پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 32 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 591 |
| تعداد مقالات | 5,779 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 8,660,891 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,342,771 |
مطالعه تطبیقی راهکارهای جلوگیری از تصاحب فرصت های متعلق به شرکت در پرتو نظریه فرصت های شرکتی در حقوق ایران، انگلستان و آمریکا | ||
| پژوهشنامه حقوق تطبیقی | ||
| مقاله 6، دوره 10، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 21، فروردین 1405، صفحه 135-155 اصل مقاله (597.92 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/lps.2025.29831.1785 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مصطفی حسن رئیسی* 1؛ حسین سیمایی صراف2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 21 مرداد 1404، تاریخ بازنگری: 27 مهر 1404، تاریخ پذیرش: 17 آبان 1404 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف این مقاله بررسی میزان همگرایی و واگرایی مقررات نظام حقوقی ایران با قواعد پذیرفته شده در نظام های حقوقی انگلستان و آمریکا در خصوص نظریه منع تصاحب فرصت های متعلق به شرکت است که با روش تحلیلی-توصیفی و با شیوه تحقیق کتابخانه ای در پی واکاوی این هدف برآمده است زیرا امروزه تضمین بهره مندی شرکت از تمامی فرصت ها و موقعیت های پیش روی آن، امری ضروری است که مقررات مرتبط با راهبری شرکتی در جهان امروز، متولی آن است. تعارض منافع در بهره مندی از این فرصت ها به جهت مسئله نمایندگی و تفاوت میان مالکیت و مدیریت شرکت، موجب پیش بینی مقررات صریح و روشن در برخورد با سوءاستفاده های احتمالی مدیران متخلف در نظامهای حقوقی مختلف گردیده است تا جایی که نظریه ای مستقل در این خصوص با عنوان نظریه منع تصاحب فرصت های متعلق به شرکت شکل گرفته است. در دادگاههای آمریکا و انگلیس اگر مشخص شود که مدیر شرکت، وظایف امانتداری را نقض کرده و فرصتی که به شرکت تعلق داشته را تصاحب نموده است، با ضمانت اجراهای سنگین حقوقی و کیفری مواجه خواهد شد. مبانی مربوط به اعمال این نظریه و ضمانت اجراهای مرتبط با آن در نظام حقوقی ما نیز موجود بوده و تفاوت آشکاری میان مبحث عدم النفع با فرصت تصاحب شده از سوی مدیر متخلف وجود دارد. این مقاله کوشیده با ارائه تحلیل های روشمند، اثبات نماید که در صورت ارائه تحلیل صحیح از ارکان نظریه فرصت های شرکتی، مقررات متناظر در ایران و الزامات ناشی از ید امانی، می توان با تمسک به قواعد اتلاف،تسبیب و امانی بودن ید مدیر شرکت، مقررات موجود را به نحوی تفسیر نمود که علاوه بر سازگاری با اصول فقهی و حقوقی موجود، از قابلیت کاربرد در رویه قضایی در برخورد با اشخاص متخلف برخوردار باشند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| تعارض منافع؛ عدم النفع؛ فرصت شرکت؛ عدم انتفاع شخصی؛ ماده 133 لایحه اصلاحی؛ قانون تجارت | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Comparative Study of Strategies for Preventing Corporate Opportunity Misappropriation in Light of the Corporate Opportunity Doctrine in Iranian, English, and American Law | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mostafa Hasan Raeisi1؛ Hosein Simaee sarraf2 | ||
| 1PhD Candidate in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The aim of this article is to examine the degree of convergence and divergence between Iranian legal regulations and the accepted rules of the legal systems of England and the United States regarding the corporate opportunity doctrine. Using a descriptive-analytical method and library-based research, the study explores the necessity of ensuring that all opportunities rightfully belonging to a company are safeguarded—an issue at the heart of modern corporate governance frameworks. Conflicts of interest arising from the agency problem and the separation of ownership and control have led various legal systems to adopt clear and specific regulations to prevent managerial misconduct. This has resulted in the development of an independent legal doctrine known as the "corporate opportunity doctrine." In U.S. and U.K. courts, if a company director is found to have breached fiduciary duties by usurping an opportunity that belonged to the company, they face serious civil and criminal consequences. The legal foundation for the application of this doctrine, along with its enforcement mechanisms, also exists within Iranian law. There is a significant distinction between the concept of lost profits and that of misappropriated corporate opportunities. This article argues that a correct understanding of the elements of the corporate opportunity doctrine, aligned with rules as etlāf (deliberate destruction) , tasbīb (causation), and the fiduciary nature of a director’s authority —can allow for an interpretation of existing regulations that is both consistent with Islamic legal principles and applicable in judicial practice for addressing managerial misconduct. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| conflict of interest, corporate opportunity, loss of profit, Article 133 of the, Commercial Code Amendment Bill | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Altieri v. Alexy (Del. Ch. 2023)
Al-Sharif, Mohammad Mahdi, & Jafari Khosroabadi, Nasrollah. (2011). The Nature of Trust (Amanat), Journal of the School of Law, (67). (In Persian)
namardanajad, D., Mohammadi, S., & Hosseini Moghadam, S. H. (2021). The necessity of legislation in managing conflict-of-interest situations. Journal of Legal Studies, 13(4), 1–24. Doi: 10.22099/jls.2021.40291.4349
Armored Combat League, LLC v. Brooks (Del. Ch. 2019)
Bainbridge, Stephen Mark (2008) Rethinking Delaware's Corporate Opportunity Doctrine. UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No.8, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1296962
Bourne, Nicolas, Essential Company Law, (2000), London, Cavandish.
