董事注意义务的民事责任研究

在我国,关于董事注意义务的相关规定尚不规范,在公司法相关法律中也没有详细规定,且执法中受到查处的个案也比较少。这种现象与制度本身的不健全、对规定解读的多样化、查处手段单一等直接相关。本文以新公司法的内容和结构为基础,着眼于"董事注意义务的概念界定"、"董事注意义务的内容和判断标准"、"董事注意义务的民事责任"等内容对董事注意义务进行了分析,并根据近年来公司法理论和实务的最新发展对董事注意义务的立法完善问题提出了相关建议。     

DOES THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE HELP PROMOTE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY?

The business judgment rule (BJR) is a U.S. corporate law concept that has gained international recognition. It has been moulded, particularly in the definition of the Delaware courts, to protect the managerial business discretion, in other words to protect directors’ decisions from judicial review. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) questions the relationship between corporation with a business purpose and society. More and more attention is drawn to the various impacts of corporate decisions on society, asking for the necessity for directors to take these impacts into consideration when making business decisions. At the centre of CSR and the BJR are the fiduciary duties of the directors — the duty of diligence and the duty of care — and the question as to if the directors have breached their duties and if they have fulfilled them in a CSR compatible manner. This paper discusses how the BJR helps promoting CSR by discussing the advantages and disadvantages (real or apparent) of the BJR with respect to CSR.     

公司环境责任概念及存在问题研究

公司的环境责任在不同的语境下意义不同。一般包括公司的环境道德责任、公司的环境义务责任和公司的环境后果责任几个方面，不同的责任形式对公司的要求是不同的。我国目前在公司的环境责任的实现上还存在着一定的问题，应该从加强公司环境义务体系建设、加强行政执法和环境司法、促进环境道德责任建设等方面加以完善.     

论董事“善意”规则的演进及其对我国的借鉴意义

从我国公司法的规定来看,勤勉义务和忠实义务不能完全涵盖董事对公司和股东造成损害的不当行为,亟待突破公司法关于董事勤勉义务和忠实义务的框架。在此方面,美国特拉华州公司法中的"善意"规则的演进对我国具有借鉴意义。在特拉华州,确认"善意义务"的独立性有其客观价值,但也存在逻辑困境,故存在巨大争议。我国学者对于引入董事的"善意"规则存在两种截然不同的观点。为应对实践中纷繁复杂的董事责任纠纷,我国应立足于实践需求,通过理论创新,将董事"善意"规则确定为董事信义义务制度的内涵,甚至将"善意义务"定位为独立的董事义务也未尝不可,但暂时不宜将公司合规确立为独立的董事义务。     

透视美国公司法上的董事忠实义务——兼评我国《公司法》对董事忠实义务之规定

集中管理模式之下的公司董事具有相当大的权力,股东与董事之间难免会产生代理成本,为此法律规定了董事对公司和股东负有信托义务。信托义务主要包括注意义务和忠实义务。我国现行《公司法》对董事忠实义务的规定不够完善,建议我国《公司法》扩大董事忠实义务责任主体的范围,规定举证责任分配,归入权的具体行使主体、行使方式、行使期限等。     

Caremark Compliance for the Next Twenty‐Five Years

One of the most influential cases in corporate governance is In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation (Caremark). In 1996, Caremark imposed a novel duty on boards of directors to make a good faith attempt to implement and exercise oversight over obligations leading to liability. Breach of this minimal duty has been difficult for plaintiffs to plead and prove, and the case law is littered with dismissed Caremark lawsuits. As Caremark's reign reaches a quarter‐century, however, its duties are primed to evolve. Two cases, Marchand v. Barnhill and In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, took the rare step of allowing Caremark claims to survive motions to dismiss. These cases signal a new understanding of Caremark obligating boards not merely to attempt oversight, but to ensure proactively that such oversight is effective. This subtle but significant change in board duties is one to which the academic literature should respond. This article first reviews the Marchand and Clovis cases and argues that these cases hold significance for the future of Caremark claims. Second, this article studies client advisories from law firms and other sources that evaluate the Clovis and Marchand cases. It finds that while these advisories offer useful tactical responses, they lack strategic advice that would benefit boards over the long term. Filling the gap, this article presents long‐term strategic advice for boards not only to meet Caremark duties but also to thrive as exemplars of good governance and ethical leadership for the next twenty‐five years.     

Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law

States routinely provide support and assistance to their corporate nationals in their global trade and investment ventures. While states may not intend to allow corporate nationals to violate human rights in their extraterritorial operations, by their actions or omissions, states may facilitate, or otherwise contribute to, a situation in which such violations by a corporation occur. This article investigates the extent to which the extraterritorial activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) that violate international human rights law can give rise to home state responsibility. The analysis shows that home states of TNCs have obligations under international law in certain situations to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals or the latter's foreign subsidiaries and can incur international responsibility where they fail to do so.     

