine of immunity. In addition, the business judgement rule consists of two components, including procedural and material ones. It is noted that the rule has different models of application depending on the way it is established in the legal system of a country. Such variation of attitudes to the business judgement rule determines the boundaries of its application... [to full text]

近年來，國際經濟危機層出不窮，產生各式各樣之公司治理問題；全球化之企業經營模式的崛起與迅速發展，企業之經營從國內走向國際，使得公司治理成為國際性之重要議題，美國之公司治理模式的移植亦於世界各國蔚為風潮。 公司治理之架構下，鑑於所有權與經營權分離原則，掌握公司經營權限之董事係公司核心，為避免擴大董事之經營權限的同時，會損及公司與股東之利益，美國法對於董事乃課以受託義務，其內涵包含忠實義務、注意義務與善意義務。然基於商業環境詭譎多變且有限司法審查能力，如董事必須為做出失誤經營決策負擔法律責任，將造成具有能力之人不願意擔任董事而不利於經濟社會之發展，故美國法院判決乃發展出經營判斷法則。經營判斷法則係推定董事係立於充分資訊、出於善意且誠實確信其係為公司之最佳利益，當原告主張董事違反受託義務時，應負有先行舉證證明董事行為不符合經營判斷法則之構成要件。 我國公司法第23條係忠實義務與注意義務之規定，惟對於經營判斷法則尚無明文規範，學說見解對於我國是否應引進經營判斷法則仍有爭議，法院實務雖早已援用經營判斷法則作為公司經營者之責任標準，卻存在諸多誤解導致誤將該法則視為行為標準。因此，似有必要重新審視經營判斷法則之定位，故本文嘗試提出對於經營判斷法則於我國之應用的見解與省思。然經營判斷法則與我國現有法制應如何相互融合仍有待立法配合與後續觀察。 / In recent years, the world has been engulfed by international economic crises, resulting in a wide range of corporate governance matters. The rise and rapid development of the global business model has made the management of enterprises go from a single country toward the whole world, making corporate governance an important international issue. The transplantation of corporate governance of America legal model has emerged as a global trend. Under the framework of corporate governance and in view of the principle of separation of ownership and control, the directors empowered decision-making authority are the core of the company. To avoid the expanding of directors’ decision-making authority and protect the interests of both the corporation and its shareholders, the directors has fiduciary duty which includes duty of loyalty, duty of care and duty of good faith. However, based on the complexity of the business environment and the limit of the capability of the judicial review, if the directors burden the responsibility for making wrong decisions will make capable people unwell to be directors and affect the development of the economy. The business judgment rule is the presumption that in making decisions not involving self-interest and self-dealing, corporate directors act on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief that their actions are in the corporation’s best interest. Article 23 of Taiwan Company Act is the regulation of duty of loyalty and duty of care. However, the business judgment rule is not regulated in Taiwan Company Act. The opinion of whether the business judgment rule should be introduced to Taiwan is still controversial. Therefore, it is necessary to reexamine the position of the business judgment rule in Taiwan legal structure and this article attempts to provide points of view in the issue. Last but not least, the interaction of business judgment rule and Taiwan legal structure still needs the cooperation of the legislation and following observation.