請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/61693
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳忠仁 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yang-Min Liu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 劉陽明 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T13:09:48Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2013-08-14 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2013-08-14 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-07-31 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
一、 中文期刊 1. 王文宇,從公司不法行為之追訴論民、刑、商法之分際,月旦法學雜誌,103期,2003年11月。 2. 任書沁、林佳慧、陳冠潔、黃湘榆合著,公平原則在董事自我交易中之適用-從Weinberger v. UOP一案談起,月旦民商法學雜誌,第19期,2008年。 3. 李維心,從實務觀點談商業判斷法則之引進,中原財經法學,第22期,2009年6月。 4. 邵慶平,商業判斷原則的角色與適用───聯電案的延伸思考,科技法學評論,第8卷第1期。 5. 范榮靖,被企業忽略的風險1.〉不重法務,當心賺不夠賠,遠見雜誌,第254期,2007年8月。 6. 商業周刊,第76期,2006年11月28日。 7. 陳碩甫,《英美法商業判斷法則概述》,萬國法律,第158期,2008年4月。 8. 陳長文,被企業忽略的風險 2.〉專家觀點 - 不能再用「以前都這麼做」做藉口,范榮靖整理,遠見雜誌 ,第254期,2007年8月。 9. 蔡昌憲、溫祖德,論商業判斷法則於背信罪之適用妥當性,月旦法學雜誌,第195期,2011年8月。 10. 劉連煜,掏空公司資產之法律責任,月旦法學教室,56期,2007年6月。 11. 劉連煜專文,「員工分紅、入股與員工認股選擇權之新挑戰」,台灣法學雜誌,第99期,民國96年10月號。 12. 劉連煜,董事責任與經營判斷法則,月旦民商法,第17期,2007年9月。 13. 曾淑瑜,論金融犯罪「特別背信罪」之構成要件,月旦法學雜誌,193期,2011年6月。 14. 戴志傑,公司法上「經營判斷法則」之研究,月旦法學雜誌,第106期,2004。 二、 中文書籍 1. 丁丁,商業判斷規則研究,吉林人民出版社,2005年1月第1版。 2. 王文宇,公司法論,元照出版公司,2008年9月四版。 3. 王兆鵬,刑事訴訟法講義(二),元照出版公司,2003年3月,二版第1刷。 4. 司徒達賢,《決策───管理工作的核心》,收錄於杜拉克等著,司徒達賢導讀,林麗冠譯,決策制訂(Decision Making)哈佛商業評論(Harvard Business Review),天下文化,2002年10月初版。 5. 沈四寶主編,國際商法教學案例選編,法律出版社,1999年10月初版。 6. 宋學軍,一次讀完28本管理學經典,海鴿文化出版,2006年9月初版。 7. 傑佛瑞•克拉姆斯著;陳以禮譯;揚照導讀;許士軍推薦序,聽彼德杜拉克的課百年經典第十五講,時報出版,2008年12月初版。 8. 陳耀茂,決策方法與應用,鼎茂圖書出版,2011年1月。 9. 陳龍潭、廖勇凱,企業策略管理,智勝出版社,2011年7月。 10. 廖大穎、陳啟垂,論我國法適用「商業判斷原則」與舉證責任之分配,商業判斷法則與企業經營責任,新學林出版,2011年12月初版。 11. 廖大穎、林志潔,「商業判斷原則」與董事刑事責任之阻卻,商業判斷原則與企業經營責任,新學林出版,2011年12月初版。 12. 蔡墩銘著,刑法總論,三民書局,民國89年10月,修訂四版一刷。 13. 劉連煜,公司監控與公司社會責任,五南圖書出版有限公司,1995年9月。 14. 赫伯特•西蒙,管理決策的新科學,中國社會科學出版社,1960年。 三、 學位論文 1. 吳志強,經濟刑法之背信罪與特別背信罪的再建構,國立台灣大學法律學院法律研究所碩士論文,2011年6月。 四、 中文報紙 1. 經濟日報民國96年3月19日A4版、經濟日報96年3月19日A5版。 2. 聯合報民國96年10月27日A1版。 五、 外文部分 1. Charitable Corp. v. Sutton, 2Atk. At 404-406(1742) 2. Percy v. Millaudon, 8 Mart.(n.s.)68(La.1829) 3. Garber v. Lego, 11F. 3d 1197,1206(3d Cir. 1993) 4. Kahn. v. Tremont Corp., 21 Del. J. Corp. L. 1161, 1200-01. 5. Weiland v. Illinos Power Co.,Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 95, 747, at 98.589. 6. Gagliardi v. TriFoods Int’l, Inc., 1996 Del. Ch. LEXIS 87, at 11-12, 1996 WL422330. 7. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Blasdell 930 F. Supp., 423 (1994) 8. DENNIS J. BLOCK, NANCY E. BARTON & STEPHEN A. RADIN, THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF CORPORATE DIRECTORS 12 (Aspen Law & Business, 5th ed.,1998) 9. In re J.P. Stevens & Co. Shareholders Litigation, 542 A.2d 780 (1988) 10. Joy v. North, 692 F .2d 886 (2d Cir. 1982) 11. Kamin v. American Express Co., 86 Misc. 2d 809. 812. 383 N.Y.S.2d 807, 810-11(N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. ), aff’d mem., 54A.D.2d 654, 387 N.Y.S.2d 993 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1976) 12. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al., 297 U.S. 288, 56 S. Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed.688(U.S.1936) 13. Lyman P.Q. Johnson, Corporate Officers and the Business Judgment Rule, 60 BUS. LAW. 439, 457 (2005) 14. Dooley & Veasey, The Role of the Board in Derivative Litigation: Delaware Law and the Current ALI Proposals Compared, 44 Bus. Law. 503, 522(1989) 15. Michael P. Dooley Law and the Current ALI Proposals Compared, 44 BUS. LAW.REV.503,522(1989) 16. Shoen v. Amerco, 885 F. Supp. 1332,1340 (D. Nev. 1994) 17. Rabkin v. Philip A. Hunt Chem..Corp., 547 A 2d 963 (1986 Del. Ch., LEXIS 972) 18. Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d. 927 (Del. 1993) 19. Grimes v. Donald, 20 Del. J. Corp. L. 757, 771(Del. Ch. Jan. 11, 1995) 20. Bryan A. Garner (ed.) , Supra, n.8 21. Lewis D. Solomon and Alan R. Palmiter, Supra, n.3 22. Committee on Corporate Law, A.B.A., Changes in the Model Business Corporation Act---Amendments Pertaining to Electronic Filings, Business Lawyer, Vol. 53, Nov. 1997 23. Potter v. Pohlad, Minn. LEXIS 459, 1997. 