The Scope of the Business Judgment Rule and its Relation to the Fiduciary Duties of Company Directors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2023.7073Keywords:
Business Judgment Rule, Corporate Governance, Entrepreneurial Judgment, Fiduciary Duties, Abstention Doctrine, Conflict of Interest, Outside Directorship, Liability of Directors, Immunity Doctrine.Abstract
Due to the dynamic and ever-changing nature of the corporate field, it is impossible to consistently ensure that the business entity will get guaranteed income from its business activities and that all corporate decisions made by the director will be beneficial to the company.
If the company directors were to be held responsible for any decision that did not result in a profit for the company, this would limit their freedom of action and discourage them from taking risky steps.
The main subject of this article is the Business Judgment Rule, which stipulates that a company director has the authority to make bad (unprofitable) decisions within specific legal limits without being held accountable for them.
Furthermore, an appropriate balance must be maintained in the legal system between the freedom of the corporate directors under the business judgment rule and the risk of being held accountable for dishonest activities and unreasonable steps taken by them.
References
Law of Georgia “On Entrepreneurs“, 04/08/2021.
Das deutsche Aktiengesetz (AktG), 06/09/1965.
Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbHG), 20/04/1892.
Allen W.T., Kraakman R.,Vikramaditya S. K., Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organization, 6th ed., Wolters Kluwer, 2021, par. 259, 269.
Bainbridge S. M., The Bishops and the Corporate Stakeholder Debate, in: Villanova Journal of Law and Investment Management, Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2002, Art. 2, 20.
Bainbridge S. M., The Business Judgment Rule as Abstention Doctrine, in: Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 57, Issue 1, 2004, 86, 89, 90, 99, 94, 97, 99, 101,
Branson D. M., The Rule That Isn't a Rule - The Business Judgment Rule, 36 Valparaiso University Law Review, 2002, 636.
Cassim M. F., Contemporary Company Law, 2nd ed., 2012, 563.
Clarkson K.W, Miller R. L., Business Law: Text and Cases, 15th ed., 2021, 762-763.
Dickerson C. M., From Behind the Looking Glass: Good Faith, Fiduciary Duty & Permitted Harm, 22 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 955, 1995, 956.
Easterbrook F. H., Fischel D. R., The Economic Structure of Corporate Law, 1991, 244 f.
Eisenberg M. A., The Duty of Good Faith in Corporate Law, in: Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1-75, 2005, 1.
Giraldo C. A. L., Factors Affecting the Application of the Business Judgment Rule: An Empirical Study of the US, UK, Australia and the EU, in: Vicepresidencia Juridica, 2006, Bogotá (Colombia), 121, 130.
Flom J. H., Ward R., Review of The Business Judgment Rule: Fiduciary Duties of Corporate Directors and Officers, by Block D. J., Barton N. E., & Radin S. A. in: The Business Lawyer, 1987, 42 (3), 995–997.
Hansen C., The Duty of Care, the Business Judgment Rule, and the American Law Institute Corporate Governance Project, in: The Business Lawyer, Vol. 48, no. 4, 1993, 1355–76.
Hill C. A., McDonnell, B. H., Stone v. Ritter and the Expanding Duty of Loyalty, 76 Fordham L. Rev., 1769, 2007, 1773.
McMillan L., The Business Judgment Rule as an Immunity Doctrine, 4 Wm. & Mary Bus. L. Rev. 521, 2013, 524, 529-530, 542, 574.
Miller R. L., Business Law Today, 11th ed., 2017, Chapter 29-4c, 731.
Shishido Z., Conflicts of Interest and Fiduciary Duties in the Operation of a Joint Venture, Vol. 39 Hastings L.J. 63, 1987, 83.
Smith D.G., The Modern Business Judgment Rule, Research Handbook on Mergers and Acquisitions, Forthcoming, in: BYU Law Research Paper Series No. 15-09, June 19, 2015, 2, 5-9, 6-7.
Strine L. E. Jr., Hamermesh L. A., Balotti R. F., Gorris, J. M, Loyalty’s Core Demand: The Defining Role of Good Faith in Corporation Law, in: The Georgetown Law Journal, 2010, Vol. 98, 629.
Talley E., Hashmall M., The Corporate Opportunity Doctrine, California: USC Gould School of Law, February 2001, 1.
Altmeppen H., Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaften mit beschränkter Haftung: GmbHG (Kommentar), C.H.BECK., 10. Auflage 2021, §43, Rn. 12.
Bannenberg B., Inderst C., Poppe S. (Hrsg.), Compliance: Aufbau - Management – Risikobereiche, C. F. Müller Wirtschaftsrecht, 2. Auflage 2013.
