東華大學圖書館 |

Directors Fiduciary Duty to Act in the Best Interest of the Company - Is the Business Judgement Rule Being Abused by Directors to Prevent Liability? = = Direkteure se Vertrouensplig om in die Beste Belang van die Maatskappy op te Tree.- Word die Sake-Oordeelsreel Misbruik Deur Direkteure om Aanspreeklikheid te Voorkom? /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Directors Fiduciary Duty to Act in the Best Interest of the Company - Is the Business Judgement Rule Being Abused by Directors to Prevent Liability? =/ Lindie van Schoor.
其他題名:	Direkteure se Vertrouensplig om in die Beste Belang van die Maatskappy op te Tree.- Word die Sake-Oordeelsreel Misbruik Deur Direkteure om Aanspreeklikheid te Voorkom? /
作者:	van Schoor, Lindie,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (51 pages)
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 85-06.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International85-06.
標題:	Directors. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30703077
ISBN:	9798380919524

Directors Fiduciary Duty to Act in the Best Interest of the Company - Is the Business Judgement Rule Being Abused by Directors to Prevent Liability? = = Direkteure se Vertrouensplig om in die Beste Belang van die Maatskappy op te Tree.- Word die Sake-Oordeelsreel Misbruik Deur Direkteure om Aanspreeklikheid te Voorkom? /
van Schoor, Lindie,

Directors Fiduciary Duty to Act in the Best Interest of the Company - Is the Business Judgement Rule Being Abused by Directors to Prevent Liability? =Direkteure se Vertrouensplig om in die Beste Belang van die Maatskappy op te Tree.- Word die Sake-Oordeelsreel Misbruik Deur Direkteure om Aanspreeklikheid te Voorkom? /Lindie van Schoor. - 1 electronic resource (51 pages)

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 85-06.

Direkteure se vertouensplig in Suid-Afrika se maatskappyereg is afgelei van die Romeins-Holandse reg terwyl die plig van sorg van Engelse reg afkomstig is. Hierdie pligte is deurlopend ontwikkel deur die interpretasie van regspraak asook addisionele beginsels wat deur die verskeie King verslae aanvaar is, welke beginsels geag word as internationale beste praktyke. Die Suid-Afrikaanse Maatskappyreg het 'n meer inklusiewe model aanvaar wat gely het tot die uitvaardiging van die Maatskappyewet 71 van 2008. Direkteure se vertrouensplig en plig van sorg is gedeeltelik gekodifiseer deur Artikel 76 van die Maatskappywet. Die insluiting van die sake-oordeelsreel ten einde addisionele beskerming aan direkteure te verskaf is gekritiseer deur verskeie akademici. Daar is onder meer benadruk dat die insluiting daarvan verwarring tussen die verskeie pligte meebring en onnodig is weens die gemenereg wat reeds voldoende daarvoor voorsiening maak. Huidige skandale en misbruik van direkteursmagte het die vraag laat ontstaan oor die onvermoe om direkteure aanspreeklik te hou vir die verbreking van hierdie direkteursverpligtinge. Verskeie lande en in besonder Duitsland en Australie se benadering en implimentering van die sake-oordeelsreel, is ondersoek. Weens die skade aan die maatskappy maar ook die gemeenskap as geheel is dit van uiterste belang dat die pligte van direkteure meer breedvoerig omskryf word en die toepassing van die sake-oordeelsreel ingeperk word.

English

ISBN: 9798380919524Subjects--Topical Terms:

