BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5937/spz64-25007Keywords:
pravilo poslovne procene, odgovornost direktora, dužnost pažnje, sukob interesaAbstract
In this paper the author shows the shortcomings of the business judgment rule in the Serbian Company Act. Business judgment rule is a judicially created American doctrine that has gained widespread popularity in other countries. The trend of legal transplanting has not bypassed our country, and for this reason it is very important to define this rule and to properly understand the reason for its existence. Because of that the first part of this paper is dedicated to analysing the onset and deployment of this specific rule. Although the core of this paper is aimed at defining the subset of people who are protected by this rule, it is as well aimed at determining the precedents needed to get this protection mechanism operational. These conditions actually construct duty of care and are used to define the business judgment rule, and are not unanimously accepted in all law systems. In the paper these conditions have been individually analysed: 1. business decision; 2. absence of conflict of interest; 3. good faith; 4. informed decisions making; 5. the care of a prudent business person and 6. honest belief that the decision was in the company’s best interest. The final segment of this paper shows the reverse distribution of the burden of proof which undermines the eficiency of the protective role of the business judgment rule.
Downloads
References
Branson, D. 2002. The Rule that isn’t rule – The business judgment rule. Valparaiso University Law Review, 36(3), pp. 63 1-654.
Du Plessis, J. 2019. Directors’ duty to Act in Best Interests of the Corporation: ’Hard Cases Make Bad Law’. Australian Journal of Corporate Law, 34, pp. 1-26.
Hansmannh, H. & Kraakman, R. 2005. Agency Problems and Legal Strategies. In: Kraakman, R., et al., (eds.), The Anatomy of Corporate Law – A Comparative and Functional Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2 1-63.
Hopt, J. K. 1992. Director’s Duties to Shareholders, Employees, and Other Creditors: A view from the Continent. In: McKendrick, E. (ed.), Commercial Aspects of Trusts and Fiduciary Obligations. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 115-132.
Horak, H. & Dumančić, K. 2008. Pravilo poslovne procene u hrvatskom i pravu SAD. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 29(2), pp. 975-1008.
Ignjatović, M. & Šutova, M. 2013. Klasifikacija pravnih poslova u rimskom i savremenom pravu. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu. , 64, pp. 179-198.
Jennifer, G. H. & Yablon. M. C. 2002. Corporate Governance and Executive Remuneration: Rediscovering Managerial Positional Conflict. Vanderbilt University Law School, Working Paper No. 03-02. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Law School.
Lepetić, J. 2014. Kompanijskopravni režim sukoba interesa. Doktorska disertacija. Beograd: Pravni fakultet u Beogradu.
Markus R. 2013. Corporate Boards in Germany. In: Davies P., Hopt, K. Nowak, R. & Van Solinge, G. (eds.), Corporate Boards in law and practice: A comparative analysis in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321- 358.
Martínez, G. A. 2015. La cuestionada deseabilidad económica de la business judgment rule en el derecho español. Working Paper Series. Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad CEU San Pablo.
McMillan, L. 2013. The Business Judgment Rule as an Immunity Doctrine. William & Mary Business Law Review, 4(2), pp. 52 1-574.
Radović, V. 2008. Uticaj agencijskih problema na pravo akcionarskih društava i korporativno upravljanje. U: Vasiljević, M. & Radović, V. (ur.), Korporativno upravljanje. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, pp. 235-265.
Radović, V. 2011. Naknada članovima up rave akcionarskog društva – preporuke dobre prakse korporativnog upravljanja. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Rosenberg, D. 2005. Making sense of good faith in Delaware Corporate Fiduciary Law: A Contractarian Approach. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 29(2), pp. 491-516.
Renee, M. J. 2010. The Role of Good Faith in Delaware: How Open-Ended Standards Help Delaware Preserve Its Edge. New York Law School Law Review, 55(2), pp. 499-522.
Stepanović Graić, S. 2008. Pravilo (adekvatne) poslovne procene. Pravo i privreda, 5-8, pp. 299-3 12.
Vasiljević, M. 2009. Korporativno upravljanje i agencijski problemi (I deo). Anali Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu, 57(1), pp. 5-24.
Vasiljević, M. 2013. Korporativno upravljanje – izabrane teme. Beograd: Udruženje pravnika u privredi Republike Srbije.
Vasiljević, M. 2005. Kompanisjko pravo (pravo privrednih društava Srbije i EU). Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Zwinge, T. 2011. An Analysis of the Duty of Care in the United Kingdom in Comparison with the German Duty of Care. International Company and Commercial Law Review, 20(1), pp. 31-41.
Internet izvori
Ashraf, Z. 2001. The position of the Business judgment rule in deferent corporate cultures: a study and analysis, Institute of Law. Dostupno na: http://digitol.library.mcgill.ca/ webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs= 1549733565019~489, (5.2.2019).
Giraldo, L. & Carlos, A. 2006. Factores que gobiernan la aplicación de la regla del juicio comercial: un estudio comparado de los Estados Unidos, el Reino Unido, Australia y la Unión Europea. Colombia: Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá, 55(111), pp. 115-166. Dostupno na: https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/vnijuri/article/ view/14661, (15.2.2019).
Quinn, J. 2019. The Sustainable Corporate Objective: Rethinking Directors’ Duties. Sustainability, 11(23). Dostupno na: https://www.mdpi.com/207 1-1050/11/23/6734, (29.1.2020).
Pravni izvori
Australijski Zakon o akcionarskim društvima (Corporations Act) iz 2001. godine.
Kodeks korporativnog upravljanja Privredne komore Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 99/2012.
Švajcarski Zakon o obligacijama (Obligationenrecht) iz 1911. godine.
Španski Zakon o društvima kapitala (Ley de Sociedades de Capital) iz 2010. godine, «BOE» núm. 161, de 03/07/20 10.
Zakon o obligacionim odnosima, Službeni list SFRJ, br. 29/1978, 39/1985 i 57/1989, Službeni list SRJ, br. 31/1993, 22/1999, Službeni list SCG, br. 1/2003 – Ustavna povelja i Službeni glasnik RS, br. 18/2020.
Zakon o parničnom postupku, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 72/2011, 49/20 13, 73/20 13, 55/20 14, 87/20 18 i 18/2020.
Zakon o privrednim društvima, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 125/2004.
Zakon o privrednim društvima, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 36/2011, 99/2011, 83/20 14, 5/2015, 44/2018 i 95/2018 i 91/2019.
Sudska praksa
Aronson v. Lewis, presuda Supreme Court of Delaware od 1. 3. 1984, 473 A.2d 805 (1984).
Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., presuda Supreme Court of Delaware od 22. 10. 1993, 884 A.2d 26 (Del. 2005).
Charitable Corp. v. Sutton, presuda Court of Chancery od 13. 8. 1742, (1742) 26 ER 642. Percy v. Millaudon, presuda Louisiana Supreme Court od 1. 4. 1828, 8 Mart. (n.s.) 68 (La. 1829).
Smith v. Van Gorkom, presuda Supreme Court of Delaware od 29. 1. 1985, 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Foreign Legal Life
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Institute of Comparative Law
