A Comparative Study of Fiduciary Duty Examination Systems in Corporate Decision-Making

In recent years, China has witnessed a surge in corporate governance irregularities both internally and externally. Terms like "financial scandals" have frequently trended, drawing high attention from the general public and causing significant damage to China's financing environment. Even though there are complex regulations in place, there are still speculators who, under the guise of legal decision-making processes, act dishonestly, making it difficult to prevent. Perhaps we should consider introducing a fiduciary duty system and learning from the legal systems of the United States and the United Kingdom to protect the interests of small and minority shareholders. In the state of Delaware, often referred to as the world's corporate capital, a shareholder lawsuit involving "the world's richest person," Elon Musk, and his prideful Tesla company unfolded in the Delaware Chancery Court. It immediately attracted the attention of business owners, investors, and corporate legal scholars from across the United States and the world. Since Tesla officially announced the acquisition of Musk's affiliated enterprise in 2016, SolarCity, founded by his cousins, a protracted legal battle initiated by a substantial group of plaintiffs lasted for over five years, finally coming to an end in early 2022 with Musk's victory. This enduring lawsuit, centered around whether Musk violated his fiduciary duties to minority shareholders under Delaware corporate law, with its lengthy process, complex evidence, and the judge's astute rulings, has provided us with insights into the examination logic and techniques applied by top-tier corporate law regarding fiduciary duties. This holds significant guiding significance for the subsequent amendments and practices of China's Company Law.