Abstract
The separation of ownership and control that is a typical feature of listed companies gives rise to agency problems. This problem is acutely reflected in the conflicting interests of stockholders and directors. An area in which this problem is played out relates to doctrinal approaches towards corporate opportunities, which has attracted a debate involving a comparison of the approach of English law and most states in the United States. This paper seeks to contribute to the current debate on corporate opportunities by comparing the Australian and Delaware approaches to corporate opportunities by directors. In particular, it explores self-dealing by a director who pursues corporate opportunities potentially at the expense of his corporation. This type of self-dealing is worth examining because of its potential effect of depriving the corporation of profits or opportunities which may be essential to its operation, harming the corporation, or putting the director in competition with the corporation of which he is meant to be a fiduciary.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Luca Enriques “The Law on Company Directors’ Self-dealing: A Comparative Analysis” (2000) 2(3) International and Comparative Corporate Law Journal 297; John Armour, Henry Hansmann and Reinier Kraakman “Agency Problems and Legal Strategies - Three Agency Problems” in Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry B. Hansmann, Gérard Hertig, Klaus J. Hopt, Hideki Kanda, and Edward B. Rock, Hideki Kanda, and Edward B. Rock (eds) The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (3rd ed, forthcoming, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016); John Armour, Henry Hansmann, Reinier Kraakman, and Mariana Pargendler, “What is Corporate Law?” in Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry B. Hansmann, Gérard Hertig, Klaus J. Hopt, Hideki Kanda, and Edward B. Rock, Hideki Kanda, and Edward B. Rock (eds)The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (3rd ed, forthcoming, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016); Henry Hansmann and Reinier Kraakman “The Essential Roleof Organizational Law” (2000) 110 (3) Yale Law Journal 387.
Luca Enriques “The Law on Company Directors’ Self-dealing: A Comparative Analysis” (2000) 2(3) International and Comparative Corporate Law Journal 297; John Armour, Henry Hansmann and Reinier Kraakman “Agency Problems and Legal Strategies - Three Agency Problems” in Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry B. Hansmann, Gérard Hertig, Klaus J. Hopt, Hideki Kanda, and Edward B. Rock, Hideki Kanda, and Edward B. Rock (eds) The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (3 Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016).
See, e.g., Adolf A Berle and Gardiner C Means The Modern Corporation and Private Property (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1933, reprinted 1991).
Frank H Easterbrook and Daniel R Fischel The Economic Structure of Corporate Law (Harvard University Press, 1991) at p. 103. See also Ralph K Winter Jr “State Law, Shareholder Protection, and the Theory of the Corporation” (1977) 6 Journal of Legal Studies 251.
David Kershaw “Lost in Translation: Corporate Opportunities in Comparative Perspective” (2005) 25(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 603.
Lyman P Q Johnson “Unsettledness in Delaware Corporate Law: Business Judgment Rule, Corporate Purpose” (2013) 38 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 405; Michael J Maimone “Causes of Action” in The Honorable Justice Randy J Holland and Helen L Winslow (eds) Delaware Supreme Court Golden Anniversary 1951-2001 (Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, Delaware, 2001) 53at 5.”
See Lucas Enriques, Gérard Hertg, Hideki Kanda and Mariana Pargendler “Related-Party Transactions” Reinier Kraakman, John Armour, Paul Davies, Luca Enriques, Henry B. Hansmann, Gérard Hertig, Klaus J. Hopt, Hideki Kanda, and Edward B. Rock, Hideki Kanda, and Edward B. Rock (eds)The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (3rd ed, forthcoming, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016).
Altero D’Agostini and Robert W Gilbert “Corporations: The Doctrine of Corporate Opportunities” (1943) 31California Law Review 188.
Kenneth V Riley “Corporation’s Right to Profits Made by Directors” (1943) Minnesota Law Review 513; D Gordon Smith (2002) “Critical Resource Theory of Fiduciary Duty” (2002) 55 Vanderbilt Law Review 1399.
John Gooley, David Russell, Matthew Dicker and Michael Zammit, Corporations and Associations Law: Principles and Issues, 5th ed (2011, Chatswood, NSW, LexisNexis Butterworths).
Phillip Lipton, Abe Herzberg and Michelle Welsh, Understanding Company Law, 16th ed (2012, Sydney, NSW, Thomson Reuters).
Warner Fuller “Restrictions Imposed by the Directorship Status onthe Personal Business Activities of Directors” (1941) 26 Washington University Law Quarterly 189; Armour, Hansmann, Kraakman, and Pargendler, above n 1.
Howard Hilton Spellman A Treatise on the Principles of Law Governing Corporate Directors (Prentice Hall, 1931); Fuller, above n 18.
Harvard Law Review Association “Corporate Opportunity” (1961) 74(4) Harvard Law Review 765.
Lincoln Stores, Inc., v. Grant (309 Mass. 417; 34 N. E. [2d] 704).
Beaudette v. Graham, 267 Mass. 7, 12; 165 N. E. 671.
Brown v. Little, Brown & Co., Inc., 269 Mass. 102, 117; 168 N. E. 521; 66 A. L. R. 1284).
Guth v. Loft, Inc., Del.Supr., 5 A.2d 503, 51–0 (1939).
Robert J Tilden “The Fiduciary Duty of Corporation Directors in Massachusetts” (1948) 28(3) Boston Law Review 265 at 268.
Rudolph E Uhlman “The Legal Status of Corporation Directors” (1939) 19 Boston University Law Review 12.
See Medford Trust Co. v. Mc Knight, 292 Mass. 1, 197 N. E. 649 (1935); Prudential Trust Co. v. Mc Carter, 271 Mass. 132, 171 N. E. 42 (1930).
