Subjective-objective standard of the director’s behavior
- Authors: Kosyakin I.A.1
-
Affiliations:
- JSC “Concern “Sozvezdie”
- Issue: No 8 (2024)
- Pages: 104-114
- Section: Discussions and debates
- URL: https://vestnikugrasu.org/1026-9452/article/view/649098
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S1026945224080101
- ID: 649098
Cite item
Abstract
The article examines the standard of behavior of a director, with which the behavior of a director held liable for causing losses to a legal entity is compared. By drawing on comparative legal material (England, USA, France, and Germany), analysis of Russian legislation and judicial practice, it was concluded that the courts strive to introduce a subjective component even into a standard that is formulated at the legislative level as objective. This is explained by the activities of the director in the business environment, which now is impossible to fully understand and identify all cause-and-effect relationships (unlike the activities of other persons in relation to whom a special regime of liability has been established – medical workers, notaries, attorneys, appraisers).
A set of measures is proposed (specification of the agreement with the director, exclusion of liability in crisis situations under the agreement, “nudging” to the standard at the level of judicial practice and best practices of corporate governance, use of information disclosure and qualification requirements), which will clarify and balance the standard of conduct of the director.
Full Text

About the authors
Igor A. Kosyakin
JSC “Concern “Sozvezdie”
Author for correspondence.
Email: ikos5@mail.ru
PhD in Law, Deputy General Director of Business Development and Legal Issues
Russian Federation, VoronezhReferences
- Gabov A. V., Khavanova I. A. Evolution of robots and the 21st Century Law // Tomsk State University Journal. 2018. No. 435. P. 226 (in Russ.).
- Kratenko M. V., Moroz V. P. Diffuculties of proof in medical malpractice cases: a comparative analysis of thelLaw of Russia, Belarus and EU Member States // Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2021. Iss. 4. Pp. 766–789 (in Russ.).
- Laptev V. A. Artificial Intelligence and liability for its work // Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics 2019. No. 2. P. 95 (in Russ.).
- Legal regulation of the liability of members of management organs: an analysis of international practice / Bernard Black et al. M., 2010 (in Russ.).
- Fridman A. You or chaos. Professional planning for regular management. M., 2015 (in Russ.).
- Sheremetova G. S. The right for free legal assistance in the Civil Process. M., 2015 (in Russ.).
- Bainbridge S. M. Corporate Law. 3rd ed. StPaul, 2015. Pp. 133, 140.
- Davies P. L., Worthington S., Micheler E. Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law. London, 2016. Pp. 479, 480.
- Dine J., Coutsias M. Company Law. Houndmills, 2014. P. 168.
- Gerner-Beuerle C., Paech P., Schuster E. P. Annex to Study on Directors` Duties and Liability. London, 2013. Pp. 82, 93.
- Kershaw D. The Foundations of Anglo-American Corporate Fiduciary Law. Cambridge, 2018. Pp. 280, 281.
- Model Business Corporation Act (2016 Revision). Official Text with Official Comment and Statutory Cross-References. ABA Publishing, 2017. Pp. 179, 180, 183, 184.
- Riley C. A. The Company Director’s Duty of Care and Skill: The Case for an Onerous but Subjective Standard // Modern Law Review. 1999. Vol. 62. Iss. 5. Pp. 697–724.
- The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach / J. Armour, L. Enriques et al. Oxford, 2017. P. 69.
- Zwinge T. Have Directors’ Duties of Care and Skill Become More Stringent? What has Driven this Development? Is this Development Beneficial? An Analysis of the Duty of Care in the UK in Comparison to the German Duty of Care. 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1591590. Pp. 7, 8.
Supplementary files