行政主体的义务范畴研究

行政主体的义务范畴是一个非常重要的行政法学理论问题,在现代法治政府之下政府行政系统的责任越来越突出,“责任政府”概念也成了政治学、行政法以及行政法学解释相关问题的基本概念。在责任政府这一现代理论的指导下,行政主体对公民、社会、国家承担义务就自然而然地成了行政法治以及行政法理论的核心问题,与之相对应,行政主体义务的基本范畴就成了近年来各国行政法学关注的热点问题。行政主体应具有推行宪法和法律,接受立法和司法监督,改善社会环境和促进社会发展,使国内事务与国际事务接轨等宪法义务;具有为行政相对人提供利益和保护,为行政行为说明理由和承担赔偿责任等行政法义务。     

The Irreducible Core of the Duty of Care,Skill and Diligence of Company Directors: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey

The decision in ASIC v Healey raises hitherto unexplored questions about the standard of care of non‐executive directors in monitoring the production of financial statements. More particularly, it considers the power of directors to delegate areas of responsibility requiring specialist knowledge and the degree of permissible reliance on professional advisers. The reasoning of the judge will doubtless prove helpful to the English courts not only in relation to duty of care issues under section 174 of the Companies Act 2006, but also when considering the duty to exercise independent judgment which is now restated in section 173.     

伤害外国人的国家责任有关问题研究

一国的国民在他国受到损害,需要向东道国寻求损害赔偿,首先要解决东道国的国家责任问题。国家行为对外国人造成损害与私人行为对外国人造成损害,其行为的可归责性是不同的。要判断东道国对外国人的行为是否违反其国际法上的义务,不能单纯依据东道国国内法的规定,还应该从国际法的层面来考察。在私人行为造成损害的情况下,只要东道国没有"运用相当注意",它就要承担损害赔偿责任,但这种责任是有限的。一国的国民在外国遭到损害时,个人(包括法人)利益与国家利益之间的密切关系是国家代为提出外交求偿的基础。     

虚假陈述中董事对股东责任研究

现代公司对社会生活的影响巨大 ,作为管理者的董事其权力也日益扩张。根据权利义务相一致的原则 ,董事应当承担更多的责任。董事对包括股东在内的第三人的法律责任就是近年来各国公司立法十分关注的问题。其中 ,虚假陈述中的董事对股东责任具有典型意义。只有加强董事对股东责任的研究 ,才能使我国的公司法制臻于完善     

公司机会准则研究

公司机会准则是英美国家公司法的一个重要理论 ,它确立了董事不得篡夺公司机会义务。判断一个交易机会是否是公司机会 ,须根据交易机会之不同而采不同方法。董事不得篡夺公司机会义务与董事的竞业禁止义务间不是种属关系 ,而是交叉关系 ,这就决定了我国公司法应在规定竞业禁止制度之外 ,另行导入公司机会准则     

Legitimate Political Authority and the Duty of Those Subject to It: A Critique of Edmundson

According to William Edmundson, a legitimatepolitical authority is one that claims tocreate in its subjects a general duty ofobedience to the law, and that succeeds increating in its subjects a duty to obey stateofficials when they apply the law in particularcases. His argument that legitimate politicalauthority does not require the state's claim tobe true rests on his analysis of legitimatetheoretical authority, and the assumption thattheoretical and practical authority are thesame in the relevant respects, both of whichare challenged here. In addition, Edmundsonfails to demonstrate that a general,content-independent, duty to obey officials whoadminister the law avoids the criticismsphilosophical anarchists pose to a general,content-independent duty to obey the law. Finally, Edmundson requires a legitimate stateto sincerely claim to create a generalduty to obey the law, yet he also argues thatin some cases the state ought to make literallyfalse claims regarding the particular dutiesincumbent upon its subjects. DespiteEdmundson's recent efforts to reconcile thesetwo claims, the conflict remains.     

Directors' duty of care to monitor information systems in HMOs: some lessons from the Oxford Health Plan

This paper examines the legal and strategic issues raised by the use of information systems in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and other managed care organizations. Given the critical nature of information systems to an HMO's business success and regulatory compliance, the large financial investment HMOs make in their systems, and the widely publicized concerns over the year 2000 "millennium bug" problem, information systems are appropriately a matter of concern to an HMO's board of directors. The recent experience of Oxford Health Plans, Inc. offers a case study in the apparent failure of the directors to monitor adequately the in-house development of an information system. The systems disaster which this corporation suffered in 1997 led to a dramatic drop in stock price, from which the company has yet to recover, as well as intense scrutiny by state and federal regulators and countless shareholder derivative actions against the directors. Corporate directors are subject to the fiduciary duty of care. Despite statutes in some states requiring directors to act prudently, state courts almost always apply the standard of gross negligence. As a result, even when directors act without due deliberation in their decision, it is rare that a court will find them to have failed in their duty of care. The business and regulatory community may find otherwise, however, when directors fail to evaluate information systems options carefully and the business suffers as a result.     

