본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

미국 회사법상의 주주대표소송과 특별소송위원회에 관한 연구

The Shareholders’ Derivative Suit and the Special Litigation Committee in U.S. Corporate Law

손창일
법학연구소 (The Institute of Legal Studies Konkuk University)|2011.11|외법논집 (HUFS Law Review)|제35권 제4호|pp. 149-168|DOI 10.17257/hufslr.2011.35.4.149

0

조회

0

다운로드

7

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

대표소송이사회신인의무특별소송위원회영미법주주대표소송주요주주fiduciary dutyboard of directorsderivative suit미국회사법special litigation committeecommon law직접손해major shareholders간접손해shareholders’ derivative suitU.S. corporate lawdirect harmindirect harm
주제분류법학

초록

A shareholders’ derivative suit permits one or more shareholders to bring a suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation. This forces the wrongdoers to compensate the corporation for the injury caused by them. This kind of action usually concerns directors, officers, and majority shareholders failing to exercise their fiduciary duties to the corporation. The shareholders’ derivative suit is distinct even in common law system. Most corporate lawsuits are filed by the corporation itself rather than its shareholders. Usually, the board of directors decide whether a corporation will pursue a claim through litigation. This presents problems when the possible lawsuit is against the directors or officers. A board of directors may act as a whole in reviewing shareholders’ demand, or it can choose to organize a special litigation committee to investigate the facts underlying a demand and draft a report and recommendation regarding the suit. The shareholders’ derivative suit was devised in order to permit shareholders to seek compensation in cases where the board of directors decides not to pursue the possible claim. For over a hundred years, the shareholders’ derivative suit and the special litigation committee in U.S. corporate law have played a significant role in keeping a check on and maintaining a balance between the power of major and minor shareholders. However, they face some problems with regard to the features of modern U.S. corporations. The U.S. shareholders’ derivative suit has three main shortcomings. First, it is illogical for a corporation to have the preferential right to enforce a claim. Second, the concept of direct and indirect harm is misunderstood. Third, it is illogical that the shareholders’ derivative suit is always complex when brought by shareholders. The special litigation committee system also has three issues. First, it has a problem of self-audit. Second, it has problems with regard to public policy. Third, it does not reflect the reality of today’s U.S. corporations. The shareholders’ derivative suit is meant to protect the interests of shareholders. However, it does not fully measure up in this respect. Today, the power of a shareholder in the United States is increasingly diminishing. In this situation, it is desirable for U.S. courts not to enforce the legal entity concept of a corporation and to gradually transfer the power of bringing a suit to shareholders.

Abstract

A shareholders’ derivative suit permits one or more shareholders to bring a suit against wrongdoers on behalf of the corporation. This forces the wrongdoers to compensate the corporation for the injury caused by them. This kind of action usually concerns directors, officers, and majority shareholders failing to exercise their fiduciary duties to the corporation. The shareholders’ derivative suit is distinct even in common law system. Most corporate lawsuits are filed by the corporation itself rather than its shareholders. Usually, the board of directors decide whether a corporation will pursue a claim through litigation. This presents problems when the possible lawsuit is against the directors or officers. A board of directors may act as a whole in reviewing shareholders’ demand, or it can choose to organize a special litigation committee to investigate the facts underlying a demand and draft a report and recommendation regarding the suit. The shareholders’ derivative suit was devised in order to permit shareholders to seek compensation in cases where the board of directors decides not to pursue the possible claim. For over a hundred years, the shareholders’ derivative suit and the special litigation committee in U.S. corporate law have played a significant role in keeping a check on and maintaining a balance between the power of major and minor shareholders. However, they face some problems with regard to the features of modern U.S. corporations. The U.S. shareholders’ derivative suit has three main shortcomings. First, it is illogical for a corporation to have the preferential right to enforce a claim. Second, the concept of direct and indirect harm is misunderstood. Third, it is illogical that the shareholders’ derivative suit is always complex when brought by shareholders. The special litigation committee system also has three issues. First, it has a problem of self-audit. Second, it has problems with regard to public policy. Third, it does not reflect the reality of today’s U.S. corporations. The shareholders’ derivative suit is meant to protect the interests of shareholders. However, it does not fully measure up in this respect. Today, the power of a shareholder in the United States is increasingly diminishing. In this situation, it is desirable for U.S. courts not to enforce the legal entity concept of a corporation and to gradually transfer the power of bringing a suit to shareholders.

