Ii$2Mlif'Ft.UU5-mU~II0l'iJ -81- mm-sn+-=:~z~ia~'k
~•~~~~~~~-~a~~~*~
-a iL + ~{1*--~~~M- !k
A Director's Active Duty of Care: A Critical
Analysis of Article 193 of Taiwan's Corporation Law
..t-~-t
Ft
1t1=-' Chun-Jen Chen~-~~~*~~A$~~~£~~~£
-·~*~~AA$~~~~*~~A$~~~
~-~*~l~ffA~~A$~~$~ffl~~~
•-•~~~*•-w~+~•~~~-~
-·•*~~A$~~~~~*•-w~+~•~~~
~-•¥~$A•~~~~~~*•-w~+~•~~~
4-~~~~~
lt.:fA a JliJ : 96.05.10 ; *fAi!i& aM : 96.05.15/96.07.18 ; lt~f·J ~aM : 96.07.20 •
~-*:~~-···~-·~·~A·~·A·~~~~#·~····
~*-1f4' ~*-~1f4' ~~>*~Keywords: corporation, board of directors, director, prudent person, debtor, partial performance, duty of care, active duty, passive duty, corporate governance
·~~·~*•*••••~aa·A~·M-*•*•*±·*~-~4~
II~#·~ Jt ~l-"!-'J!-1E1"U~
:
r ~a] 'f:f:,t 'tl~.:t_ZJtj'E-J:J.
A~ ERISA~~aJ*/;I!..fe..'i>·~J (NSC95-2414-H-006-003) .:t_~~~-'Jf-1E4>lt
•
ft:i"~itt~4~11·#·~jt···-'J!-1EAf•**~~J:J.~~~··tt=i-M~~ttt
~~~~-~•=t-ffla·.:t_~~-~t~;~~ttt-'Jf-1EM~itt*~'~·~
~-~~ffl···#~--h~-~-.:t_~-·~'l>*~*···~tt
='It·
#i-t-
·$~0~~~~~·~~~0~~mm~m~~lli·~~
$~~~~·~~~0~~~~ff~~~~~~~·~~~0~~
!N:-*~ffl~
·
'fr~r~~,~ 0?JJME_t ·
t~<;!!m0~t.tiffuf*ftatif$Jtff~~J!fa
·
MtJIIttflJ5R·$~ff~·
.L-~*l2{0~~3~~~~~fU~;~~miB*~·~~•$m~~~~~~~m~·~~~~~~0
~t.t~-afL+-=1'* 0 ~~-$~~~1'F~~~mfB
·
~Ui*.L-~m$W0~FI'[email protected]!BJ1*5E~
;
IitHP~I$~~~W0~FI'l~~~{f~~·®W0~~~~f.t~na=+n~~~ttAi±~~~o~~
-$~~10~,~~¥~~
·
~IBJ~-$i±~~~~fjM·
:R~tJ*HP~0~l*'¥~~jjr~~o ~~~~0~t.t~=+-f'*~-.!Ji~ 2001 if~{~
iE •
Ilt'¥~~jjB~ZiS,I@,·
~:ut:U:I$~t0~~:fflf~~:E!!!A~i±~~~ 0
?£\rm .
IltMJ~@~:$t(Jtff~~w· Z!J\5
r3&~mlfB~~W'fi~~.ti·W'Jf~~m~~jjo
~~·rn~0~t.t~-an+=~~mlfB~:$t(·ffl~ili~~•
~J!JE:W:I:$~~~:E!!!A~i±~~~
·
~~m_t~~jjWfti~o
~'ft~mit· ~~~Z!J\51Jl·$~~~:E!!!Ai±~~~
·
W~l*1Jl~A~1Jl~~BffJtff·W~~0~t.t~-sn+=~~=JJi~JtmJE:·=
~~~~~m~~·~~~~•mJE:*~~mlfB~:$t(~jj~;~Jit·
*x~~~~~~M~JJi-JJJtff~~~~mfB~~·~~~~~
~
·
wmB:rl'l~~m~~jj·
~trf~t!ilim'-ti¥!:jj·
tJ~Bfi~t.t~~~~0
,
Abstract
I$Zf:i!ituif'F~~JH%- ~~~:!} l§'] -83- l*m-sn+=~zm.iiJ~~
As corporate managers, directors enjoy a unique and essential status in corporations. In order to protect the interests of the corporation and its shareholders, it goes without saying that it is necessary to impose active duty of care upon directors. In Taiwan's corporate jurisprudence, instead of imposing active duty of care, the corporate law conventionally regulates directors' behavior through the liability clauses. Namely, the directors' duty is indeed a passive one and Article 193 of the Corporation Law may serve as a ready example.
With respect to the active duty of care, it can be found in Article 535 of the Civil Code. However, the negligence standard adopted by Article 535 is called into question. After the enactment of Article 23, paragraph 1 of the Corporation Law, it is now settled that directors owe the duty of care as prudent persons in a like position. However, the enactment further gave rise to the question of appropriateness and applications.
Moreover, because of its problematic nature, Article 193 of the Corporation Law also gave rise to the conflicts among the prudent person test, directors' contractual obligations, and the exemption articulated under Article 193, Paragraph 2 of the Corporation Law.
Accordingly, this Article will explore the above mentioned conflicts and related issues, and attempts to furnish two proposals for the future corporate law reform.
