政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/71004
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113325/144300 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51159046      線上人數 : 895
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/71004


    題名: 董事責任與經營判斷法則之運用與分析
    The Application and Analysis of the Directors` Duties and the Business Judgment Rule
    作者: 胡碧嬋
    Hu, Pi Chan
    貢獻者: 劉連煜
    Liu, Len Yu
    胡碧嬋
    Hu, Pi Chan
    關鍵詞: 經營判斷法則
    董事責任
    受託人義務
    忠誠義務
    注意義務
    善意義務
    the business judgment rule
    directors` duties
    fiduciary duties
    duty of loyalty
    duty of care
    duty of good faith
    日期: 2010
    上傳時間: 2014-11-03 10:12:53 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 經營判斷法則乃係確保公司負責人在處理公司業務時，若因此造成公司受有損害，可免於被追訴之法律機制。意即除非公司負責人明顯違反商業營運的重大規範，否則只要公司負責人處理業務時是以謹慎小心的態度為之，即可認定其已盡受託人義務，通常法院即不會為實質審查或質疑公司負責人所作的決定或交易。

    2001年時，我國公司法第23條第1項有作修正，使得公司負責人對於公司應踐行忠實義務及注意義務，且若公司負責人違反此等義務致公司受有損害，需負賠償責任。此一條文之修正，被視為係董事受託人義務(fiduciary duty)的正式引進。然而，除了公司法第23條針對受託人義務有所明文外，任何其他法律中有關受託人義務的明示條文均付之闕如。因此，我們只好用英美法制度中的經營判斷法則，來評斷公司負責人在為公司決策時，是否已踐行其受託人義務。在本研究當中，我們將對經營判斷法則作深入的檢視與剖析。

    近年來，在台灣有愈來愈多的法院，採用經營判斷法則作為裁判之依據。因此，對於經營判斷法則進行徹底的研究，相當具有建設性及必要性。又因為經營判斷法則的概念是源自於英美法制，本文將先介紹該法則之主要背景與相關概念，再討論經營判斷法則在美國與台灣之運用與發展。最後，有鑒於大陸法與英美法的法律制度迴異，本文將討論經營判斷法則在台灣運用時所面臨的困境與難題。
    The business judgment rule is a legal mechanism that can make the officers and directors of a corporation immune from liability to the corporation for losses incurred in corporate transactions within their authority so long as the transactions are made in good faith and with reasonable skill and prudence, which is so-called the fiduciary duties. Unless it is apparent that directors have manifestly violated some major rules of business conducts, the courts will not review or question the decisions or dealings made by the board of directors.

    In 2001, Article 23 of Company Act was amended, which is commonly regarded as the official introduction of fiduciary duties. The new version is to the effect that directors and officers shall exercise their discretion with duty of loyalty and duty of care when conducting business operation; directors and officers will be responsible for damages if they violate the duties and cause injury to the corporation. Nevertheless, apart from Article 23, there are not any other explicitly related articles or provisions regarding fiduciary duties in our legal system; therefore, we cannot but refer to the business judgment rule from the Anglo-American legal system in order to judge whether the directors fulfill their fiduciary duty when conducting business judgment. In this research, we will take a closer examination on the concept of the business judgment rule.

    In recent years, more and more courts in Taiwan have started to adopt the concepts of the business judgment rule in deciding cases. Therefore, it will be constructive and necessary to do a thorough investigation on that topic. Since the concept of the rule is borrowed from the Common Law, we will introduce the principal background and notions of the rule. Then, we will cover the application and development of the rule in America and in Taiwan. And then the difficulties and problems of its application in Taiwan due to the differences in the judicial systems will also be presented.
    "1 Introduction ……………………………………………………. 1
    1.1 Motivation for the research ………………………………… 1
    1.2 Purpose of the research ………………………………… 2
    1.3 Methodology ………………………………… 3
    1.4 Organization of the research ………………………………… 3

