查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 董事受託義務內涵與類型的再思考--從監督義務與守法義務的比較研究出發
- 董事法制的移植與衝突--兼論「外部董事免責」作為法制移植的策略
- 保險業董事與經理人的監督義務與注意義務--以與利害關係人從事放款以外之其他交易為例
- 董事之監督義務--兆豐銀行遭美國紐約州金融服務署裁罰一.八億美元案之省思
- 資本市場與企業法制座談暨學術研討會:法律移植的契機與再思考--忠實義務探討
- 法律移植的契機與挑戰--以公司法的受託、注意與忠實義務為中心
- 美國信託法「受託義務」與「證券投資」:以注意義務及忠實義務為中心
- 日本董事注意義務之研究
- 股東代表訴訟可否對已卸任之董監事提起?--最高法院106年度臺上字第2420號民事判決評析
- 董事違反勤勉義務的責任範圍
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 董事受託義務內涵與類型的再思考--從監督義務與守法義務的比較研究出發=Rethinking the Director's Fiduciary Duty--A Comparative Study on Duty to Monitor and Duty to Obey Law |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 邵慶平; | 書刊名 | 臺北大學法學論叢 |
卷期 | 66 2008.06[民97.06] |
頁次 | 頁1-43 |
分類號 | 587.2 |
關鍵詞 | 受託義務; 注意義務; 忠實義務; 誠信義務; 監督義務; 守法義務; 股東最大利益; Fiduciary duty; Duty of care; Duty of loyalty; Duty of good faith; Duty to monitor; Duty of legal compliance; Maximization of shareholder wealth; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 自二○○一年公司法修正後,董事受託義務的概念在我國獲得明確的肯認。雖然學界對此已有許多討論,惟對於注意義務及忠實義務的內涵及適用,還沒有完全一致的看法。本文對於公司不法行為中董事責任的探討,希望能對受託義務體系的釐清,有所助益。在蓋事主導參與的公司不法行為中,董事是否違反其守法義務?若該不法行為目的係在追求股東之最大利益,對董事之責任又應有如何之影響?在董事未主導參與,而不知悉的類型中,未能發現此一不法行為的存在,會否使得董事須對公司所受損害負賠償之責?吾人又應如何界定此一監督義務的要求? 在比較、對照美國實務及我國法制後,本文認為傳統上將監督義務及守法義務歸類為注意義務之下位類型的作法頗有疑義。而從美國法制近年來的演變,吾人更可發現「誠信義務」、「忠實義務」等概念在受託義務體系下所扮演的重要角色。就此而言,未來台灣如何能夠發展出相類似的功能性概念,將是影響受託義務的法制移植成敗的一個重要關鍵。 |
英文摘要 | Since the enactment of Company Law Revisions in 2001, the director 's fiduciary duty has been statutorily recognized in Taiwan. While much ink has been spilled discussing this new rule, the contours and applications of duty of care and loyalty have not been resolved. Intent on shedding some light on the framework of fiduciary duty, this paper focuses on director's civil liabilities arising from corporate illegality. In cases where directors are directly involved in illegal activities, do directors violate their duty of legal compliance? What if the illegal activities are expected to enhance the wealth of shareholders? In other cases where such activities are made without directors' knowledge, whether the failure to discover the unlawful behavior may has the directors liable for the damage caused to the corporation? How do we define director's duty to monitor? Juxtaposing U.S. case laws with Taiwan's regime, this paper argues that the duties mentioned above do not fit with the concept of duty of care as conventional wisdom in Taiwan suggests. It is observed that the concept of “duty of good faith”, “duty of loyalty” is hatched or broadened to fill the void in U.S. in recent years. How Taiwan can develop a functional convergence toward U.S. would decide the outcome of the legal transplant in fiduciary duty. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。