Theoretical Approach to Directors' Liability to Third Parties and Construction of Applicable Rules of Fault Liability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71222/hnsqjt05Keywords:
directors, third-party liability, statutory liability, fault liabilityAbstract
Article 191 of the new Company Law formally elevates the theory of directors' liability to third parties to a legal system recognized and protected by the Company Law. The premise of this article is that the director's liability to third parties is subjectively intentional or grossly negligent, but it does not further clarify the content of the director's subjective intentionality and gross negligence, judgment standards and other elements, which may bring about inconsistency in application. Therefore, this paper will start from the fundamental theory of the director's liability to third party system - corporate organs, fiduciary duty and legal liability theory, explore the theoretical approach of the director's liability to third party, review the controversy and problems of the fault liability of the Company Law Article 191, and construct the fault liability of the director's liability to the third party with a purpose. The rules of application of directors' liability to third parties are purposefully constructed.
References
1. S. Niu and L. Wang, "Legal liability for information disclosure by independent directors of listed companies," Int. J. Crim. Just. Sci., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 259-270, 2024, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19115.
2. X. Qianqiang and L. I. Fengying, "The analysis of the legal issues concerning directors’ liability to third parties under China new company law," US-China Law Rev., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 154-170, 2024, doi: 10.17265/1548-6605/2024.04.003.
3. H. Liang, The Draft Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010, doi: 10.1163/ej.9789004190429.i-550.2
4. L. H. Tan, "Corporate law reform in the People's Republic of China," 1999, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.325441.
5. P. Muchlinski, "Implementing the new UN corporate human rights framework: Implications for corporate law, governance, and regulation," Bus. Ethics Q., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 145-177, 2012, doi: 10.5840/beq20122218.
6. H. Lu, H. Pan, and C. Zhang, "Political connectedness and court outcomes: Evidence from Chinese corporate lawsuits," J. Law Econ., vol. 58, no. 4, 2015, doi: 10.1086/684290.
7. R. Stekelorum, et al., "Extending CSR in SMEs’ upstream supply chains: A dynamic capabilities perspective," Supply Chain Forum: An Int. J., vol. 19, no. 3, 2018, doi: 10.1080/16258312.2018.1497922.
8. R. Grantham, "The doctrinal basis of the rights of company shareholders," Cambridge Law J., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 554-588, 1998, doi: 10.1017/S0008197398003055.
9. K. J. Hopt, "Modern company and capital market problems: Improving European corporate governance after Enron," J. Corp. Law Stud., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 221-268, 2003, doi: 10.1080/14735970.2003.11419902.
10. K. Hoskin and R. Macve, "Reappraising the genesis of managerialism: A re‐examination of the role of accounting at the Springfield Armory, 1815‐1845," Account. Audit. Account. J., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4-29, 1994, doi: 10.1108/09513579410058229.
11. R. McCorquodale and S. Neely, "Directors' duties and human rights impacts: A comparative approach," J. Corp. Law Stud., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 605-639, 2022, doi: 10.1080/14735970.2021.2016147.
12. A. Keay, "Wrongful trading and the liability of company directors: A theoretical perspective," Legal Stud., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 431-461, 2005, doi: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2005.tb00678.x.
13. R. McCorquodale and S. Neely, "Directors' duties and human rights impacts: A comparative approach," J. Corp. Law Stud., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 605-639, 2022, doi: 10.1080/14735970.2021.2016147.
14. D. Li, "On directors’ liability to third parties focusing on Article 190 of 'the Company Law (Draft Revision)'," J. Beijing Inst. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.)., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 111-119, 2024, doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2023.1661.
15. R. Poscher, "Insights, errors and self‐misconceptions of the theory of principles," Ratio Juris, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 425-454, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9337.2009.00434.x.
16. G. Tu and M. Xu, "Contractual conflicts in the People's Republic of China: The applicable law in the absence of choice," J. Priv. Int. Law, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 179-202, 2011, doi: 10.5235/174410411795375605.
17. X. Fang, "The structure and contents of the book on tort liability of the Chinese Civil Code," in The Chinese Civil Code in the Global Legal Order, Brill Nijhoff, 2024, pp. 270-284, doi: 10.1163/9789004704428_017.
18. E. Matsumoto, "Tort law in Japan," in Comparative Tort Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021, pp. 373-396, doi: 10.4337/9781789905984.00026.
19. Editorial office, "Evaluation on the development of civil law scholarship in China (2012-2013)," Peking Univ. Law J., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 343-370, 2016, doi: 10.1080/20517483.2016.1259842.
20. C. Witting, "Duty of care: An analytical approach," Oxford J. Legal Stud., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 33-63, 2005, doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqi003.
21. K. W. Simons, "Justifying and categorizing tort doctrines: What is the optimal level of generality?," J. Tort Law, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 551-573, 2021, doi: 10.1515/jtl-2022-0001.
22. L. G. Branstetter and N. R. Lardy, "China's embrace of globalization," 2006, doi: 10.3386/w12373.
23. W. Zhang, "Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in China: A call for special attention to both the 'due service requirement' and the 'principle of reciprocity'," China J. Int. Law, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 143-174, 2013, doi: 10.1093/chinesejil/jmt004.
