Martha’s (and Steve’s) Good Faith: An Officer’s Duty of Loyalty at the Intersection of Good Faith and Candor

Joan Macleod Heminway
{"title":"Martha’s (and Steve’s) Good Faith: An Officer’s Duty of Loyalty at the Intersection of Good Faith and Candor","authors":"Joan Macleod Heminway","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1440919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This short paper begins to explore whether a corporate officer’s duty of good faith extends to public disclosures of personal facts. Specifically, the paper preliminarily attacks the following question: in the post Stone v. Ritter, post-Gantler v. Stephens era in which we now live, is the absence or inadequacy of an executive officer’s disclosure of personal facts a breach of the duty of good faith and, as a result, the fiduciary duty of loyalty under Delaware law? The answer to this question is tied up in recent jurisprudence of the Delaware Supreme Court at the intersection of the duty of good faith, the duty of disclosure (or candor), and the applicability of fiduciary duties to corporate officers. Accordingly, in a preliminary analysis, this paper first describes that jurisprudence and then applies it to executive disclosures of personal facts. The paper closes with a brief conclusion that includes a cautionary note about the use of its findings in a litigation setting.","PeriodicalId":188781,"journal":{"name":"Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1440919","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This short paper begins to explore whether a corporate officer’s duty of good faith extends to public disclosures of personal facts. Specifically, the paper preliminarily attacks the following question: in the post Stone v. Ritter, post-Gantler v. Stephens era in which we now live, is the absence or inadequacy of an executive officer’s disclosure of personal facts a breach of the duty of good faith and, as a result, the fiduciary duty of loyalty under Delaware law? The answer to this question is tied up in recent jurisprudence of the Delaware Supreme Court at the intersection of the duty of good faith, the duty of disclosure (or candor), and the applicability of fiduciary duties to corporate officers. Accordingly, in a preliminary analysis, this paper first describes that jurisprudence and then applies it to executive disclosures of personal facts. The paper closes with a brief conclusion that includes a cautionary note about the use of its findings in a litigation setting.
玛莎(和史蒂夫)的诚信:一个官员在诚信与坦率的交汇处的忠诚义务
这篇短文开始探讨公司管理人员的诚信义务是否延伸到公开披露个人事实。具体而言,本文初步探讨了以下问题:在我们现在生活的斯通诉里特案、甘特勒诉斯蒂芬斯案之后的时代,高管对个人事实披露的缺失或不足是否违反了特拉华州法律规定的诚信义务,从而违反了忠诚的信托义务?这个问题的答案与特拉华州最高法院最近的判例有关,涉及诚信义务、披露(或诚实)义务以及对公司管理人员的信义义务的适用性。因此,在初步分析中,本文首先描述了这一法理,然后将其应用于高管披露个人事实。论文以一个简短的结论结束,其中包括一个关于在诉讼环境中使用其调查结果的警示性说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信