    2 Duties of the Directors ……………………………………………………. 5
    2.1 The introduction of fiduciary duties …………………………. 5
    2.1.1 Duty of care ……………………………………………… 6
    2.1.1.1 Prudent person standard …………………………. 7
    2.1.1.2 Duty to be informed …………………………. 8
    2.1.1.3 Statutory limitations on liability …………………… 9
    2.1.2 Duty of loyalty ……………………………………………… 10
    2.1.2.1 Conflict of Interest ………………………………… 10
    2.1.2.2 Corporate opportunity ……………………………….. 12
    2.1.3 Duty of good faith …………………………………………….. 13
    2.2 The codification of fiduciary duties in Taiwan ……………. 16
    2.3 Summary ……………………………………………………. 18

    3 The Business Judgment Rule ………………………………………. 19
    3.1 Definition of the Business Judgment Rule ……………. 19
    3.2 Origin ………………………………………………………….. 20
    3.3 Rationale ………………………………………………………….. 22
    3.4 Elements of the Business Judgment Rule ……………. 26
    3.4.1 Positive Elements ………………………………………. 26
    3.4.1.1 A business decision ………………………………… 27
    3.4.1.2 Disinterestedness and independence …………….. 28
    3.4.1.3 Due care ……………………………………….. 29
    3.4.1.4 Good faith ……………………………………….. 31
    3.4.1.5 No abuse of discretion …………………………………. 32
    3.4.2 Negative Elements ………………………………………… 34
    3.4.2.1 Fraud, illegality, ultra vires conduct ……………… 34
    3.4.2.2 Waste ………………………………………… 35
    3.5 The Codification of BJR ………………………………………… 36
    3.5.1 The Model Business Corporation Act ……………… 37
    3.5.2 Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendation ………………………………………… 40
    3.6 Criticisms to BJR ……………………………………………………… 42
    3.7 Summary ……………………………………………………… 46

    4 Cases with regard to BJR of America …………………………… 47
    4.1 Smith v. Van Gorkom ………………………………………… 48
    4.1.1 Case brief …….………………………………………… 48
    4.1.2 Holding …….………………………………………… 50
    4.1.3 Comments …….………………………………………… 50
    4.1.3.1 The reaction to Smith v. Van Gorkom ……….. 51
    4.1.3.2 The criticism to Smith v. Van Gorkom ……….. 53
    4.2 In re the Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation ……….. 55
    4.2.1 Case brief …….…………………………………………. 55
    4.2.2 Holding …….…………………………………………. 57
    4.2.3 Comments …….…………………………………………. 57
    4.3 In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation ………. 62
    4.3.1 Case brief ……..…………………………………………. 62
    4.3.2 Holding ……..…………………………………………. 63
    4.3.3 Comments …….…………………………………………. 63
    4.4 Summary ……………………………………………………… 67

    5 Cases with regard to BJR of Taiwan …………………………… 69
    5.1 92,su,4844 (Shih-lin District Court) …………………….. 69
    5.1.1 Case brief ……………………………………………….. 69
    5.1.2 Holding ……………………………………………….. 70
    5.1.3 Comments ……………………………………………..... 73
    5.2 93,zhongsu,144 (Taipei District Court) ……………………… 74
    5.2.1 Case brief ………………………………………………… 74
    5.2.2 Holding ………………………………………………… 75
    5.2.3 Comments ………………………………………………… 81
    5.3 98,taishang,1302 (Taiwan Supreme Court) ……………….. 82
    5.3.1 Case brief ………………………………………………... 82
    5.3.2 Holding ………………………………………………… 83
    5.3.3 Comments ………………………………………………… 84
    5.4 Summary ………………………………………………………. 86

    6 Conclusion ………………………………………………………. 89
    6.1 Findings ………………………………………………………. 89
    6.2 Suggestions ………………………………………………………. 91

    Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………. 95
    "
    參考文獻: English literature:
    Bainbridge, Stephen M., The Business Judgment Rule as Abstention Doctrine, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 83 (2004).
    Bauman, Jeffrey, Corporations: Law and Policy, Materials and Problems (7th ed. 2009).
    Berle, Adolf & Gardiner Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932).
    Brennan, Bartley A., Current Developments surrounding the Business Judgment Rule: A “Race to the Bottom” Theory of Corporate Law Revisited, 12 Whittier L. Rev. 229 (1991).
    Butler, Susan-Jacqueline, Models of Modern Corporations: A Comparative Analysis of German and U.S. Corporate Structure, 17 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 555 ( Fall 2000).
    Cohn, Stuart R., Demise of the Director’s Duty of Care: Judicial Avoidance of Standards and Sanctions Through the Business Judgment Rule, 62 Tex. L. Rev. 591 (1983).
    Condon, Creighton O’M., Keeping the “Good” Faith: The Evolving Duties -- and Potential Personal Liability -- of Corporate Directors, 7(2) M & A Law. 1 (June 2003).
    Dooley, Michael P. & Norman E. Veasey, The Role of the Board in Derivative Litigation: Delaware Law and the Current ALI Proposals Compared, 44 Bus. Law. 503 (1989).
    Dooley, Michael P., Not in the Corporation’s Best Interests, A.B.A. J. (May 1992).
    Easterbook, Frank H. & Daniel R. Fischel, The Economic Structure of Corporate Law, (1996).
    Eisenberg, Melvin A., Background Study for the California Law Revision Commission on Whether the Business-Judgment Rule Should Be Codified (1995).
    Eisenberg, Melvin A., The Duty of Good Faith in Corporation Law, 31 Del. J. of Corp. L. 1 (2006).
    Fischel, Daniel R., The Business-Judgment Rule and the Trans Union Case, 40 Bus. Law. 1437 (1985).
    Garner, Bryan A. (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).
    Godfrey, Cullen M., In re The Walt Disney Company Derivative Litigation: A New Standard for Corporate Minutes, 17 Bus. L. Today 47 (July/August 2008).
    Greenfield, Kent, The Failure of the Corporate Law: Fundamental Flaws and Progressive Possibilities (2006).
    Hamilton, Robert W., The Law of Corporations: in a Nutshell (2000).
    Horsey, Henry R., The Duty of Care Component of The Delaware Business Judgment Rule, 19 Del. J. Corp. L. 971 (1994).
    Huang, Han-che, 2007, The Analysis and Application of Business Judgment Rule Under Corporate Governance Structure, unpublished MA thesis of National Taiwan University.
    Leavell, Robert N., Corporate Social-Reform, The Business-Judgment Rule and Other Considerations, 20 Ga. L. Rev. 565 (1986).
    Liu, Len-yu, Directors’duties and the business judgment rule, 17 Cross-strait L. Rev. 178 (September, 2007).
    Liu, Len-yu, The judicial review of the fiduciary duties and independence of directors, 173 The Taiwan L. Rev. 129 (October, 2009).
    Li, Chiu-mei, 2009, A Study on the Business Judgment Rules, unpublished MA thesis of National Chiao-tung University.
    Lin, Yi-shen, 2007, The Business Judgment Rule: a Safe Harbor for Directors’ Liability, unpublished MA thesis of National Taipei University.
    MacAvoy, Paul W. & Ira Millstein, The Recurrent Crisis in Corporate Governance (2004).
    Proposed Model Bus. Corp. Act 8.31 Official Comments by the Committee on Corporate Laws, Changes in the Model Business Corporation Act-Amendments Pertaining to Electronic Fillings/ Standards of Conduct and Standards of Liability for Directors, 53 Bus. Law. 157 (1997).
    Radin, Stephen A. The Business Judgment Rule-Fiduciary Duties of Corporate Directors (6th ed. 2009).
    Ribstein, Larry E., & Letsou, Peter V., Business associations: Analysis and skills series (2003).
    Rosenberg, David, Supplying the Adverb: The Future of Corporate Risk-taking and the Business Judgment Rule, 6 Berkeley Bus. L.J. 216 (2009).
    Shaffer, Andrew D., Corporate Fiduciary-Insolvent: The Fiduciary Relationship Your Corporate Law Professor (Should Have) Warned You About, 8 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 479 (Winter 2000).
    Solomon, Lewis D. & Alan R. Palmiter, Corporations: Examples and Explanations (3rd ed. 1999).
    Triem, Fred W., Judicial Schizophrenia in Corporate Law Confusing the Standard of Care with the Business Judgment Rule. 24 Alaska L. Rev. 23 (June 2007).
    *Tseng, Wang-ruu, The Implication and Application of the Business Judgment Rule: Comments on the Revised Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Company Law, 38 Taiwan L.J. 95 (September, 2002).
    *Tseng, Wang-ruu, The application of directors’ fiduciary duties in Taiwan legal practice, 29 Cross-strait L. Rev. 145 (September, 2010).
    Veasey, Norman E., Duty of Loyalty: The Criticality of the Counselor’s Role, 45 Bus. Law. 2065 (1990).






