本文選題：經(jīng)營判斷規(guī)則 + 董事注意義務(wù)　； 參考：《煙臺大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：董事是公司財(cái)產(chǎn)管理和經(jīng)營的受托人或受信人,他們必須對公司“盡職”,這就是公司法和公司章程規(guī)定的注意義務(wù)。董事注意義務(wù)作為一種法律約束機(jī)制,有維護(hù)財(cái)產(chǎn)安全和提高資本運(yùn)作效率的法律價(jià)值,但也暴露出忽略董事合法權(quán)益和阻礙公司追求利益最大化的缺陷。而經(jīng)營判斷規(guī)則實(shí)現(xiàn)了董事和公司利益之間的均衡,彌補(bǔ)了傳統(tǒng)董事注意義務(wù)的不足,一定程度上協(xié)調(diào)了兩種價(jià)值之間的沖突,并通過實(shí)行行為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與司法審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相分離,以及推定規(guī)則和證明責(zé)任分配的制度實(shí)現(xiàn)了對傳統(tǒng)董事注意義務(wù)的修正。我國2005年修訂的《公司法》明確規(guī)定了董事的注意義務(wù),采用的表述方式為董事的“勤勉義務(wù)”,但對董事注意義務(wù)的內(nèi)容和行為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等都未作明確的規(guī)定,對在美國、英國、德國、日本公司法中已經(jīng)日趨成熟的經(jīng)營判斷規(guī)則也只字未提。我國公司法中的董事注意義務(wù)相對于其它國家而言是傳統(tǒng)的董事注意義務(wù)。通過實(shí)證分析也可以發(fā)現(xiàn)我國司法實(shí)踐中董事違反注意義務(wù)的案件也時(shí)有涌現(xiàn),倘若我國能克服經(jīng)營判斷規(guī)則在我國的實(shí)行障礙而將此規(guī)則引入,勢必會對我國注意義務(wù)的完善起到不小的助力。
[Abstract]:Directors are the trustees or fiduciaries of the management and operation of the company's property. They must "do their duty" to the company, which is the duty of care stipulated in the Company Law and the articles of Association. As a kind of legal restraint mechanism, directors' duty of care has the legal value of maintaining property security and improving the efficiency of capital operation, but it also exposes the defects of neglecting the directors' legitimate rights and interests and hindering the company from pursuing the maximization of interests. The rule of business judgment realizes the balance between directors and company interests, makes up for the deficiency of traditional directors' duty of care, coordinates the conflict between the two values to a certain extent, and separates the standard of conduct from the standard of judicial review. The rules of presumption and the system of burden of proof distribution realize the revision of traditional directors' duty of care. The Company Law revised in 2005 clearly stipulates the duty of care of directors and adopts the expression of "duty of diligence" of directors. However, the contents and standards of directors' duty of care are not clearly stipulated, and there are no clear provisions on the duty of care in the United States and Britain. Germany, Japan's company law has become increasingly mature business judgment rules are not mentioned. The duty of care of directors in our company law is the traditional duty of care compared with other countries. Through the empirical analysis, we can also find that the cases of directors violating the duty of care also appear in our judicial practice. If our country can overcome the obstacles to the implementation of the rules of business judgment in our country, we can introduce this rule into our country. It will certainly help to improve the duty of care in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：煙臺大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D922.291.91
，

本文編號：1869539