참고문헌 (109)

  1. 김정호, "회사법" (2010), 법문사
  2. 손진화, "회사법" (2010), 신조사
  3. 최병규, "회사법" (2009), 박영사
  4. 안택식, "회사법강의" (2009), 형설출판사
  5. 임재연, "미국기업법" (2009), 박영사
  6. 정찬형, "상법상의(上)" (2009), 박영사
  7. 김건식, "주주대표소송의 활성화와 관련된 몇가지 문제점", 서울대학교 법학, 37(2) (1996), 서울대학교 법학연구소
  8. 김영곤, "株主의 代表訴訟에 관한 小考", 기업법연구, 11, pp.9~31 (2002), 한국기업법학회
  9. 김정호, "이중대표소송에 대한 연구", 경영법률, 17(1), pp.221~290 (2006), 한국경영법률학회
  10. 박길준, "주주대표소송", 법학연구, 9ㆍ10 (2000), 연세대학교
  11. 양동석, "기업의 지배구조개선을 위한 주주대표소송", 상사법연구, 19(2) (2000), 한국상사법학회
  12. 유진희, "이중대표소송의 도입에 관한 입법론적 고찰", 상사판례연구, 19(4), pp.121~153 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
  13. 이강용, "주주의 대표소송", 법학연구, 7(1) (1996), 충남대학교 법학연구원
  14. 이봉의, "企業支配構造改編을 위한 株主代表訴訟 制度의 國際比較", 상사판례연구, 19(1), pp.457~500 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
  15. 전삼현, "이중대표소송제에 관한 소고", 경영법률, 17(1), pp.291~316 (2006), 한국경영법률학회
  16. 최완진, "二重代表訴訟制度에 관한 法的 考察", 경영법률, 18(2), pp.255~274 (2008), 한국경영법률학회
  17. 최현주, "株主代表訴訟의 活性化 方案에 관한 考察", 경영법률, 18(2), pp.275~297 (2008), 한국경영법률학회
  18. 손창일, "영미법상의 司法政策的 관점에서 본 경영판단 원칙의 변화단계 연구 － 미국 델라웨어 州 판결의 역사를 중심으로 －", 경영법률, 20(3), pp.27~65 (2010), 한국경영법률학회
  19. 손창일, "미국법상 경영판단의 원칙에 관한 비판적 소고 - 주주와 회사 이익 보호의 관점에서 -", 상사판례연구, 22(4), pp.3~39 (2009), 한국상사판례학회
  20. 손창일, "미국 회사법 시장 체계에 관한 연구－ 州 회사법 시장의 독점적 경쟁시장화와 자유주의적 회사법 형성의 관점에서", 안암법학, (31)통권 : 31, pp.221~250 (2010), 안암법학회
  21. 손창일, "미국 회사법상의 법인격 부인론 연구", 경영법률, 22(1), pp.23~58 (2011), 한국경영법률학회
  22. Alan R. Palmiter, "Corporation" (2006), Aspen
  23. Bradley T. Ferrell, "Note, A Hybrid Approach: Integrating the Delaware and the ALI Approaches to Shareholder Derivative Litigation", 60 Ohio St. L. J, pp.241~ (1999)
  24. Charles R. T. O’Kelley, "and Other Business Associations: Cases and Materials" (1999), Aspen Law & Business
  25. David W. Locascio, "The Dilemma of the Double Derivative Suit", pp.729~ (1989), 83 Nw. U. L. Rev
  26. D. Gordon Smith, "Business Organizations-Cases, Problems, and Case Studies" (2004), Aspen
  27. Eric A. Chiappinelli, "Cases and Materials on Business Entities" (2006), Aspen
  28. Franklin A. Gevurtz, "Corporation Law" (2000), West Group
  29. Harry G. Henn, "Law of Corporation" (1970), West Publishing Co
  30. Harry G. Henn, "Laws of Corporations" (1983), West Publishing Co
  31. James D. Cox, "Corporations" (2003), Aspen
  32. Jeffrey D. Bauman, "Corporations Law and Policy: Materials and Problems" (2007), Thompson West
  33. John C. Coffee, Jr, "Survival of the Derivative Suit: An Evaluation and a Proposal for Legislative Reform" (1981), 81 Colum. L. Rev. 261
  34. Mary E. Matthews, "The Shareholder Derivative Suit in Arkansas" (1999), 52 Ark. L. Rev. 353
  35. Melvin A. Eisenberg, "Corporations and Other Business Organizations: Cases and Materials" (2005), Foundation Press
  36. Minor Myers, "The Decisions of the Corporate Special Litigation Committees : An Empirical Investigation", 84 Ind. L. J, pp.1309~ (2009)
  37. Note, "Demand on Directors and Shareholders as a Prerequisite to a Derivative Suit", pp.746~ (1960), 73 Harv. L. Rev
  38. Robert R. Pennington, "Company Law" (1990), Butterworths
  39. Robert W. Hamilton, "Corporations" (1997), West Publishing Co
  40. Robert W. Hamilton, "The Law of Corporations" (2000), West
  41. Stephen M. Bainbridge, "Corporate Law" (2009), Foundation Press
  42. William L. Cary, "Corporations: Cases and Materials" (1970), The Foundation Press
  43. William T. Allen, "Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organization" (2007), Wolters Kluwer
  44. Chang-il Son, "New Progress in U.S. Corporate Governance" (2009), University of Wisconsin Law School
  45. Abbey v, "Computer & Communications Technology Corp" (1983), Del. Ch
  46. "Allen v. Curtis, 26 Conn., 456", ~ (1857)
  47. "Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805", ~ (1984)
  48. "Auerbach v. Bennett, 408 N.Y.S. 2d 83", ~ (1978)
  49. "Barium Steel v. Wiley, 108 A.2d 338", ~ (1954)
  50. "Brown v. Tenney, 532 N.E.2d 230", ~ (1988)
  51. "Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471", ~ (1979)
  52. "Citizens National Bank of St. Petersburg v. Peters, 175 So.2d 54", ~ (1965)