3562406
Directors.

Directors Fiduciary Duty to Act in the Best Interest of the Company - Is the Business Judgement Rule Being Abused by Directors to Prevent Liability? = = Direkteure se Vertrouensplig om in die Beste Belang van die Maatskappy op te Tree.- Word die Sake-Oordeelsreel Misbruik Deur Direkteure om Aanspreeklikheid te Voorkom? /
LDR:06995nmm a22004093i 4500 001 2429939
005 20250519114736.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2020 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798380919524
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI30703077
035 $a (MiAaPQD)Pretoria_226377481
035 $a AAI30703077
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a van Schoor, Lindie, $e author. $3 3818029
245 1 0 $a Directors Fiduciary Duty to Act in the Best Interest of the Company - Is the Business Judgement Rule Being Abused by Directors to Prevent Liability? = $b Direkteure se Vertrouensplig om in die Beste Belang van die Maatskappy op te Tree.- Word die Sake-Oordeelsreel Misbruik Deur Direkteure om Aanspreeklikheid te Voorkom? / $c Lindie van Schoor.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 1 electronic resource (51 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 85-06.
500 $a Advisors: Botha, Monray Marsellus.
502 $b LL.M. $c University of Pretoria (South Africa) $d 2020.
520 $a Direkteure se vertouensplig in Suid-Afrika se maatskappyereg is afgelei van die Romeins-Holandse reg terwyl die plig van sorg van Engelse reg afkomstig is. Hierdie pligte is deurlopend ontwikkel deur die interpretasie van regspraak asook addisionele beginsels wat deur die verskeie King verslae aanvaar is, welke beginsels geag word as internationale beste praktyke. Die Suid-Afrikaanse Maatskappyreg het 'n meer inklusiewe model aanvaar wat gely het tot die uitvaardiging van die Maatskappyewet 71 van 2008. Direkteure se vertrouensplig en plig van sorg is gedeeltelik gekodifiseer deur Artikel 76 van die Maatskappywet. Die insluiting van die sake-oordeelsreel ten einde addisionele beskerming aan direkteure te verskaf is gekritiseer deur verskeie akademici. Daar is onder meer benadruk dat die insluiting daarvan verwarring tussen die verskeie pligte meebring en onnodig is weens die gemenereg wat reeds voldoende daarvoor voorsiening maak. Huidige skandale en misbruik van direkteursmagte het die vraag laat ontstaan oor die onvermoe om direkteure aanspreeklik te hou vir die verbreking van hierdie direkteursverpligtinge. Verskeie lande en in besonder Duitsland en Australie se benadering en implimentering van die sake-oordeelsreel, is ondersoek. Weens die skade aan die maatskappy maar ook die gemeenskap as geheel is dit van uiterste belang dat die pligte van direkteure meer breedvoerig omskryf word en die toepassing van die sake-oordeelsreel ingeperk word.
520 $a It is well known that a company is a juristic person which acts through its board of directors. The board of directors, unless provided for otherwise through its memorandum of incorporation has complete powers to perform any function of the company they represent. Fiduciary duties' in South African company law are derived from Roman-Dutch law and not from English law whereas the directors' duty of care is largely derived from English law. These duties were derived from 18th and 19th century English company law which was judicially created and improved through continuous interpretation and application in case law. South African Company law is modelled after English company law, although it is merely persuasive and not binding. Developments in other countries have become more significant in company law, especially where it has not been in accordance with derivatives of the European Union. Fiduciary duties of directors are based on loyalty, good faith and the avoidance of conflict of interest. A director must therefore rationally believe that his actions are in the best interest of the company, which should be exercised with a degree of care, skill and diligence. Having the general knowledge and experience required of such directors. These requirements have been entrenched by partial codification of directors' duties in the Act.The 1973 Companies Act commenced on 1 January 1974 and was refined and modernised on an ongoing basis through the African standing advisory committee on company law which was established in terms of the provisions of the 1973 Act. This act did not provide clear rules regarding the fiduciary duties and liabilities of directors nor any guidance on corporate governance. Directors' fiduciary duties were as a result thereof derived from common law, directors' contracts with their company and the memorandum and articles of association of the company. The corporate law reform program initiative started in 2003 with the intention to reform the South African entrepreneurial law and to overhaul the 1973-Companies Act. The 1994 King I report adopted several new approaches to corporate governance including some of the corporate governance principles proposed by the 1992 UK Cadbury report. Additional principles were also adopted by the King II -IV reports as these principles have been seen as international best practices.The South African company law shareholder model shifted to a more inclusive model when the department of Trade and Industry released a policy document in May 2004 entitled "South African Company Law for the 21st Century Guidelines for Corporate Law Reform". The document acknowledged that South Africa had no extensive statutory provisions covering the duties of directors and their possible accountability in the event of contravening fiduciary duties. This resulted in the proclamation of the Companies Act 71 of 200820 which partially codified the duties of directors and introduced the business judgment rule, regulating to the standards of directors' conduct. The business judgement rule has been applied in the United States of America for over 160 years and has also been adopted in Australia. Under the Act, the business judgement rule purports to have an alleviating effect on the less subjective and more rigorous duty of directors to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence in the performance of their duties. Criticism against the introduction of the business judgement rule was that these statutory duties were not a complete codification of common law duties. The exact contours and limits of the fiduciary duties still remained uncertain as fiduciary duties were never static and were still evolving. The partial codification of directors' fiduciary duties does however not exclude the common law. It is for this reason that the common-law duties were not expressly amended by Section 76(2) of the 2008-Companies Act. Common-law duties not in conflict with these provisions still applies.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 6004
650 4 $a Directors. $3 3562406
650 4 $a Judicial reviews. $3 3562068
650 4 $a Society. $3 700566
650 4 $a Liability. $3 3562832
650 4 $a 21st century. $3 1973107
650 4 $a Provisions. $3 3682774
650 4 $a Duty of care. $3 3682963
650 4 $a Ethics. $3 517264
650 4 $a Finance. $3 542899
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
690 $a 0394
690 $a 0508
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0454
710 2 $a University of Pretoria (South Africa). $b Mercantile Law. $e degree granting institution. $3 3818030
720 1 $a Botha, Monray Marsellus $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 85-06.
790 $a 6004
791 $a LL.M.
792 $a 2020
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30703077