    Cases:
    Abrams v. Allen, 74 N.E. 2d 305 (1947 N.Y. LEXIS 912).
    Accessories Corp. v. Summagraphics Corp., 425 A.2d 957 (Del. 1980).
    Air Line Pilots Ass`n, Intern. v. UAL, 717 F. Supp. 575 (1989).
    Allaun v. Consolidated Oil Co., 147 A.2d 257, 259 (Del. Ch. 1929).
    Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. Steel & Tube Co., 120 A. 486 (Del. Ch. 1923).
    Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (1984 Del., Lexis 305).
    Ashwander et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al., 297 U.S. 288, 56 S. Ct. 466, 80 L. Ed. 688 (1936).
    Bates v. Dresser, 251 U.S. 524, 40 S. Ct. 247 (1920).
    Beam v. Stewart, 833 A.2d 961 (Del. 2003), aff`d, 845 A.2d 104 (Del. 2004).
    Biondi v. Scrushy, 820 A.2d 1148 (Del. Ch. 2003).
    Brehem v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000).
    Brigges v. Spaulding, 141 U.S. 132 (1891).
    Caruso v. Metex Corp., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 96,967 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 1992).
    Casey v. Woodruff 49 N.Y. S. 2d 625 (1944 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 2167).
    Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 634 A.2d 345 (Del. 1993).
    Charitable Corp. v. Sutton, (1742) 26 ER 642.
    Cinerama, Inc v. Technicolor, Inc, 17 Del. J. Corp. L. 551 (Del. Ch. June 21, 1991).
    Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc. (Technicolor III”), 663 A.2d 1156 (Del. 1995).
    Citron v. Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp., 569 A.2d 56 (1989).
    Cole v. National Cash Credit Ass’n, 156 A. 183 (Del. Ch. 1931).
    Cuker v. Mikalauskas, 692 A.2d 1042 (1997).
    David B. Shaev Profit Sharing Account v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 1449-N, 2006 WL 391931 (Del. Ch. Feb. 13, 2006).
    Delta Star, Inc. v. Patton, 76 F. Supp. 2d 617 (1999 U.S. Dist.).
    Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley Leveraged Equity Fund, II, L.P., 624 A.2d
    (Del. 1993).
    Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919).
    Emerald Partner v. Berlin, 787 A.2d 85 (Del. Sup. Ct. 2001).
    Estate of Detwiler v. Offenbecher, 728 F. Supp. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
    Frances T. v. Villa Estate of Detwiler v. Offenbecher, 728 F. Supp. 103 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
    Francis v. United Jersey Bank, 87 N. J. 15, 432 A.2d 814 (N. J. 1981).
    Gagliardi v. TriFoods Int’l, Inc., 683 A.2d 1049 (1996).
    Gall v. Exxon Corp, 418 F. Supp. 508 (1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13846).
    Graham v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 188 A.2d 125 (Del. 1963).
    Grimes v. Donald, 20 Del. J. Corp. L. 757 (Del. Ch. 1995).
    Guth v. Loft., Inc., 5 A.2d 503 (Del. 1939).
    Hanson Trust PLC v. MLSCM Acquisition Inc., 781 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1986).
    Hilton Hotels Corp. v. ITT Corp., 978 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Nev. 1997).
    Hodges v. New England Screw Co., 1 R.I. 312 (1850).
