Author
Abstract
Different Model Acts and national approaches to the Business Judgment Rule, some by means of its codification, others through the requirements to be considered when delimiting the directors’ responsibilities, have tried to give a better orientation to the positions assumed by directors when they have to deal with business affairs on behalf of the company. Even in cases where there is not a specific section in internal law, the Business Judgment Rule is a common reference in many jurisdictions when the circumstances and elements of directors’ decision-making are considered. In Spain, Law 31/2014, of December 3, to improve corporate governance, has codified the “protección de la discrecionalidad empresarial” in Article 226 of Ley de Sociedades de Capital, assuming the developments of the Business Judgment Rule in other jurisdictions. However, international principles and Model Acts, and other European jurisdictions, such as Germany, do not face codification of the Rule in the same way, and even consider differently requirements for its application. This paper discusses, through the approaches in Comparative law, particularly in other areas where the Business Judgment Rule has a greater tradition, the impact that the codification of the “protección de la discrecionalidad empresarial” may have in Spanish corporate governance. To this end, the paper focuses on the scope of this singular protection on directors’ discretion, as well as on the requirements for its application, which shall serve at last to provide judges with a useful tool to decide on business matters where directors’ responsibility is involved. Comparison with Common Law and more recently with other European approaches is a starting point to critically check whether Spanish systematization avails of the dynamics of the Rule in order to improve and properly coordinate the whole system of corporate governance.
Suggested Citation
Hernando Cebriá Luis, 2018.
"The Spanish and the European Codification of the Business Judgment Rule,"
European Company and Financial Law Review, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 41-68, June.
Handle:
RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:41-68:n:2
DOI: 10.1515/ecfr-2018-0002
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:41-68:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.