|
|
A comparison of due managerial care of a member of governing body in the Czech Republic and a comparable duty of a member of governing body in Ireland
Pečinka, Martin ; Josková, Lucie (advisor) ; Čech, Petr (referee)
This paper deals with a comparison between the Czech duty of due managerial care of a member of governing body of limited company and the Irish non-fiduciary duty to exercise care, skill and diligence of a director of limited company (hereinafter also referred as "duty of care"). The paper aims to find out a possible way to improve legislation of the duty of due managerial care on the basis of comparison with the duty of care. The duty of care sets the ground for the comparison, therefore the paper deals first with the Irish legal status of the duty of care, which has been recently changed by the Companies Act 2014. Despite of the codification of the directors' duties, the core of interpretation and application of the duty of care still rests in judicial decisions. Nevertheless, the change of source and statutory wording of the duty means that the substance of Re City Equitable [1925] does not represent a good law anymore. The standard of care of Re City Equitable [1925] has been replaced by the minimal objective standard based on the British judgment Re D'Jan of London [1994]. The content of the duty of care is determined on the case by case basis, but in any event it consists of conclusions of the British judgment Re Barings [1999], which has been accepted by the Irish courts in restriction...
|
|
|
A comparison of due managerial care of a member of governing body in the Czech Republic and a comparable duty of a member of governing body in Ireland
Pečinka, Martin ; Josková, Lucie (advisor) ; Čech, Petr (referee)
This paper deals with a comparison between the Czech duty of due managerial care of a member of governing body of limited company and the Irish non-fiduciary duty to exercise care, skill and diligence of a director of limited company (hereinafter also referred as "duty of care"). The paper aims to find out a possible way to improve legislation of the duty of due managerial care on the basis of comparison with the duty of care. The duty of care sets the ground for the comparison, therefore the paper deals first with the Irish legal status of the duty of care, which has been recently changed by the Companies Act 2014. Despite of the codification of the directors' duties, the core of interpretation and application of the duty of care still rests in judicial decisions. Nevertheless, the change of source and statutory wording of the duty means that the substance of Re City Equitable [1925] does not represent a good law anymore. The standard of care of Re City Equitable [1925] has been replaced by the minimal objective standard based on the British judgment Re D'Jan of London [1994]. The content of the duty of care is determined on the case by case basis, but in any event it consists of conclusions of the British judgment Re Barings [1999], which has been accepted by the Irish courts in restriction...
|
|
|
Changes in corporate governance regarding private law recodification
Fišerová, Klára ; Kubíček, Aleš (advisor) ; Štamfestová, Petra (referee)
The primary aim of this thesis is to conduct a comparative analysis of the former and the current private law regulations concerning governance of joint-stock companies. What this thesis mainly focuses on are practical impacts of the change and problematic areas which are uncertain to interpret. This work is divided into two parts, theoretical and practical application. The former deals with the definition of the term corporate governance, theoretical bases of corporate governance and governance models and theories. In the latter the most fundamental changes brought by the recodification are taken into consideration, these being the possibility of choice between monistic and dualistic corporate governance systems, adaptation to the new regulations and the changes regarding the statutory representative. In this section, the thesis comments on the terms due care and and business judgement rule.
|
guest ::