Fleischer H., Goette W. (Hrsg.), Münchener Kommentar zum GmbHG, Band 2, §§ 35-52 GmbHG, Verlag C.H.BECK München, 3. Auflage 2019.
Fuhrmann L., Heinen A., Schilz L., Gesetzliche Beurteilungs- und Ermessensspielräume als „spezial-gesetzliche Business Judgement Rule“, in: NZG (Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschafstrecht) 2020, 1368.
Hoffmann-Becking M. (Hrsg.), Münchener Handbuch des Gesellschaftsrechts Band 4, Aktiengesellschaft, C.H. Beck München, 5. Auflage 2020.
Hopt K. J., Roth M., Handelsgesetzbuch (Kommentar), C.H. Beck, 41. Auflage 2022.
Kocher D., Zur Reichweite der Business Judgment Rule, in: CCZ (Corporate Compliance Zeitschrift) 2009, 215.
Paefgen W.G., Die Darlegungs- und Beweislast bei der Business Judgment Rule, in: NZG (Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschafstrecht) 2009, 891.
Schmidt K. (Hrsg.), Münchener Kommentar zum Handelsgesetzbuch: HGB, Band 2, C.H. Beck, 5. Auflage 2022.
Sethe R., Die Regelung von Interessenkonflikten im Aktienrecht de lege lata und de lege ferenda, in: SZW/RSDA (Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Finanzmarktrecht), 4/2018, 378.
Willen M., Die Business Judgement Rule - Auslegung der Legalitätspficht bei unklarer Rechtslage, in: Business, Economics and Law, Springer Gabler, 2020.
Schima G., Business Judgment Rule und Beweislastverteilung bei der Vorstandshaftung nach US., deutschem und österreichichem Recht, in: Baudenbacher C., Kokott J., Speitler P. (eds.), Aktuelle Entwicklungen des Europäischen und Internationalen Rechts, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, Basel, 2010, 379, 380f. 385, 394, 395, 402.
Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984).
Bodell v. Gen. Gas & Elec. Corp., 140 A. 264, 267 (Del. 1927).
Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244, 264 n.66 (Del. 2000).
Cede & Co vs. Technicolor Inc, 13, Delaware, 1987, A 2d 1182.
Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, 634 A.2d 346, 361 (Del. 1993).
Couri v. Couri, 95 Ill. 2d 91, 447 N.E.2d 334 (Ill. 1983).
Davis v. Dorsey, 495 F.Supp.2d 1162, 1176 (M.D.Ala.2007).
Davis v. Dyson, 900 N.E. 2d 698 (Ill.App.1 Dist.2008).
Gagliardi v. TriFoods Int’l, Inc., 683 A.2d 1049, 1051-52 (Del. Ch. 1996).
Godbold v. Branch Bank, 11 Ala. 191 (1847).
Graham v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 188 A.2d 125, 130 (Del. 1963).
Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503 (Del. 1939).
Hodges v. New England Screw Co., 3 R.I. 9, 18 (1853).
In re Caremark Int’l Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996).
In re Farmland Industries, Inc., 335 B.R. 398, 411 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.2005).
In re Fleming Packaging Corp., 351 B.R. 626 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2006).
In re Lemington Home For Aged, 659 F.3d 282 (3rd Cir.2011).
Krasner v. Moffet, 826 A.2d 277, 287 (Del. 2003).
Krasnick v. Pac. E. Corp., 180 A. 604, 607 (Del. Ch. 1935).
Mann v. GTCR Golder Rauner, L.L.C., 483 F.Supp.2d 884 (D.Ariz.2007).
Miller v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 507 F.2d 759 (3d Cir. 1974).
Percy v. Millaudon 8 Mart (n.s.) 68, (La. 1829).
RJR Nabisco, Inc. Shareholders Litig., No. 10389, 1989 WL 7036 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 1989).
Shlensky v. Wrigley, 95 Ill. App. 2d 173, 237 N.E.2d 776 (Ill. App. Ct. 1968).
Smith v. Brown-Borhek Co., 414 Pa. 325, 333, 200 A.2d 398, 401 (1964).
Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985).
Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362, 369-70 (Del. 2006).
Westmoreland Cnty. Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Parkinson, 727 F.3d 719 (7th Cir.2013).
BGH, 10.07.2018 - II ZR 24/17.
OLG München, 21.03.2013 - 23 U 3344/12.
BGH Urt. v. 4.11.2002 – II ZR 224/00.
BGH Urt. v. 21.4.1997 – II ZR 175/95.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