24. Desert Equities, Inc. v. Morgan Standloy Leveraged Equity 377. 25. Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, 634 A. 2d 1156 (1993 Del. LEXIS 398 ) 26. Caruso v. Metex Corp. Fed. Sec. L. Rep.(CCH) 96, 967, at 94, 142 (E.D.N.Y. July 30,1992) 27. Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d. 805, 815(Del. 1984) 28. Norman Veasey, Duty of Loyalty: The Criticality of the Counselor’s Role, 45 Bus. Law. 2065, 2071-72. 29. Constance Frisby Fain, Supra, n.50 30. Hanson Trust PLC v. ML SCM Acquisition, Inc., 781 F.2d 264(1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26714) 31. Polk v. Good,507 A.2d 531(1986 Del. LEXIS 1054) 32. Moran v. Household International, Inc.,500 A.2d 1346(1985 Del. LEXIS 557) 33. In re Caremark Int’l Inc. Derivative Litig., 698 A.2d. 959, 967 (Del. Ch. 1996) 34. Smith v. Van Gorkom 488 A.2d. at 872. 35. In re Consumers Power Co., Derivative Litig., 132 F.R.D. 483. 36. Lewis v. Vogelstein 699 A.2d. 327,336 (Del. Ch. 1997) 37. Michelson v. Duncan, 407 A.2d 211 (1979 Del. LEXIS 422) 38. Shlensky v. Wrigley, 237 N.E.2d 776 (1968 Ill. App. LEXIS 1107) 39. DENNIS J. BLOCK, supra note 61, at 18-19 40. Charles Hansen, The Duty of Care, the Business Judgment Rule, and American Law Institute Corporate Governance Project, 48 BUS. LAW. 1355, 1369(1993) 41. Douglas M. Branson, supra note 130, at 646. 42. Cinerama, Inc. v. Technicolor, Inc., 663 A.2d 1164(Del. 1995) 43. Holland,「An Introduction to Delaware Corporation Law Directors’ Fiduciary Duties」 44. Van de Walle v. Unimation, Inc. Fed. Sec. 2 Rep.(CCH) 95, 834 at 99,030-31(Del. Ch. Mar. 6, 1991) 45. Nixson, 626 A.2d. at 1376. 46. Williams v. Geier, 671 A.2d 1376(Del. 1996) 47. Black’s law dictionary 685(8th edition) | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/61693 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 近年來,實務上刑事判決中引述經營判斷法則(Business Judgment Rule)的案件日益增加,學術界亦多有著墨,尤其在和艦案新竹地院審理期間,曹興誠先生以經營判斷法則自我辯護,指經營判斷法則可以鼓勵有才能者勇於任事,且能避免法官陷入複雜的商業判斷;至於不適任的董事,應交由公司股東會決定去留,法院不必介入,更掀起各界廣泛討論。對此問題,究竟在刑事背信罪案件中,可否適用經營判斷法則作為論斷有罪與否的標準,學界、實務界呈現正反見解,更可謂是百家爭鳴。本研究乃從搜尋實務上現有刑事判決、學者發表期刊論文、瑞智公司、明基公司二個個案等加以整理、分析,在結論上贊同經營判斷法則可於刑事背信罪案件中適用,且跳脫法律人的框架,建議檢察官或法官站在企業經營者的角度,多多考量企業如基於競爭力的需要,而作出的經營決策判斷,給予正面的肯定,不宜以刑事背信罪追究。並對於經營判斷法則在實務上的應用,給予制度面建議司法機關應謹守刑法最後手段性及謙抑性原則、法官判決時宜多肯定經營判斷法則的適用;法律面建議完善民事賠償制度的立法、增訂「檢察機關辦理背信案件應行注意事項」;執行面建議建立檢察官評議制度、建立經營判斷法則事項檢查表。其次,企業每天面對大大小小的決策,但企業界在組織上往往不重視法律專業人員,決策時輕忽法律風險,以致於決策失敗時,除了經濟損失,又面臨司法訴訟。為降低法律風險,提升決策品質,乃認為經營判斷法則不僅可作為司法審查背信罪的標準,更可提早到企業作決策時的重要標準,成為企業決策過程中必經的檢視流程。在制度面建議企業決策時應諮詢專業法律人員;法律面建議企業決策時應評估法律風險;執行面建議企業決策時應考慮刑事案件可能對企業造成的影響。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In recent years rulings of criminal cases referring to Business Judgment Rule is increasing, which also draws attention among the academic circle. During the trial of the HJTC case at Hsinchu District Court, Mr. Cao Xing-cheng defended himself with Business Judgment Rule and argued that Business Judgment Rule encourages people with talent to take aggressive initiatives and save the judge from making complicate business decision, and the competency of a member of the board should be left to the discretion of the board of directors and should not be a concern of the court. His argument is ensued with intensive discussion among the public. The issue of permissibility of Business Judgment Rule as the criterion for the ruling of guilty or not guilty on criminal charge of breach of trust receives controversial and diversified comments from the academic and practitioners’ circles. This Study summarizes and analyzes available criminal case rulings, scholar dissertations published on periodicals, and two cases of Rechi and BenQ. The conclusion drawn favors Business Judgment Rule that it should be permissible on criminal charge of breach of trust and it allows legal professionals to think outside the box. It is recommended that prosecutors and judges alike should