Broz v. Cellular Info. Sys Inc, 673 A.2d 148, 157 (Del. 1996)
CMS Dolphin Ltd v. Simonet. EWHC (Ch) 4159 (2001)
Coster v. UIP Companies, Inc. (Del. 2023)
Cygnus Opportunity Fund, LLC v. Washington Prime Group, LLC (Del. Ch. 2023)
Davies, Paul, Principle of Modern Company Law, (2007), London, Sweet and Maxwell, 8th edition.
Eclairs Group Ltd v. JKX Oil & Gas plc. (UKSC 2015)
Eskini, Rabee’a. (2006). Commercial Law: Commercial Companies, Vol. 2, 8th ed., Organization for Research and Composing University Textbooks in the Humanities (SAMT). (In Persian)
Eric G Orlinsky (1999), Corporate Opportunity Doctrine and Interested Director Transactions: A Framework for Analysis in an Attempt to Restore Predictability' 24(2) Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 451, pp 522-525
Erste Asset Mgmt. GmbH v. Hees (Del. Ch. Aug. 8, 2024)
Forouhi, Hamid (1993), Commercial Law - Capital, Personal, and Mixed Companies, 1st ed., Tehran, Rouzbehan. (In Persian)
Fortis Advisors LLC v. Johnson & Johnson (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2024)
Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v. Bryant. EWCA Civ 200 (2007)
GB-SP Holdings, LLC v. Walker (Del. Ch. Nov. 15, 2024)
Gelter, Martin and Helleringer, Genevieve, Corporate Opportunities in the US and in the UK: How Differences in Enforcement Explain Differences in Substantive Fiduciary Duties (February 1, 2017)- Law Working Paper No. 346/2017, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2877205
Gelter, Martin & Helleringer, Geneviève (2017), Corporate Opportunities in the US and in the UK. ECGI Working Paper Series in Law – Working Paper No. 346.
Gholinia, Reza & Shahsavandi, Esmail & Bozorgmehr, Amirabbas & Mashhadizadeh, Alireza. (2024). Explaining the Concept of Corporate Opportunities and Strategy to Prevent Them from Appropriating by Directors (A Comparative Study of the Legal System of the United States, England and Iran), Contemporary Comparative Legal Studies,15 (35), pp:195-232. doi: 10.22034/LAW.2024.57443.3294. (In Persian)
Goulding, Simon, (1996) COMPANY LAW, Second Edition, by Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Guth v. Loft 5 A.2d, 505-507 (Del. 1939)
Hassani, Hassan. (2006). Commercial Law (Including All Topics), 5th ed., Mizan Publishing. (In Persian)
https://law.justia.com
Hosseini, P. (2016). The concept of de facto director and comparison of his liability with that of de jure director in commercial companies: A comparative study between Iranian and French law. Comparative Law Research Journal, 2(1), 106–127. Doi: 10.22080/lps.2018.11695.1118
In re Match Grp., Inc. Derivative Litigation (Del. Ch. Oct. 2, 2024)
Jones, Gareth (1968), Unjust Enrichment and the Fiduciary’s Duty of Loyalty. 84 Law Quarterly Review 472.
