Business judgment rule

The business judgment rule is a case-law-derived doctrine in corporations law that courts defer to the business judgment of corporate executives. It is rooted in the principle that the "directors of a corporation... are clothed with [the] presumption, which the law accords to them, of being [motivated] in their conduct by a bona fides regard for the interests of the corporation whose affairs the stockholders have committed to their charge".[1] The rule exists in some form in most common law countries, including the United States,[1] Canada,[2] England and Wales,[3] and Australia.[4]

To challenge the actions of a corporation's board of directors, a plaintiff assumes "the burden of providing evidence that directors, in reaching their challenged decision, breached any one of the triads of their fiduciary dutygood faith, loyalty, or due care".[5] Failing to do so, a plaintiff "is not entitled to any remedy unless the transaction constitutes waste... [that is,] the exchange was so one-sided that no business person of ordinary, sound judgment could conclude that the corporation has received adequate consideration".[6]

  1. ^ a b Gimbel v. Signal Cos., 316 A.2d 599, 608 (Del. Ch. 1974)
  2. ^ BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2008] 3 SCR 560
  3. ^ Companies Act 2006 section 172; Re Smith & Fawcett Ltd [1942] Ch 304
  4. ^ Corporations Act 2001, section 180(2); Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2009] NSWSC 1229
  5. ^ Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 634 A.2d 345, 361 (Del. 1993)
  6. ^ In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, 906 A.2d 27 (Del. June 8, 2006)

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search