授权和董事对他人业绩的依赖——基于国际最佳实践的2008年公司法分析

Brighton M Mupangavanhu
{"title":"授权和董事对他人业绩的依赖——基于国际最佳实践的2008年公司法分析","authors":"Brighton M Mupangavanhu","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a8994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"South Africa has included in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act), provisions dealing with directors' delegation and reliance on the performance of others for their (the directors') own performance. In keeping with their role of managing the affairs of the company in terms of section 66(1) of the Act, directors must make decisions in the best interests of the company. Given the company board's strategic role in the company governance, as opposed to the day-to-day management done by the executive management, directors must rely on the performance of others to fulfil their role. These \"others\" include professional experts and company employees who can either provide guidance/specialist advice or to whom the board may delegate certain powers and authority to perform certain functions geared towards providing the board with a basis for decision-making. This article in the main interrogates the question whether South Africa has now established globally competitive legal standards of directors' delegation and reliance on the performance of others in line with company law reform objectives prior to 2008. One such objective is ensuring compatibility and harmonisation of the new company law with the best practice jurisdictions internationally as a way of promoting the global competitiveness of the South African economy. In this respect this article examines relevant laws in two foreign jurisdictions to provide a comparative aspect to the relevant South African company law aspects. First the article very briefly examines English law, which provides South Africa with its common law heritage of the duty of care, and it is argued that reliance and delegation relate to the irreducible minimum standard of care and the standard to exercise independent judgment. An examination of Australian statutory provisions on reliance and delegation is followed by a critical evaluation of reliance and delegation in section 76(4)(b)-(5) of the Companies Act 2008. It is concluded that South Africa has established globally competitive principles of reliance and delegation. Nonetheless, there are gaps in statutory reliance and delegation provisions under the Act, and lessons can be drawn from the best practices in Australian statutory and case law. Firm suggestions are made on how the gaps can be plugged and how the legal standards can be further tightened to enhance the global competitiveness of South African company law.","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delegation and Directors' Reliance on the Performance of Others – A Companies Act 2008 Analysis in the Light of International Best Practices\",\"authors\":\"Brighton M Mupangavanhu\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a8994\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"South Africa has included in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act), provisions dealing with directors' delegation and reliance on the performance of others for their (the directors') own performance. In keeping with their role of managing the affairs of the company in terms of section 66(1) of the Act, directors must make decisions in the best interests of the company. Given the company board's strategic role in the company governance, as opposed to the day-to-day management done by the executive management, directors must rely on the performance of others to fulfil their role. These \\\"others\\\" include professional experts and company employees who can either provide guidance/specialist advice or to whom the board may delegate certain powers and authority to perform certain functions geared towards providing the board with a basis for decision-making. This article in the main interrogates the question whether South Africa has now established globally competitive legal standards of directors' delegation and reliance on the performance of others in line with company law reform objectives prior to 2008. One such objective is ensuring compatibility and harmonisation of the new company law with the best practice jurisdictions internationally as a way of promoting the global competitiveness of the South African economy. In this respect this article examines relevant laws in two foreign jurisdictions to provide a comparative aspect to the relevant South African company law aspects. First the article very briefly examines English law, which provides South Africa with its common law heritage of the duty of care, and it is argued that reliance and delegation relate to the irreducible minimum standard of care and the standard to exercise independent judgment. An examination of