政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/145843

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/145843

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 113324/144300 (79%)
Visitors : 51132023 Online Users : 875

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大典藏 > College of Law > Department of Law > Theses > Item 140.119/145843

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/145843

Title:	董事監督義務之紅線—揉合風險管理之觀點 The red line of director’s duty of oversight, combined with a perspective of risk management
Authors:	張哲愷 Chang, Che-Kai
Contributors:	方嘉麟彭金隆 Faung, Kai-Lin Peng, Jin-Lung 張哲愷 Chang, Che-Kai
Keywords:	董事監督義務公司治理內部控制風險管理商業風險經營判斷法則商業判斷法則 Duty of Monitor/Duty of Oversight Corporate Governance Risk Management Business Risk Internal Control Business Judgement Rule
Date:	2023
Issue Date:	2023-07-06 16:42:50 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本文研究方法包含比較法學與跨領域研究。就前者而言，本文將比對美國、英國與台灣三國於董事監督義務之司法實務發展，並將之具體涵攝至相同案例中，促成比較法之對話，避免個說其詞；於後者而言，本文將揉合風險管理的思維，更具體地描繪董事監督義務之紅線。本文認為，董事監督義務之具體內涵應分為兩個層次討論，分別為「取得資訊之前提」與「取得資訊質的要求」。前者而言，董事應本於企業風險管理Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)之思維建立合理資訊通報系統，並於系統有效性層面，因董事分配資源事涉企業文化與風險趨避程度，法院應參酌經營判斷法則 (business judgement rule, BJR) 之精神予以尊重；後者而言，融合內控四道防線與風險管理之精神，董事對於取得資訊的品質也應監督，並且其義務將因風險之性質而有差異。申言之，如董事獲知經驗上得以量化之客觀風險，應監督下屬提出成本效益數據，以供董事充足資訊得以權衡如何將風險控制於風險胃納之下；反之，如董事獲知客觀上不具經驗數據可據量化之主觀風險，此時董事之監督義務應著重於詢問義務，對於風險質化之表達進一步詢問，使自身具備充足資訊為決策。在Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Enterprise Risk Management Integrating with Strategy and Performance 2017整合策略制定與風險管理的思潮下，董事無疑更應監督商業風險，其中併購風險即為典型。董事如已盡監督併購風險之義務，應認併購決策已具「充足資訊」，決策應受經營判斷法則保護，即便董事之決策超越風險胃納，亦或是併購綜效不如預期，法院也不應持後見之明事後審查其決策，以避免扼殺董事為股東創造財富最大化勇於冒險的精神。 The research methods of this thesis include the legal method of Comparative Law and Transdisciplinary Research. At the former, this thesis compares the developments of judicial practices at the area of director’s duty of oversight/supervise in United States of America, United Kingdom and Taiwan respectively. Moreover, in order to observe the pros and cons, this thesis respectively applicate these three different judicial standards into the same case and scenario. At the latter, this thesis combines the viewpoints of risk management with the judicial practices that illustrating the red line of director’s duty of oversight/supervise more concrete. In my viewpoints, director’s duty of oversight/supervise should specifically discuss in two levels, which are “the premise on receiving information” and “the demanding quality of information”. At the former, first, directors should construct a reasonable information and reporting system based on the concept of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). Second, directors should make sure the abovementioned system are effective. More importantly, when it comes to the issue of “effective system”, the judicial court should comply with the value of business judgement rule (BJR) since “how effective it should be” related to enterprise resources distribution highly intertwined with enterprise culture and the attitude of risk taking. At the latter, due to directors are the last gate keeper in the four lines of defense for internal control, directors must oversight the quality of receiving information. In addition, the formation of the duty depends on the nature of risk. To be specific, if directors receive objective information, which is able to be quantified, directors have the duty to make sure subordinates provide cost-benefit data, supporting themselves making informed risk management decision controlling the risk to be acceptable. On the contrary, if directors receive subjective information, which is unable to be quantified, directors have the duty to make inquiry with respect to the qualitative narrative, supporting themselves to reach informed decision. In the context of integrating risk management and decision making referred to Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Enterprise Risk Management Integrating with Strategy and Performance 2017, directors indeed and indubitably have the duty to oversee business risk, among which M&A risks are typical. Under the condition that directors have overseen M&A risks, the M&A decision is an informed decision and protected by business judgement rule even if the decision is out of the scope of risk appetite or the M&A synergy is not achieved as expected. In this scenario, judicial court should not second guess the failure decision otherwise wiping out the spirit of directors to maximize shareholders’ value.
