Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUC Iuridica) is a legal journal published since 1955, which presents longer essays as well as short articles on topics relevant for legal theory and international, European and Czech law. It also publishes works concerning current legislative problems.
Although intended primarily for domestic audience, AUC Iuridica is useful also for foreign experts, who can take advantage of summaries in foreign languages (English, German and French) and key words, which are systematically added to the main articles and essays.
The published articles are subject to peer reviews. If necessary, reviewed texts are sent back to the author for revision.
AUC Iuridica accepts contributions from any contributor on any current legal topic.
The journal is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries).
The journal is archived in Portico.
–––
We are pleased to inform you that the journal Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database SCOPUS. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite SCOPUS database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 68 No 3 (2022), 9–22
The Duty of Care and Business Judgment Rule in Austrian Company Law
Martin Winner
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2022.32
published online: 14. 09. 2022
abstract
The duty of care is a core instrument to incentivise managers to act diligently and in the best interest of the company. The following article highlights some key points under Austrian law and puts special emphasis on the business judgment rule, which aims to limit the liability risk of board members arising from the problem of judicial hindsight bias.
keywords: duty of care; business judgment rule; principal–agent conflict; directors’ liability
references (23)
1. ARMOUR, J. - ENRIQUES, L. - HANSMANN, H. - KRAAKMAN, R. The Basic Governance Structure: the Interest of Shareholders as a Class. In: ARMOUR, J. - ENRIQUES, L. et al. The Anatomy of Corporate Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 49 et seq. CrossRef
2. ARMOUR, J. - HANSMANN, H. - KRAAKMAN, R. Agency Problems and Legal Strategies. In: ARMOUR, J. - ENRIQUES, L. et al. The Anatomy of Corporate Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 29 et seq. CrossRef
3. FELTL, C. - TOLD, J. Commentary § 25 GmbHG. In: GRUBER, M. - HARRER, F. GmbHG. 2nd ed. Wien: Linde Verlag, 2018.
4. FLEISCHER, H. Commentary § 93 AktG. In: HENSSLER, M. beck-online.Großkommentar [online]. [cit. 2022-03-15]. Available at: https://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata/komm/BeckOGK/cont/BeckOGK.htm.
5. HOPT, K. - ROTH, M. Commentary § 93 AktG. In: HIRTE, H. - MÜLBERT, P. - ROTH, M. Großkommentar zum Aktiengesetz. 5th ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.
6. HÜFFER, U. - KOCH, J. Aktiengesetz. 14th ed. München: C. H. Beck, 2020.
7. KALSS, S. Aktiengesellschaft. In: KALSS, S. - NOWOTNY, C. - SCHAUER, M. Österreichisches Gesellschaftsrecht. Wien: Manz, 2017.
8. KAROLLUS, M. Unternehmerische Ermessensentscheidungen und Business Judgment Rule aus primär gesellschaftsrechtlicher Sicht mit besonderem Blick auf Versicherungsunternehmen. Die Versicherungsrundschau. 2015, No. 10, pp. 23 et seq.
9. KAROLLUS, M. Gesellschaftsrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit von Bankorganen bei Kredit- und Sanierungsentscheidungen - zugleich ein Beitrag zur Business Judgment Rule. Österreichisches Bankarchiv. 2016, pp. 252 et seq. CrossRef
10. KRAUS, S.-F. - TORGGLER, U. Commentary § 25 GmbHG. In: TORGGLER, U. (ed.). GmbHG. Wien: Manz, 2014.
11. LUTTER, M. Die Business Judgment Rule in Deutschland und Österreich. Zeitschrift für Gesellschafts und Unternehmensrecht. 2007, No. 2, pp. 79 et seq.
12. MERKT, H. US-amerikanisches Gesellschaftsrecht. 3rd ed. Frankfurt: Deutscher Fachverlag, 2013.
13. NOWOTNY, C. Unternehmerische Entscheidung und Organhaftung. In: Festschrift für Georg Koppensteiner II. Wien: LexisNexis, 2016, pp. 193 et seq.
14. NOWOTNY, C. Commentary § 84 AktG. In: DORALT, P. - NOWOTNY, C. - KALSS, S. Aktiengesetz Kommentar. 3rd ed. Wien: Linde Verlag, 2021.
15. POSNER, R. Economic Analysis of Law. 7th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2007.
16. RATKA, T. - RAUTER, R. A. Zivil- und unternehmensrechtliche Haftung des Geschäftsführers. In: RATKA, T. - RAUTER, R. A. Handbuch Geschäftsführerhaftung. 2nd ed. Wien: facultas.wuv, 2011.
17. REICH-ROHRWIG, J. Commentary § 25 GmbHG. In: STRAUBE, M. - RATKA, T. - RAUTER, R. A. Wiener Kommentar zum GmbH-Gesetz [online]. 2015 [cit. 2022-03-15]. Available at: https://rdb.manz.at/document/1125_1_gmbhg_p0025.
18. SCHIMA, G. Reform des Untreuetatbestands und Business Judgment Rule im Aktien- und GmbH-Recht. Zeitschrift für Gesellschafts und Unternehmensrecht. 2015, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 286 et seq.
19. SPINDLER, G. Commentary § 93 AktG. In: GOETTE, W. - HABERSACK, M. Münchener Kommentar zum Aktiengesetz. 5th ed. München: C. H. Beck, 2019.
20. TOLD, J. Business Judgment Rule: a Generally Applicable Principle? European Business Law Review. 2015, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 713 et seq. CrossRef
21. TORGGLER, U. Zivilrechtliche Grundlagen der Treuepflichten. In: KALSS, S. - TORGGLER, U. Treuepflichten. Wien: Manz, 2018, pp. 1 et seq.
22. WINNER, M. Busines Judgment Rule. In: KALSS, S. - SCHÖRGHOFER, P. Handbuch für den Vorstand. Wien: facultas, 2017, pp. 1239 et seq.
23. WINNER, M. Die organschaftliche Treuepflicht. In: KALSS, S. - TORGGLER, U. Treuepflichten. Wien: Manz, 2018, pp. 137 et seq.
The Duty of Care and Business Judgment Rule in Austrian Company Law is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