Australian statutory provisions on reliance and delegation is followed by a critical evaluation of reliance and delegation in section 76(4)(b)-(5) of the Companies Act 2008. It is concluded that South Africa has established globally competitive principles of reliance and delegation. Nonetheless, there are gaps in statutory reliance and delegation provisions under the Act, and lessons can be drawn from the best practices in Australian statutory and case law. Firm suggestions are made on how the gaps can be plugged and how the legal standards can be further tightened to enhance the global competitiveness of South African company law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a8994\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a8994","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

南非在2008年第71号公司法(以下简称《公司法》)中纳入了有关董事委托和依赖他人履行其(董事)自身业绩的条款。根据《公司法》第66(1)条,董事必须根据公司的最大利益作出决定,以履行其管理公司事务的职责。鉴于公司董事会在公司治理中的战略作用,而不是执行管理层所做的日常管理,董事必须依靠其他人的表现来履行他们的角色。这些“其他人”包括专业专家和公司员工,他们可以提供指导/专业建议,或者董事会可以授权给他们某些权力和权力,以履行某些职能,为董事会提供决策依据。本文主要探讨的问题是,南非现在是否已经建立了具有全球竞争力的董事授权法律标准,并根据2008年之前的公司法改革目标,依赖他人的表现。其中一个目标是确保新公司法与国际最佳实践司法管辖区的兼容性和协调性,以此作为促进南非经济全球竞争力的一种方式。在这方面,本文考察了两个外国司法管辖区的相关法律,为相关的南非公司法方面提供了一个比较方面。首先,本文简要地考察了英国法律,它为南非提供了注意义务的普通法遗产,并认为信赖和委托涉及不可简化的最低注意标准和行使独立判断的标准。在审查澳大利亚关于信赖和委托的法定条款之后,根据《2008年公司法》第76(4)(b)-(5)条对信赖和委托进行了批判性评估。结论是,南非建立了依赖和委托的全球竞争原则。尽管如此,该法在法定信赖和委托条款方面仍存在空白,可以从澳大利亚成文法和判例法的最佳做法中吸取教训。就如何填补差距和如何进一步收紧法律标准以提高南非公司法的全球竞争力提出了坚定的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Delegation and Directors' Reliance on the Performance of Others – A Companies Act 2008 Analysis in the Light of International Best Practices
South Africa has included in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act), provisions dealing with directors' delegation and reliance on the performance of others for their (the directors') own performance. In keeping with their role of managing the affairs of the company in terms of section 66(1) of the Act, directors must make decisions in the best interests of the company. Given the company board's strategic role in the company governance, as opposed to the day-to-day management done by the executive management, directors must rely on the performance of others to fulfil their role. These "others" include professional experts and company employees who can either provide guidance/specialist advice or to whom the board may delegate certain powers and authority to perform certain functions geared towards providing the board with a basis for decision-making. This article in the main interrogates the question whether South Africa has now established globally competitive legal standards of directors' delegation and reliance on the performance of others in line with company law reform objectives prior to 2008. One such objective is ensuring compatibility and harmonisation of the new company law with the best practice jurisdictions internationally as a way of promoting the global competitiveness of the South African economy. In this respect this article examines relevant laws in two foreign jurisdictions to provide a comparative aspect to the relevant South African company law aspects. First the article very briefly examines English law, which provides South Africa with its common law heritage of the duty of care, and it is argued that reliance and delegation relate to the irreducible minimum standard of care and the standard to exercise independent judgment. An examination of Australian statutory provisions on reliance and delegation is followed by a critical evaluation of reliance and delegation in section 76(4)(b)-(5) of the Companies Act 2008. It is concluded that South Africa has established globally competitive principles of reliance and delegation. Nonetheless, there are gaps in statutory reliance and delegation provisions under the Act, and lessons can be drawn from the best practices in Australian statutory and case law. Firm suggestions are made on how the gaps can be plugged and how the legal standards can be further tightened to enhance the global competitiveness of South African company law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies in Online Dispute Resolution: A Solution to Consumer Disputes in South Africa? Safeguarding the Rights of Children Living in Kinship Care in South Africa "Cause of Action": How Could the Supreme Court of Appeal Get it so Wrong? Olesitse v Minister of Police (SCA) (Unreported) Case No: 470/2021 of 15 June 2022 Navigating Reputational Risks: Cautionary Considerations for South African Banks in the Unilateral Termination of Bank-Customer Relationships An Overview of the Extent of the Powers of South African Competition Authorities in the Regulation of Price Discrimination under the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in the Context of Digital Transformation
×
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