  53. Cohen v, "Beneficial Indus" (1949), Loan Corp
  54. "Davenport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626", ~ (1873)
  55. Desaigoudar v. Meyercord, "108 Cal. App. 4th 173" (2003), Cal. App
  56. "Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331", ~ (1855)
  57. "Evans v. Brandon, 53 Tex. 56" (1880)
  58. Finley v, "Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 4th 1152" (2000), Cal. App
  59. "Forbes v. Whitlock, 3 Edw. Ch. 446", ~ (1841)
  60. "Fried v. Easton, 293 So. 2d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1974)", ~ (1974)
  61. "Gagnon Co., Inc. v. Nevada Desert Inn, 289 P.2d 466 (Cal. 1955)", ~ (1955)
  62. "Glenn K. Jackson Inc. v. Roe, 273 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2001)", ~ (2001)
  63. "Green v. Victor Talking Mach. Co. 24 F2d 378 (1928)", ~ (1928)
  64. "Hirsh v. Jones, 56 F 137 (1893)", ~ (1893)
  65. "Hodges v. New England Screw Co. 1 R. I. 312 (1850)", ~ (1850)
  66. "In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litig., 824 A.2d 917 (Del. Ch. 2003)", ~ (2003)
  67. "In re Worldcom, Inc. et al., 323 B.R. 844 (2005)", ~ (2005)
  68. "James Talcott, Inc. v. McDowell, 148 So.2d 36 (Fla. App. 1962)", ~ (1962)
  69. "Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, 662 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 2003)", ~ (2003)
  70. "Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co., 1 Cal.3d 93 (Cal. 1969)", ~ (1969)
  71. "Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 836 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1987)", ~ (1987)
  72. "Kahn v. Kaskel, 367 F. Supp. 784 (1973)", ~ (1973)
  73. "Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (1991)", ~ (1991)
  74. "Kaplan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 540 A.2d 726 (Del. 1988)", ~ (1988)
  75. Katell v. Morgan Stanley Group, "1995 WL 376952", ~ (1995)
  76. Klopstock v, "Superior Court, 17 Cal.2d 13 (Cal. 1941)", ~ (1941)
  77. Kramer v, "Western Pacific Industries, Inc., 546 A.2d 348 (Del. 1988)", ~ (1988)
  78. Lee v. Mitchell, "953 P.2d 414", ~ (1998)
  79. Lewis v. Anderson, "615 F.2d 778", ~ (1979)
  80. Lewis v. Anderson, "477 A.2d 1040", ~ (1984)
  81. Lewis v. Knutson, "699 F.2d 230", ~ (1983)
  82. Massachusetts v. Davis, "168 S.W.2d. 216", ~ (1942)
  83. McKee v. Rogers, "156 A. 191", ~ (1931)
  84. Mills Acquisition Co. v. Macmillan, Inc, "559 A.2d 1261", ~ (1989)
  85. Niesar v. Athena Venture Fund, "WL 3096070", ~ (2006)
  86. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., Inc., "267 F.3d 340", ~ (2001)
  87. Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, "161 So. 284", ~ (1935)
  88. Paramount Communications, Inc. v. Time, Inc., "571 A.2d 1140", ~ (1990)
  89. Peabody v. Flint, "6 Allen 53", ~ (1863)
  90. Phoenix Airline Svcs. v. Metro Airlines, "397 S.E.2d 699", ~ (1990)
  91. Ritchie v. McMullen, "79 F 522", ~ (1897)
  92. Robinson v. Smith, "3 Paige Ch. 222", ~ (1832)
  93. Russell v. Weyand, "5 Cal.App.2d 259", ~ (1935)
  94. Ryan v. Leavenworth, A. & N.W. Ry, "Ryan v. Leavenworth, A. & N.W. Ry., 21 Kan. 365 (Kan. 1879)", ~ (1879)
  95. Shaw v. Empire Savings & Loan Assn, "Shaw v. Empire Savings & Loan Assn., 186 2d 401 (Cal. App. 1960)", ~ (1960)
  96. Siegman v. Tri-star Pictures, Inc, "1989 WL 48746", ~ (1989)
  97. Smith v. Hurd, "12 Met. 371", ~ (1847)
  98. Smith Setzer, "South Carolina Procurement Review Panel, 20 F.3d 1311", ~ (1994)
  99. Sohland v. Baker, "141 A. 277", ~ (1927)
  100. Spiegel v. Buntrock, "571 A.2d 767", ~ (1990)
  101. Sterngass v. Bowman, "563 F.Supp. 456", ~ (1983)
  102. Sutter v. General Petroleum Corp, "28 Cal.2d 525", ~ (1946)
  103. Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, "845 A.2d 1031", ~ (2004)
  104. Turner v. Markham, "155 Cal. 562", ~ (1909)
  105. Von Brimer v. Whirlpool Corp, "367 F. Supp. 740", ~ (1973)
  106. Wallace v. Lincoln Savings Bank, "15 S. W. 448", ~ (1891)
  107. Weiss v. Northwest Accept. Corp, "546 P.2d 1065", ~ (1976)
  108. Whitten v. Dabney, "171 Cal. 621", ~ (1915)
  109. Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, "430 A.2d 779", ~ (1980)

