magistrsko delo
Mateja Zaveršnik (Author), Nataša Samec (Mentor)

Abstract

Magistrska naloga analizira pravilo podjetniške presoje kot izhaja iz ključnih odločitev sodišč zvezne države Delaware v Združenih državah Amerike in meje, ki so jih navedena sodišča postavila za sprejemljivo podjetniško tveganje. Prevladuje mnenje, da bi bilo nepravično, če bi sodišča poslovno odločitev, ki je bila sprejeta v dobri veri, naknadno, ko je rezultat odločitve že znan, preučevala in odločala o tem ali je bila sprejeta odločitev v najboljšem interesu deležnikov družbe ali ne. Potrebno je ločevati med protipravnimi ravnanji članov organov vodenja in poslovnimi odločitvami, ki niso prinesle želenega rezultata in so družbi povzročile škodo. Pravilo podjetniške presoje, kot izpodbojna domneva, ščiti odločevalce pred osebno odgovornostjo in postopek njihovega odločanja pred naknadnim sodnim nadzorom. Predlog za implementacijo pravila podjetniške presoje v slovenski pravni red je vseboval tudi osnutek slovenskega predloga za spremembo Zakona o gospodarskih družbah. Šlo je za zanimiv predlog, predvsem glede na negotovost, ki se je na obravnavanem področju začela pojavljati v Ameriki. Zdi se, kot da se je v zvezni državi Delaware (v državi, ki nima verjetno samo najbolje razvitega pravila podjetniške presoje ampak tudi državi, ki je najbolj naklonjena oz. vzdržna do direktorjevih ravnanj) zaščita, ki jo navedeno pravilo nudi, zmanjšala. To je najverjetneje odziv na škandale kot je na primer zadeva Enron, ki je spodbudila sodstvo, če ne že k preoblikovanju, pa vsaj k oženju sicer široke uporabe pravila podjetniške presoje. Ta sprememba je v Ameriki povzročila še večjo zmedo glede interpretacije pravila podjetniške presoje. Osnovni problem je najti pravo ravnovesje med pooblastili danimi upravi, da vodi družbo in pravico deležnikov družbe, da smatrajo direktorje odgovorne za odločitve, ki so jih sprejeli. Pravilo podjetniške presoje deluje kot primarni sodni mehanizem za uravnoteženje te napetosti. Pravilo podjetniške presoje, ki je v anglosaškem sistemu zasnovan kot domneva, bo težko neposredno prenesti v našo zakonodajo. Potrebno je jasno razlikovanje med analizo, ki se zahteva v skladu z dolžnostjo skrbnega ravnanja in pravilom podjetniške presoje kot standardom postopkovne presoje. Pravilo podjetniške presoje je v našem pravnem sistemu potrebno razumeti in razlagati v okviru standarda skrbnosti in predstavlja ožji pojem od pojma dolžne skrbnosti. Medtem, ko je skrbnost vestnega in poštenega strokovnjaka zelo strog standard, pa pravilo podjetniške presoje daje članom organom vodenja bistveno več svobode pri sprejemanju poslovnih tveganj, saj dolžno skrbnost omejuje zgolj na postopek sprejemanja poslovne odločitve, prav tako pa je nižja tudi stopnja krivde. Magistrsko delo preučuje možnost uporabe tega tipičnega pravila anglosaškega pravnega sistema v slovenskem civilnem pravnem redu.

Keywords

podjetniško tveganje;odškodninska odgovornost članov organov vodenja;pravilo podjetniške presoje;dolžnost skrbnosti;dolžnost vestnega in poštenega strokovnjaka;standard odgovornosti;doktrina sodnega vzdržanja;doktrina imunitete;magistrske naloge;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [M. Zaveršnik]
UDC: 347.426.6(043.3)
COBISS: 5208875 Link will open in a new window
Views: 2721
Downloads: 480
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Liability of board's members and business judgement rule
Secondary abstract: This master's thesis analyzes the business judgement rule resulting from the seminal decisions of the Delaware Courts in the USA and the limits that these courts have drawn about what is acceptable business risk. There is a prevalent opinion that it would be unfavourable if good-faith business judgment was to be re-examined, with the favour of hindsight, by courts. It is necessary to distinguish between unlawful conduct of board members and business decisions, which did not bring the desired results and caused damage to the company. The business judgment rule, an overarching and rebuttal presumption, shields corporate decision makers from personal liability and insulating directorial decision-making from judicial review. Draft amendment to the Companies Act included a proposal for the implementation of the business judgement rule in Slovenian legislation. It was an interesting proposal given the uncertainty in this area of the law in America. It appears that in Delaware (arguably the state with not only the most thoroughly developed business judgment rule but arguably also the state most sympathetic or deferential to director conduct) the protection afforded by the business judgment rule is decreasing. This is most likely a reaction to the corporate scandals such as that of Enron, which have encouraged the judiciary, if not to reformulate the business judgement rule, at least to suggest a narrower spectrum for its application. This recent change contributes to even bigger confusion to the already confusing law pertaining to the common law business judgment rule. The elemental cause of concern seems to be finding the right balance between managers’ authority to guide the company in a particular direction and the shareholders’ right to hold the managers accountable for their decisions. The business judgment rule acts as the primary judicial mechanism for balancing this tension. Business judgement rule, which is in the Anglo-Saxon system designed as a presumption will be difficult to directly implement in our legal system. It is necessary to clearly distinguish between the analysis required in accordance with the duty of care and the business judgement rule as a standard of procedural assessment. In our legal system the business judgement rule is need to be understood and interpreted in the context of the standard of care and represents a narrower concept than the concept of due care. While care of prudent expert is very strict standard, the business judgement rule gives board members considerably more freedom in taking commercial risks since due care is restricted only to the process of adopting business decisions and it lowers the degree of guilt. The master's thesis analyses the possibility to use this typical Common law rule in the Slovenian civil legal system.
Secondary keywords: Liability of board's members;Business judgement rule;duty of care;care of prudent expert;standard of liability;Abstention doctrine;doctrine of immunity;master thesis;
URN: URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fakulteta
Pages: 90, 1 f.
ID: 9160424