The corporate opportunity doctrine constitutes a prohibition for the directors and officers of a company to pursue for themselves any opportunity which falls within the scope of the corporation’s business. In Swedish law the doctrine has not yet seemed to attract any greater attention. This doctrine has been the focus of a multitude of cases in a both American and English law, however mainly in the America law. Therefore, the American legal framework can serve as guidance in trying to define the doctrine as it has developed, or perhaps more correctly not developed, in national law. The perhaps most crucial question to be answered in the area of corporate opportunities is how the law indentify an opportunity as a “corporate” one. This is done by an overall assessment of the opportunity. First there needs to be established weather there exist some tie between the opportunity and the scope of the corporation’s business. Secondly, if a tie exists, it has to be taken into account weather the corporation e.g. had an interest or expectancy in the opportunity, the financial ability to undertake the opportunity and the capacity in which the opportunity was presented to the director or officer.   If the company rejects the opportunity or if the director or officer receives authorization from the company, the opportunity is available to exploitation of the director or officer. A difference should be made between private and public companies, but not between full-time and part-time directors or officers.

South African company law is currently the object of comprehensive review. One o f the areas under scrutiny is that of corporate governance. Control over management is vital in the interests of the company itself, its shareholders and its creditors. Effective accountability should be balanced against the need to allow those who manage a certain measure of freedom and discretion in the exercise of their function. Company directors are subject to various duties. This thesis concentrates on their fiduciary obligation. It is suggested that this sui generis obligation is owed to the company as a separate entity. Interests of other groups may sometimes merit con­ sideration. Against the background o f a com parative investigation, a "corporate opportunity" is defined as any property or economic opportunity to which the com­ pany has a claim. South African law protects a company’s claim to an opportunity if it is in the company’s line of business and if the company has justifiably been relying upon the director(s) to acquire it or to assist in its acquisition for the company. The application of established fiduciary principles suffice to resolve corporate opportunity matters. Essentially the application o f these rules amount to a determination whether the director has complied with his fundamental duty to act in the company’s best interests. There seems to be no need for a separate doctrine of corporate opportunities.' A director should only be absolved from liability on account of the company’s inability to pursue an opportunity or its rejection by the company if there was no real conflict of interest. The appropriation of corporate opportunities should not be ratifiable, both because the ratification constitutes a fraud on the minority, and because the decision to ratify cannot be regarded as being in the interests of the company. The relationship between the appropriation of corporate opportunities, misuse of confidential information and competition is investigated. These aspects fre­ quently overlap, but should be distinguished because their bases, and accordingly their appropriate remedies, may differ. Effective control may benefit by a restatement of directors’ fiduciary duties in the Companies Act. To this end certain amendments to the Act are recommended. / Mercantile Law / LLD

South African company law is currently the object of comprehensive review. One o f the areas under scrutiny is that of corporate governance. Control over management is vital in the interests of the company itself, its shareholders and its creditors. Effective accountability should be balanced against the need to allow those who manage a certain measure of freedom and discretion in the exercise of their function. Company directors are subject to various duties. This thesis concentrates on their fiduciary obligation. It is suggested that this sui generis obligation is owed to the company as a separate entity. Interests of other groups may sometimes merit con­ sideration. Against the background o f a com parative investigation, a "corporate opportunity" is defined as any property or economic opportunity to which the com­ pany has a claim. South African law protects a company’s claim to an opportunity if it is in the company’s line of business and if the company has justifiably been relying upon the director(s) to acquire it or to assist in its acquisition for the company. The application of established fiduciary principles suffice to resolve corporate opportunity matters. Essentially the application o f these rules amount to a determination whether the director has complied with his fundamental duty to act in the company’s best interests. There seems to be no need for a separate doctrine of corporate opportunities.' A director should only be absolved from liability on account of the company’s inability to pursue an opportunity or its rejection by the company if there was no real conflict of interest. The appropriation of corporate opportunities should not be ratifiable, both because the ratification constitutes a fraud on the minority, and because the decision to ratify cannot be regarded as being in the interests of the company. The relationship between the appropriation of corporate opportunities, misuse of confidential information and competition is investigated. These aspects fre­ quently overlap, but should be distinguished because their bases, and accordingly their appropriate remedies, may differ. Effective control may benefit by a restatement of directors’ fiduciary duties in the Companies Act. To this end certain amendments to the Act are recommended. / Mercantile Law / LLD