Judicial Review of Directors' Duty of Care: A Comparison Between U.S. & China

Authors

  • Zhaoyi Li

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2022.864

Abstract

Articles 147 and 148 of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Chinese Company Law”) establish that directors owe a duty of care to their companies. However, both of these provisions fail to explain the role of judicial review in enforcing this duty. The duty of care is a well-trodden territory in the United States, where directors’ liability is predicated on specific standards. The current American standard, adopted by many states, requires directors to “discharge their duties with the care that a person in a like position would reasonably believe appropriate under similar circumstances.” However, both the business judgment rule and Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporate Law (“DGCL”) shield directors from responsibility for their actions, which may weaken the impact of the duty of care requirement on director behavior. To better allocate the responsibility for directors’ violations of the duty of care and promote the corporations’ development, it is essential that Chinese company law establish a unified standard of review governing the duty of care owed by directors to companies. The majority of Chinese legal scholars agreed that a combination of subjective and objective standards would function best. Questions remain regarding how to combine such standards and implement them. In order to promote the development of China’s duty of care, these controversial issues need to be solved. This Article argues that China’s Company Law should hold a first-time violator of the duty of care liable only in cases of gross negligence but hold directors liable in the cases of ordinary negligence if they have violated the duty of care in the past.

Downloads

Published

2022-05-19

How to Cite

Li, Zhaoyi. 2022. “Judicial Review of Directors’ Duty of Care: A Comparison Between U.S. & China”. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 83 (3). https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2022.864.