The American Misconstruction of Director Fiduciary Accountability

Q2 Social Sciences European Business Law Review Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.54648/eulr2022035
Robert Flannigan
{"title":"The American Misconstruction of Director Fiduciary Accountability","authors":"Robert Flannigan","doi":"10.54648/eulr2022035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern English and American corporate law was broadly fashioned in the nineteenth century. Oddly however, the courts of those two closely linked jurisdictions developed profoundly opposed views on a most basic matter. After some initial conflict in the cases, the English settled on the principle that directors are status fiduciaries only to their corporation. The Americans, with a comparable initial conflict in their cases, instead eventually settled on the notion that directors are status fiduciaries to shareholders. I track how that difference developed through the course of the nineteenth century. I also trace how fairness wrongly became an element of the American duty.\nDirector fiduciary duty, director duty to shareholders, corporate personality, joint stock company, centralised management, entire fairness, director duty to creditors","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2022035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Modern English and American corporate law was broadly fashioned in the nineteenth century. Oddly however, the courts of those two closely linked jurisdictions developed profoundly opposed views on a most basic matter. After some initial conflict in the cases, the English settled on the principle that directors are status fiduciaries only to their corporation. The Americans, with a comparable initial conflict in their cases, instead eventually settled on the notion that directors are status fiduciaries to shareholders. I track how that difference developed through the course of the nineteenth century. I also trace how fairness wrongly became an element of the American duty. Director fiduciary duty, director duty to shareholders, corporate personality, joint stock company, centralised management, entire fairness, director duty to creditors
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国人对董事受托责任的误解
现代英美公司法大致形成于19世纪。然而,奇怪的是,这两个密切相关的司法管辖区的法院在一个最基本的问题上产生了截然相反的观点。在经历了最初的一些冲突之后,英国人最终确定了一项原则,即董事仅是其公司的身份受托人。美国人最初也有类似的冲突,但最终接受了董事是股东身份受托人的观念。我追溯了这种差异在19世纪是如何发展的。我还追溯了公平是如何错误地成为美国义务的一个要素的。董事的信义义务、董事对股东的义务、公司人格、股份有限公司、集中管理、完全公平、董事对债权人的义务
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Business Law Review
European Business Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
期刊最新文献
Article: Legislation Comment: Considerations on the Digital Markets Act, the Way to a Fair and Open Digital Environment Article: Open-Price Contracts Under the CISG: The Law in Action Article: EU Law and the Member States’ Competence to Regulate the Operation of Collaborative Economy Platforms – Where Do We Stand after the Digital Services Act Article: The Systemic Importance of Asset Managers: A Case Study for the Future of SIFI Regulation Article: Codes of Conduct in German Employment Relationships – A Measure to Adequately Implementing Compliance and Data Protection?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1