    Hodges v. New England Screw Co., 3 R.I. 9 (1853).
    Homestore, Inc. v. Tafeen, 888 A.2d 204 (Del. 2005).
    In re Abbott Lab. Derivative S`holders Litig., 325 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2003).
    In re Caremark Int’l Inc. Deriv. Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996).
    In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., 964 A.2d 106 (Del. Ch., Feb. 24, 2009).
    In re Consumers Power Co. Derivative Litig., 132 F. R. D. 455 (E. D. Mich. 1990).
    In re Croton River Club, Inc., 52 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995).
    In re J.P. Stevens & Co. Shareholders Litig., 542 A.2d 770 (Del. Ch. 1988).
    In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig., 825 A.2d 275 (Del. Ch. 2003).
    In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig., 907A.2d 693 (Del. Ch. 2005).
    In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig., 906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006).
    Joy v. North, 692 F. 2d 880. (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1051 (1983).
    Kaplan v. Centex Corp., 284 A.2d 119 (Del. Ch. 1971).
    Kamin v. American Express Co., 86 Misc. 2d 809, 383 N.Y.S.2d 807 (Sup. Ct. 1976).
    Levine v. Smith, 591 A.2d 194 (Del. 1991).
    Lewis v. Fuqua, 502 A.2d 962 (Del. Ch. 1985).
    Lewis v. Vogelstein, 699 A.2d 327 (Del.Ch.1979).
    Lofland v. Cahall, 118 A. 1 (Del. 1922).
    Malpiede v. Townson, 780 A.2d 1075 (Del. 2001).
    Miller v. AT&T, 507 F.2d 759 (3d Cir. 1974).
    McCall v. Scott, 239 F.3d 808 (6th Cir. 2001).
    Percy v. Millaudon, 8 Mart. (n.s.) 68 (La. 1829).
    Potter v. Pohlad, 560 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
    Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927 (Del. 1993).
    Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986).
    Rosenfield v. Metals Selling Corp., 643 A.2d 1253 (Conn. 1994).
    Roth v. Robertson, 118 N.Y. 351 (1909 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 279).
    Saxe v. Brady, 184 A.2d 602 (Del. Ch. 1962).
    Shlensky v. Wrigley, 237 N.E.2d 776 (1968).
    Sinclair Oil Corp v. Levienu, 280 A.2d 805 (Del.1971).
    Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985).
    Solash v. Telex Corp., 13 Del. J. Corp. L.1250 (Del. Ch. 1988).
    Stepak v. Addition, 20 F.3d. 398 (11th Cir. 1994).
    Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362 (Del. Supr., 2006).
    Stoner v. Walsh, 772 F. Supp. 790 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
    Summit Metals, Inc. v. Gray, 2002 WL 1941118 (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2002).
    Texlon Corp. v. Meyerson, 802 A.2d 257 (Del. 2002).
    Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985).
    Usha Rodriques, The Fetishization of Independence, 33 J. Corp. L. 447 (2008).
    Van de Walle v. Unimation, Inc. Fed. Sec. 2 Rep. (CCH) 95 (Del. Ch. 1991).
    Washington Bancorp. v. Said, 812 F. Supp. 1256 (D.D.C. 1993).
    Weinberger v. UOP, 457 A.2d 701 (Del. 1993).
    Witters v. Sowles, 31 F. 1 (C.C. Vt. 1887).