Joneidi, La'ya & Akbarian Tabari, Masoumeh (2017), Fiduciary relationship of managers in joint-stock companies: a comparative study British & Iranian Law, Journl of Comparative Law, 14 (2), pp: 69-96. doi: 10.22096/law.2019.34499. (In Persian)
Justin Green v. Colin McClive (Del. Ch. June 3, 2024)
Karimi, Abbas & Lotfi Foroushani, Mehran (2018). Confronting the Misuse of Right in the Commercial Companies of Iran, Regarding the Rule of "No-Loss", Islamic Law Research Journal, 19 (2), pp: 279-300. doi: 10.30497/law.2019.2372. (In Persian)
Katebi, Hosseinqoli. (1989). Commercial Law, 3rd ed., Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh Publishing. (In Persian)
Keech v. Sandford. Sel Cas Ch 61, 25 ER 223 (1726)
Leased Access Preservation Association v. Thomas (Del. Ch. 2020)
Lotfi, Asadollah. (2005). The Rule of Trust in the Extinction of Liability, Tehran University Law Faculty Journal, 44. (In Persian)
MALT Family Trust v. 777 Partners LLC (Del. Ch. Nov. 13, 2023)
McCahery, Joseph A & Vermeulen, Erik M (2010), Corporate governance of non-listed companies. Oxford University Press.
Mohaqqeq Damad, Mostafa, & Keykha Farzaneh, Mohammad Amin. (2018). The Role of Custom in Interpretation within Judicial Law Based on the Foundations of Imamiyyah Jurisprudence, Judicial Law Views Quarterly, (81) (In Persian)
Moghaddam, issa (2020). Usurping the Corporate Opportunity by Director and its sanction (A Study in Law of English, United States & Iran). Private Law Studies Quarterly, 50 (4), 803-818. doi: 10.22059/jlq.2020.294575.1007316. (In Persian)
Outlaw Beverage, Inc. v. Collins (Del. Ch. 2019)
Pakdaman, Reza. (2010). Commercial Company Law (Explanation and Critique of Regulations Governing Public and Private Joint-Stock Companies, Limited Liability, Cooperative, General Partnership, State-Owned, and Foreign Companies), 1st ed., Khorsandi Publishing. (In Persian)
Personal Touch Holding Corp. v. Glaubach, C.A.No. 11199-CB (Del. 2019)
Rauterberg, G.V., & E.L. Talley (2017), Contracting Out of the Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Opportunity Waivers Columbia Law Review.
Rauterberg, Gabriel V. and Talley, Eric L (2017), Contracting Out of the Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Opportunity Waivers. Columbia Law Review, (117), 1075-1151. Doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2734954.
Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver. All ER 37 (1942)
S’holder Representative Servs. LLC v. Alexion Pharms. Inc. (Del. Ch. Sept. 5, 2024)
Safaei, Seyed Hossein, & Rahimi, Habibollah. (2013). Civil Liability (Non-Contractual Obligations), 5th ed., Tehran: SAMT Publications. (In Persian)
Saghari, Mansour (1964), Commercial Law, Elmi Publishing . (In Persian)
Sotoudeh Tehrani, Hassan. (1995). Commercial Law, Vol. 2, Tehran: Dadgostar Publishing. (In Persian)
Shahbazi, Mohammad Hossein, Akbari Dehno, Meysam, & Hajian, Hani. (2023). A Comparative Study of Loss of Profit in Islamic Jurisprudence and Iranian Procedural Laws, Journal of Justice Legal Studies, 87, pp. 115–144. doi: 10.22106/jlj.2022.544864.4578. (In Persian)
Solak v. Mountain Crest Capital LLC (Del. Ch. Oct. 18, 2024)
Tally, Eric & Hashmall, Mira (2001), THE CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY DOCTRINE. U.S.C. Institute for Corporate Counsel, pp:1-28
Talley, Eric L (1998), Turning Servile Opportunities to Gold: A Strategic Analysis of the Corporate Opportunities Doctrine. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=140732
TMT Entertainment v. Gasparro, NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 (NYSCEF. 2019)
Yifat, Naftali Ben Zion (February 1, 2023), Cleaning up the Corporate Opportunity Doctrine Mess: A First Principles Approach. Washington and Lee Law Review, 80(4), pp:1609-1686.
Ying, Jennifer (May 8, 2009), Guth v. Loft: The Story of Pepsi-Cola and the Corporate Opportunity Doctrine. available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1414478
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 316 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 37 |
||