Reference:	Christine Hurt, THE DUTY TO MANAGE RISK, 39 J. Corp. L. 253 Dennis J. Block, Nancy E. Barton and Stephen A. Radin, The business judgment rule: fiduciary duties of corporate, 5th Edition (1998) Effective Enterprise Risk Oversight The Role of the Board of Directors 2009, https://www.wlrk.com/docs/COSOBoardsERM4pager-FINALRELEASEVERSION82409001.pdf (last review date : 2023/2/23) Eric J. Pan, RETHINKING THE BOARD`S DUTY TO MONITOR: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DELAWARE DOCTRINE, 38 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 209 Financial Reporting Council, Guidance on Risk Management, Internal Control and Related Financial and Business Reporting, September 2014. Flicia Rimin and Imbarine Bujang et al. The effect of a separate risk management committee (RMC) towards firms’ performances on consumer goods sector in Malaysia, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, 202, pp. 1200-1216 French, Derek.; Mayson, Stephen W.; Ryan, Christopher, Mayson, French and Ryan on company law. Oxford University Press (2010). GAIZKA ORMAZABAL, ARE RISKY BOARDS GETTING RISKIER? Risk Oversight: What Every Director Should Know, IESE insight issue 28, first quarter 2016, 23-28. In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959. (Del. Ch. 1996) In re Citigroup Inc. S`holder Derivative Litigation, 964 A.2d 106. (Del. Ch. 2009) JEFFREY D. BAUMAN, CORPORATIONS LAW AND POLICY: MATERIALS AND PROBLEMS 644 (7th ed. 2010) Mayson, French & Ryan on Company Law, Oxford University Press, 27th Edition 2010-2011. McElrath v. Kalanick, 224 A.3d 982, 986 (Del. 2020) Nava Subramaniam et al. Corporate governance, firm characteristics and risk management committee formation in Australian companies, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, 2009, pp. 316-339 Paul Sweeting, Financial Enterprise Risk Management, Cambridge University Press, Second Edition 2017. Raithatha v. Baig & Ors. [2017] EWHC 2059 (Ch). Randy J. Holland（著），陳春山（等譯）（2011），《美國公司法──德立瓦州公司法經典案例選輯》。 Re Barings plc and others (No 5), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Baker and others (No 5). [1999] 1 BCLC 433. Robert T. Miller, OVERSIGHT LIABILITY FOR RISK-MANAGEMENT FAILURES AT FINANCIAL FIRMS, 84 S. Cal. L. Rev. 47 Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow, 2004 WL 1640372 (2004) Stephen M. Bainbridge, Caremark and Enterprise Risk Management, 34 J. CORP. L. 967 Stephen M. Bainbridge, Corporate Law, Third Edition, Foundation Press (2015). Stephen M. Bainbridge, The New Corporate Governance in Theory and Practice Oxford University Press, (2008). 上市上櫃公司風險管理實務守則，2022 年 8 月 8 日，金管會公布。方歆婷，企業風險管理董事會扮要角，工商時報，2022年10月21日。https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20221021000202-260202?chdtv（最後瀏覽日：2023年2月25日）方嘉麟主編，企業併購理論與實務， 2021年1月。方嘉麟主編，變動中的公司法制：17堂案例學會《公司法》，2018年10月。王怡心等編譯，企業風險管理：整合策略與績效，中華民國內部稽核協會出版，2018年3月。台灣併購與私募股權協會，併購流程。 https://mapect.com/knowledge_organ_pra01.php　（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月17日）台灣證券交易所，風險管理較佳參考範例。周振鋒，論商業判斷法則於我國法制之適用—以企業併購法為中心，東海大學法學研究第52期，2017年8月，頁145-193。林國彬，董事忠誠義務與司法審查標準之研究—以美國德拉瓦州公司法為主要範圍，政大法學評論第 100 期， 2007 年 12 月，頁 135-214。馬秀如等編譯，企業風險管理—整合架構：應用技術，會計研究發展基金會、中華民國內部稽核協會共同出版，2006年12月。張心悌，員工違法行為之董事監督義務-評臺灣臺北地方法院 105年度訴字第4239號民事判決，月旦裁判時報第80期，2019 年 2 月，頁 19-24。許富寓，董事監督義務-責任之建構與監督機關之再思考，2021年6月。透視危機 : 有效辨識及處理危機的實務指南 / 麥斯.貝澤曼(Max H. Bazerman),麥可.華金斯(Michael D. Watkins)著；穆思婕譯 (2011) 郭大維，論美國公司法制下董事之監督義務—一個比較法上的思考，東海大學法學研究第57期，2019年5月，頁87-125。陳清祥，公司治理的十堂必修課：一次看懂董事會如何為公司把關、興利及創造價值，經濟日報，經濟日報，2019年3月初版。陳清祥，風險管理與內部控制的 15 堂必修課，經濟日報，2022 年 5 月初版。曾宛如，公司法制基礎理論與再建構，2017年8月。曾宛如，董事忠實義務於台灣實務上之實踐—相關判決之觀察，月旦民商法雜誌，2010年9月，頁145-156。黃志明，完全失能的風險管理委員會，當代法律第 8 卷，2022 年 8 月，頁 164-175 黃偉權，天下雜誌443期，台灣企業十大併購戰略。https://www.cw.com.tw/index.php/article/5000534（最後瀏覽日：2023年5月17日）劉連煜，現代公司法，2018年9月增訂13版。劉連煜，董事責任與經營判斷法則的運用—從我國司法判決看經營判斷法則的發展，財金法學研究，第3卷第1期，2020年3月，頁1-34。蔡昌憲，從內控制度及風險管理之國際規範趨勢論我國的公司治理法制，兼論董事監督義務之法律移植，臺大法學論叢第 41 卷第 4 期，2012 年 12 月，頁 1819-1896。蔡昌憲，從經濟觀點論企業風險管理與董事監督義務，中研院法學期刊第 12 期，2013 年 3 月，第 79-152 頁。蔡昌憲、陳乃瑜，內部控制制度、董事監督義務及薪資報酬委員會⎯評最高法院九十八年度台上字第一三○二號民事判決，月旦法學雜誌第 203 期，2012 年 4 月，頁220-228。蔡昌憲，董事會之永續治理角色與董事監督義務，臺灣財經法學論叢 5 卷 1 期，2023年1月，頁155-218。鄭燦堂，風險管理理論與實務，2014 年 10月六版。獨立董事及審計委員會行使職權參考指引，社團法人中華公司治理協會，2022 年 9 月。賴逸涵，論公開發行公司董事之監督義務— 從內控制度與資訊通報系統為中心，2021年10月。
Description:	碩士國立政治大學法律學系 108651011
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108651011
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Law] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
101101.pdf		2290Kb	Adobe PDF2	149	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - Feedback