    Chinese literature:
    王文宇，「公司法論」，元照出版，2003年10月。
    王文宇，「新公司與企業法」，元照出版，2003年1月。
    王文宇，「董事之競業禁止義務」，月旦法學雜誌，第61期，2000年6月。
    王文宇，「企業併購法總評」，月旦法學，第83期，2002年4月。
    王文宇，「從「公司管控」之觀點論如何加強董事權責」，新公司與企業法， 元照出版，2003年1月。
    王文宇，「論董事與公司間交易之規範」，新公司與企業法，元照出版，2003年1月。
    李禮仲，「美國公司法上「經營判斷原則」之法律效果與判例」，民事法學新思維之開展—劉春堂教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集，2008年5月。
    林建良、李韋誠、黃郁嵐、劉怡婷、劉懿德，「米老鼠的陰影—由迪士尼案看董事之注意義務」，月旦民商法雜誌，第19期，2008年3月。
    林國全，「股份有限公司董事民事賠償責任之追究」，月旦民商法雜誌，創刊號，2003年9月。
    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。
    邵慶平，「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」，台北大學法學論叢，第66期。
    邵慶平，「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」，台北大學法學論叢，57期，2005年12月。
    邵慶平，「公司董事的守法義務」，月旦法學教室，第58期，2007年8月。
    邵慶平，「組織與契約之間—以董事與公司之間之關係為例的觀察」，月旦法學教室，65期，2008年3月。
    陳俊仁，「忠誠義務—論公司負責人之競業禁止規範」，月旦民商法第15期，2007年3月。
    陳俊仁，「董事之積極作為義務—論我國公司法第一百九十三條之規範缺失」，成大法學，第13期，2007年6月。
    陳麗娟，「從美國公司法制之商業判斷原則論德國股份公司機關的責任」，東吳法律學報，20卷第三期，2009年1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，第29期，2010年9月。
    曾宛如，「董事忠實義務之內涵及適用疑義—評析新修正公司法第二十三條第一項」，台灣本土法學雜誌第38期，2002年9月。
    戴志傑，「公司法上「經營判斷原則」之研究」，月旦法學，106期，2004年3月。
    劉連煜，「現代公司法」，新學林，2009年。
    劉連煜，「公司理論與判決研究（一）」，自版，1997年11月。
    劉連煜，「公司理論與判決研究（二）」，自版，1998年4月。
    劉連煜，「公司理論與判決研究（三）」，元照出版，2002年5月。
    劉連煜，「董事忠實義務與獨立性司法審查」，月旦法學雜誌，173期，2009年10月。
    劉連煜，「董事責任與經營判斷法則」，月旦民商法，17期，2007年9月。
    劉連煜，「股東及董事因自身利害關係迴避表決之研究—從台新金控併購彰化銀行談起」，台灣法學雜誌，第112期，2008年9月。
    劉連煜，「董事會違法行為之制止請求權」，月旦法學教室，18期，2004年4月。
    廖大穎，「公司負責人之注意義務與商業判斷原則的適用—臺北地院九十三年度重訴字第一四四號民事判決」，月旦裁判時報，第1期，2010年2月。
    廖大穎，「公司制度與企業組織設計之法理」，新學林出版，2009年1月。








    Internet sources:
    http://db.lawbank.com.tw.ezproxy2.lib.nccu.edu.tw/Eng/FLAW/FLAWDAT0201.asp
    http://db.lawbank.com.tw.ezproxy2.lib.nccu.edu.tw/FLAW/FLAWDAT0201.asp
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus
    http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/fiduciary-duty.html
    http://ssrn.com/abstract=899212.
    http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/library/onlinepublications/mbca2009.pdf
    http://www.lawbank.com.tw/
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    95652006
    99
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095652006
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[法律科際整合研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 大小格式瀏覽次數
    index.html0KbHTML2633檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    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 ©   - 回饋