查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 公司外部董事於法律上之任務=Legal Duty of the Independent Director |
---|---|
作 者 | 蔡宏瑜; | 書刊名 | 玄奘法律學報 |
卷 期 | 9 2008.06[民97.06] |
頁 次 | 頁1-50 |
分類號 | 587.253 |
關鍵詞 | 獨立董事; 資深執行幹部; 無利害關係之董事; 重要關係; 責任賠償; 美國公認會計師協會; 紐約證券交易所; 全美證券業協會; 設置諮詢委員會; 監察基準要項; 獨立性基準委員會; 一般所承認之檢查基準; 安全港口規則; 濫訴; 毒藥方法; 無益性; 構造取向; 獨立審查員; Independent director; Senior executive; Non-affiliated director or disinterested director; Signification relationship; Indemnification; American institute of certified public accountant; AICPA; NYSE; National association of securities dealers; NASD; Blue Ribbon committee; Statement of auditing standard; SAS; Independent standard board; Generally accepted auditing standards; DAAS; Rule of safe port; Strike suit; Poison pill; Demand futility; Structural bias; Panel; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 歐美各國,乃至近年之日本,對於大規模公開發行股份公司之經營體系,莫不加以關注與研究。一直以來,公司治理之議題,著重於對於公司經營者是否善盡監督機能,以及如何改善公司經營效率性與確保公司經營適法性之兩大目的。為達到此類目的,美國所採取之外部董事制度,各國就公司治理問題上,其有相當之評價。 當然,公司治理之問題,並非僅限於設置外部董事之議題上。本文試圖以美國外部董事與公司治理之議題為題材,探究是否任何經營管理及監督系統,皆有可能達到股份有限公司之經營效率性及經營適法性。我國之鄰近國家日本,對於公司治理原則之研究,於近幾年亦有顯著之發展,尤其於平成17年商法修正,更積極研究及討論。 然而,外部董事對於公司經營究竟具有何種任務,仍莫衷一是。理由在於外部董事之運用,對於公司之經營果真良好?外部董事與傳統公司董事之職務有何差異?對於外部董事制度之優劣,各種論點錯綜複雜,設置外部董事之目的究竟為何,仍無法明確說明。何種經營模式最適合公司治理,完全依存外部董事制度,過針對企業經營較為適當?適用此制度之企業,比例仍較偏低。 本文希企透過美國之法律制度、學說見解之學習,能對於公司治理原則與適用外部董事制度之關連性,多所了解。 本文主要首將美國之公司治理議題作初步整理,概略介紹公司董事會與外部董事之制度,期待能對外部董事制度更趨明確之了解;並藉由此一研究,探究監督公司治理之有效性。 |
英文摘要 | The Anglo-American legal system traditionally does not adopt the “Prudent Person’s Duty of Care” in the governing of corporate owners or board members as in the Continental legal system. This mainly is due to the Continental legal system’s assigning and representing concept is not applicable in the Anglo-American legal system. So the Anglo-American courts generally regulate corporate owners or board members on the duty of care and fiduciary duty in their executing of corporate responsibilities. After World War Ⅱ Japan incorporate the Anglo-American’s “duty of care” into its newly amended business laws. This action later caused theoretical debate over how to differentiate the “duty of care” and the “finduciary duty” of prudent persons. So in the first part of this paper, we will try to distinguisth “duty of care” and “finduciary duty” in the Japanese business laws. Taiwan amend its Corporate laws in 2001 with the adding of “fiducimy duty” principle but the terms used were “fiduciary business execution”. This paper will try tto analyze the differences of the two terms. Also in this paper I will introduce definitions from several US articles on the “Business Judgment Rule” of the fiduciary duty, and on to in what circumstances the corporate owners and board members will be proteced by applying the business judgment rule. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。