美国法上的董事注意义务和商业判断规则的关系辨析

发布时间：2018-03-26 05:33

本文选题：注意义务　切入点：判断要素　出处：《吉林大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：近年来，我国社会主义法制环境不断发展完善，市场经济也逐步走向成熟，我国企业在中国加入WTO后面临经济全球化的挑战，市场竞争十分激烈，公司经营风险也时刻存在。我国2005年修订后的《公司法》在实现公司自治、保护股东权益等方面有较大的进步，第148条规定了董事的义务，但是规定并不具体、较为模糊。随着公司诉讼案件的增多，弄清董事注意义务的具体含义及判断要素变得十分重要，但由于我国法律对其并未明确规定，我们只能从国外的相关法律中寻找其具体标准。美国公司法处于世界领先地位，其对董事注意义务研究较多，而商业判断规则和董事注意义务关系又极其密切，商业判断规则是美国法院在长期的司法实践中总结出来的，是排除司法审查的标准，因此研究董事注意义务和商业判断规则的关系尤为重要。本文运用实证分析的方法，对美国公司法上关于董事注意义务和商业判断规则的相关规定进行了梳理，从其含义、历史发展概况、判断标准和存在的正当性基础等方面对二者进行了详细的论述。此外，查看美国判例法的有关案例，具体分析商业判断规则的适用条件及董事注意义务的判断标准，分析二者的关系，发现董事注意义务和商业判断规则并不相同，但二者联系紧密。首先，笔者对董事的注意义务及其判断要素进行了分析。董事注意义务是指董事出于善意处理公司事务，并尽到普通谨慎之人在相似的地位和情况下，应该具有的谨慎、注意和勤勉。注意义务是针对董事与公司不存在任何利益冲突的情况下，董事是否履行其职责的标准。董事会在做出决策之前，应该了解一切可以合理获得的相关信息，并且董事必须以合理的注意履行其义务。董事注意义务的判断要素包括：董事应出席会议，充分了解并提前知晓会议议题；对其议题掌握了充分合理的信息，并有义务去调查信息的真实性、合理性，以此做出适当的决策。除此之外，判断董事是否违反注意义务还要考虑一些参考变量，如区别执行董事和非执行董事、高管人员以及公司的公共性和业务性质等。总体上来说，对于董事注意义务的标准只是说以“普通谨慎之人”为标准，但是此标准还是让人难以确定，在法院判定董事是否违反注意义务的案件中困难较多，因此商业判断规则相伴而生。其次，笔者对商业判断规则的相关规定和其存在的正当性基础做了深入的分析和论述。作为一个判例法理，商业判断规则至今为止没有在任何一个成文法中具体规定，在美国，各个州对此规则的理解也不尽相同，立法界和理论界的争议比较大，美国法学研究所在《公司治理原则：分析与建议》中对商业判断规则的规定较为明确具体，被认为是一个最具权威性的定义。作出商业判断的董事应当与该商业判断事项无利害关系，本着善意在做出决策的过程中尽到合理、适当的注意，相信此项商业判断符合公司的最佳利益。在美国判例法中，法院援用商业判断规则的案例越来越多，可见其存在是有一定的正当性基础的。商业判断规则可以区分管理者的过失与经营失误，体现了法律对董事经营管理权的尊重，并在一定程度上鼓励董事冒险，防止法官对公司经营的过度干预。最后，结合美国判例法的相关案例，综合分析董事注意义务和商业判断规则的关系，，笔者基本赞同商业判断规则是对董事注意义务的重要补充的观点，二者并不存在一致性，商业判断规则只是一项排除司法审查的标准而非规则。董事注意义务和商业判断规则二者设置的目的、标准、适用场合并不相同，商业判断规则不是董事违反注意义务之过失责任的免除手段，其在功能上对董事注意义务予以补充，是法院排除对董事是否违反其注意义务进行实质审查的司法标准。
[Abstract]:In recent years, China's socialist legal system continuously improve the development of the market economy is gradually mature, China's enterprises are facing the challenge of economic globalization in China after joining WTO, the market competition is very fierce, the business risk is always there. China's 2005 revised < > in the realization of justice, autonomy, great progress the protection of shareholders' rights and interests, the provisions of article 148th of the board of directors obligations, but the provisions are not specific, more fuzzy. With the increase of company litigation, clarify the specific meaning of the attention and the ten elements of the judgment obligation becomes important, but because of the law of our country does not expressly provide for the specific standards of relevant laws we rely on the American company law. The leading position in the world, the more attention to the board of directors of the obligation, and the business judgment rule and obligation of attention and extremely close relationship, Business judgment rule is summarized by the US courts in the long-term judicial practice, and it is the standard to exclude judicial review. Therefore, it is particularly important to study the relationship between directors' duty of care and rules of business judgment.
This paper uses empirical analysis method, the American company law on the duty of care and the business judgment rule of the relevant provisions of the sort, from its meaning, history, in terms of the judgment standard and the legitimacy of the foundation are discussed in detail on the two. In addition, the relevant case view of case law in the United States. Standards of duty of specific analysis of business judgment rule and the applicable conditions, analysis of the relationship between the two, found that the directors' duty of care and the business judgment rule is not the same, but the two closely linked.
First of all, the author of the duty of care and judgment elements are analyzed. Board of directors' duty of care is that well intentioned company's affairs, and as to the ordinary prudent person in a similar position and situation, should be cautious and diligent. Pay attention to the duty of care is the needle to the board of directors and company do not have any conflicts of interest under the condition that the directors to perform their duties. The board of directors before making a decision, should understand the relevant information of all can be reasonably obtained, and the directors must fulfill its obligations with reasonable attention. The attention including elements of the judgment obligation: the board of directors shall attend the meeting, to fully understand and know the topic of the meeting on the issue in advance; the sufficient and reasonable information, authenticity, and the obligation to investigate the rationality of information, in order to make appropriate decisions. In addition, judge whether a director in violation of meaning The service also considers some reference variables, such as the difference between executive directors and non-executive directors, senior executives and the company's public and business nature. On the whole, the duty of care standard is said to "ordinary prudent person" as the standard, but this standard are hard to determine, in the court to determine whether the board of directors pay attention to more difficult cases in violation of obligation, therefore the business judgment rule was born.
Secondly, the relevant provisions of business judgment rule and its legitimacy basis to do a thorough analysis and discussion. As a legal precedent, the business judgment rule has not yet in any specific provisions of the statute, in the United States, each state to understand the rules are not the same, and legislative circles the theory is controversial, the American Law Institute "principles of Corporate Governance: analysis and recommendations > rule of business judgment is clear and specific, is considered one of the most authoritative definition. The directors should make business judgment when the business judgment and matters that are not interested in good faith, in the process of making the decision to make the reasonable, appropriate attention, I believe the business judgment in accordance with the best interests of the company. In the American case law, the court invoked more and more cases of business judgment rule, its existence is visible There is a certain justification basis. Business judgment rule can distinguish managers' faults and business failures. It reflects the respect of directors' right to manage and manage, and encourages directors to take risks to some extent, and prevents judges from over managing company's operation.
Finally, the combination of relevant cases in the American case law, comprehensive analysis of relationship between the attention duty and business judgment rule, the author agrees with the business judgment rule is an important supplement to the attention duty point of view, the two are not consistent, the business judgment rule is a rule of judicial review standards rather than the rule. The attention set duty and business judgment rule of the two objective, standard, applicable occasions are not the same, the business judgment rule is not exempt from liability for negligence means directors violate duty, the function of duty of care is to be added, the court excluded to the board of directors is a violation of the duty of the substantive examination standards of justice.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.29

【参考文献】