관련 논문AI추천

미국과 한국의 대표소송 비교 연구 - 소송절차상의 쟁점을 중심으로 -임재연대한변호사협회 · 인권과 정의2008 · 제388호주주대표소송의 활성화를 위한 소고정승화한국상사판례학회 · 상사판례연구2013 · 제26권 제2호주주대표소송 판례의 동향과 그 연구김홍기법학연구소 · 법학연구2007 · 제48권 제1호韓ㆍ中 會社法上 理事의 責任과 代表訴訟에 관한 比較硏究박승남, 양동석법학연구원 · 법학논총2010 · 제17권 제3호株主代表訴訟의 活性化 方案에 관한 考察최현주한국경영법률학회 · 경영법률2008 · 제18권 제2호二重代表訴訟制度에 관한 法的 考察최완진한국경영법률학회 · 경영법률2008 · 제18권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (17건)

An Analysis on the Burden of Proof in Korea’s Environmental Lawsuits계경문pp. 1-12한국의 비정규고용의 실태와 법률적 쟁점 －비정규고용의 현황, 대응과정 및 향후 개선방안을 중심으로－박종희pp. 13-34부정경쟁방지법에서의 영업비밀의 형사법적 보호이훈동pp. 35-47지방자치와 한국헌법의 과제김호정pp. 49-66성폭력범죄자의 성충동약물 치료에 관한 법률의 정당성 및 실효성 검토홍기원, 이보영pp. 67-87
원문 보기