Probing the Depths of the Responsible Corporate Officer’s Duty

Many criminal law scholars have criticized the responsible corporate officer doctrine as a form of strict and vicarious liability. It is neither. It is merely a doctrine that supplies a duty in instances of omissions. Siding with Todd Aagaard in this debate, I argue that a proper reading of the cases yields that the responsible corporate officer doctrine is just duty supplying, and does not allow for strict liability when the underlying statute requires mens rea. After analyzing Dotterweich, Park, and their progeny, I probe the depths of this duty-supplying doctrine, including to whom the duty is owed, whether the duty is grounded in statute, cause of peril, or contract, and what the content of the duty is. Although the responsible corporate officer doctrine unveils questions we may have about duty generally, it is no more problematic than other duty-supplying doctrines in the criminal law.     

The fiduciary duties of healthcare directors in the "zone of insolvency"

Directors of healthcare organizations normally owe fiduciary duties to their shareholders or, in the case of nonprofits, to the charitable mission of the organization. As an organization descends to bankruptcy, however, the board's duties may shift. At some point, the board may be imposed with different and often conflicting obligations to the corporate enterprise as a whole, with a primary criterion being the interests of creditors. In this article, the authors analyze the murky areas of the Zone and give guidance as to when the board's duty may shift-and as to how directors should proceed both in determining their duties and in working to fulfill them.     

再论我国慈善组织公信力的法律重塑

公信力是慈善组织生存之基,公益性是慈善组织公信力之源。影响慈善组织公信力的因素既包括法治因素,也包括文化因素、体制因素等。我国慈善法律体系已经形成,内容较为全面完善,关于慈善组织的法律定位也较为明确,法律实施不到位以及官民二重性是制约我国慈善组织公信力提升的主要原因。官民二重性有悖于慈善组织的民间本性,导致慈善组织的独立性、公益性、运作效率降低,导致对慈善组织监管不力,并进而阻碍慈善事业的健康发展。要以理顺政府和慈善组织的关系为核心,进一步加强慈善法治建设,推动我国慈善的现代转型。在慈善法治建设中,信息公开是前提,创新管理是保障,强化监督是抓手,责任落实是关键。     

Challenging Australia's "closed" model of neonatal care: the need for reform following Re baby D (No 2)

The withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment to compromised newborns is a subject of controversy in countries where there is now highly advanced neonatal care to keep such newborns alive. The topic has generated comparatively less debate in Australia, where case law is sparse and parents and clinicians themselves make decisions regarding the cessation of care, largely free from extemal oversight. The recent case of Re Baby D (No 2) [2011] FamCA 176 endorses this "closed" approach to neonatal decision-making. This article critically discusses some of its implications and makes suggestions for reform to ensure meaningful oversight of decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment. The authors argue that the judgment fails to address some fundamental issues, such as ensuring that those with the responsibility to make decisions are doing so on a "best interests" basis. This is important because, in a society where disability remains stigmatised and poorly understood, there is no opportunity under the approach adopted in Baby D to guarantee adequate protection of the rights of individuals born with physical or intellectual impairments.     

Directors' Duties to Creditors: Contractarian Concerns Relating to Efficiency and Over-Protection of Creditors

There is case law to the effect that when companies are in financial difficulty directors owe a duty to take into account the interests of their companies' creditors. This article examines the primary reasons why contractarian theory, as applied by the law and economics school, is opposed to the existence of such a responsibility, namely it undermines efficiency and creditors can take measures in order to protect themselves adequately. The article asserts that efficiency cannot alone determine whether a duty should or should not be imposed on directors. Another critical value, fairness, must also be considered, and this value justifies the duty on the basis, inter alia, that many creditors are not able to protect themselves adequately, or at all by contracting, and are deserving of the limited protection that the duty would bring. In any event, it is submitted that a duty to creditors would enhance efficiency in some respects and warrants consideration on that basis.     

Special report on taxation. Prepare for impending legislation that could threaten your tax-exempt status!

With impending federal action, and the likelihood of "copycat" legislation at the state and local levels if a federal statue is adopted, nonprofit hospitals need to ensure that they will be in compliance if a mandatory charity care bill were to become law. Such facilities should take the initiative now, by clearly articulating their charity care policies and by describing their other undercompensated or uncompensated activities that are maintained in order to benefit their communities. They should also ensure that all of their activities that could be counted as charity care or community benefit are fully documented and quantified. Financial consultants and counsel may be helpful in this process. Exempt facilities also should, of course, closely monitor the progress of the bills discussed above. Most importantly, they should continue to test their charity care and community benefit statistics on a regular basis to determine if their facilities meet the thresholds specified in the bills as they proceed through Congress.