not only think from the aspect of business owners and take into consideration that enterprises must make businesses judgment in favor of competitiveness, but also give them positive approval instead of placing criminal charge of breach of trust on them. Regarding to practice of Business Judgment Rule, on the system side, it is recommended that judicial authorities should self-restrain on the ultima ratio of penalty and the principle of difference, and judges should favor the permissibility of Business Judgment Rule. On the legality side, it is recommended to improve civil indemnification legislation and revise and augment the Guidelines for Prosecutor Offices Processing Breach of Trust Cases. On the implementation side, it is recommended that a prosecutors’ performance appraisal system and a Business Judgment Rule checklist should be established. On the other hand, an enterprise makes decisions of various importances on a daily basis but shows little respect for legal professionals in its organization and neglects legal risks in its decision-making. When a decision fails, it causes not only economic loss, but also litigation. To reduce legal risk and improve decision-making quality, Business Judgment Rule not only serve as a criterion for the ruling on charge of breach of trust, but also an important standard for enterprise decision-making as a required process of enterprise decision-making. On the legal side, it is recommended that an enterprise should evaluate legal risk when making decisions. On the system side, it is recommended that an enterprise should consult with legal professionals when making decisions. On implementation side, it is recommended that an enterprise should take into account the impact of possible criminal charges. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T13:09:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-P94748018-1.pdf: 6542326 bytes, checksum: 08ea89ba7973ca554c38d6b54614457c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
口試委員審定書.............................................i 誌謝......................................................ii 中文摘要.................................................iii 英文摘要..................................................iv 第一章 研究動機與目的.....................................1 第一節 動機、目的......................................1 第二節 研究方法........................................1 第三節 資料來源........................................2 第二章 文獻探討............................................4 第一節 美國法上之經營判斷法則..........................4 第二節 我國學術界將經營判斷法則運用於背信罪之見解.....28 第三節 企業決策時對經營判斷法則的運用.................37 第三章 研究分析..........................................46 第一節 實務上刑事背信罪案件判決引用經營判斷法則的現況 量性分析.......................................46 第二節 個案分析.......................................63 第四章 研究成果...........................................91 第一節 實務案例分析結果...............................91 第二節 個案分析結果...................................95 第三節 本文支持經營判斷法則運用於刑事背信罪案件,且作 為檢察官起訴..................................104 第四節 台灣企業決策時面對法律的態度..................107 第五章 結論與建議.......................................112 第一節 經營判斷法則在刑事背信罪運用之建議............112 第二節 經營判斷法則在企業決策運用之建議..............115 第三節 總結..........................................118 參考文獻.................................................120 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 經營判斷法則在法律與企業決策之運用 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Application of Business Judgment Rule in Law and Business Decision | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 柯承恩,曾宛如 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 經營判斷法則,背信罪,決策,法律風險, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Business Judgment Rule,breach of trust,decision,legal risk, | en |
dc.relation.page | 124 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-07-31 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學組 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 商學組 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 6.39 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。