See Warren A Seavey “The Rationale of Agency” (1920) 29(8) The Yale Law Journal 859.
Benedikt M J Luthge “Law of Agency in Comparison: A Look at the Civil Law Jurisdictions of the State of Louisiana and the Federal Republic of Germany” (2012) 21 Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law 697.
Continental Securities Co. v. Belmont, 206 N. Y. 7, 99 N. E. 138 (1912).
Hoyt v. Thompson’s Executor, 19 N. Y. 207 (1859).
William O Douglas “Directors Who Do Not Direct” (1934) 47 Harvard Law Review 1305.
Lagarde v Anniston Lime & Stone Co., I26 Ala. 496, 28 So. 199 (I900).
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh Knitting Co. (1919) 226 NY 185.
Jennifer Ying “Guth v. Loft: The Story of Pepsi-Cola and the Corporate Opportunity Doctrine (May 8, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1414478 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1414478 at 20 and 19.
See also Joseph R Angell and Samuel Ames Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (11th ed, Hillar, Gray & Co. Boston, 1882).
Victor Morawetz A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations, vol. 1 (Little, Brown, 1886).
William Savitt “A New New Look at Corporate Opportunities” 9-10 Columbia Law Sch. Ctr. for Law & Econ. Stud. Working Paper No. 235), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=446960.
Naomi R Lamoreaux and Christopher Glaisek “Vehicles of Privilegeor Mobility? Banks in Providence, Rhode Island, During the Age of Jackson” (1991) 65 Bus. Hist. Rev. 502.
Lagarde v Anniston Lime & Stone Co., I26 Ala. 496, 28 So. 199 (I900).
Richard Langlois “The Vanishing Hand: The Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism” 12-13 (Univ. of Conn. Ctr. For Inst., Orgs., and Markets Working Paper 8-13, 2001), available at http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~wwwciom/Vanishing.htm.
Robert Charles Clark Corporate Law (Little Brown, 1986).
James D Cox and Thomas Lee Hazen Corporations (Aspen Publishers, 2003).
See Pat K Chew “Competing Interests in the Corporate Opportunity Doctrine” (1989) 67 North Carolina Law Review 435.
Ian R Macneil “Contracts: Adjustment of Long-Term Economic Relations Under the Classical, Neoclassical, and Relational Contract Law” (1977-1978) 72 Nw. U. L. Rev. 854.
Eric Talley “Turning Servile Opportunities to Gold: A Strategic Analysis of the Corporate Opportunity Doctrine” (1998) 108 Yale L.J. 277.
Farwell v Pyle-National Electric Headlight Co., (Ill. 1919) 124 N. E. 449.
Loft, Inc v Guth, 2 A.2d 225, Delaware Chancery Court at 232.
Bob Stoddard Pepsi: 100 Years (General Publishing Group, 1997).
Walter Mack and Peter Buckley No Time Lost (Atheneum, 1982).
Milward W Martin Twelve Full Ounces (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962).
News-Journal Corporation v. Gore, 147 Fla 217; 2 So 2d 741(Supreme Court of Florida).
Blaustein v Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co (1941) 236 App. Div 97, 31 NYS (2d) 934, 96–2 .
Lawrence E Mitchell “Fairness and Trust in Corporate Law” (1993) 43(3) Duke Law Journal 425.
Fleigler v. Lawrence, 361 A.2d 218, 221 (Del. 1976) (where the court said that officers and directorswho straddled both sides of a transaction between two corporations had a burden of showing the “intrinsic fairness” of such transaction).
Underwood v. Stafford, 155 S.E.2d 211, 212-13 (N.C. 1967) (wherethe court stated that the fiduciary duty of officers and directors toward their corporation meant that they should show “full disclosure and fail dealing” in conflict-of-interest situations.
Durfee v. Durfee & Canning, Inc., 80 N.E.2d 522, 529 (Mass. 1948).
Henry Wintrhop Ballantine Ballantine on Corporations (Callaghan, 1946).
Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701, 710 (Del. 1983)
Durfee v. Durfee & Canning, Inc., 80 N.E.2d 522, 529 (Mass. 1948).
R P Austin “Corporate Opportunity –- Director’s Conflicts of Interest After Pacifica Shipping” (1987) 1(4) Australian Business Lawyer 3.
R P Austin, “Fiduciary Accountability for Business Opportunities” in P D Finn (ed) Equity and Commercial Relationships (Law Book Company, 1987).
See Chapter 2E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) on related party transactions and Chapter 2D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ondirector’s duties. These will be discussed in detail in the next section.
Michael Kirby “Foreword: Company Law in Australia: Principles and Applications” in Peter M McDermott and Russell Hinchy (eds) Company Law (2nd ed, Pearson Education Australia, 2008).
Prue Vines Law and Justice in Australia: Foundations of the Legal System (3rd ed, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, 2013) at 5.
See, for example, D Neal The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony (Cambridge University Press, 1991).
B Kercher An Unruly Child: A History of Law in Australia (Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1995).
B Kercher Debt, Seduction and Other Disasters: The Birth of Civil Law in Convict NSW (Federation Press, 1996).
Catriona Cook, Robin Creyke, Robert Geddes and David Hamer Laying Down the Law (8th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood NSW, 2012).
See, for instance, R v Wedge (1976) 1 NSWLR 581, Supreme Courtof New South Wales, 25 June 1976, where Rath J adopted Lord Watson’s statements in Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286.
Queensland Mines v Hudson [1978] 52 ALJR 379.
Cf. Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134 where the House of Lords expressed the conservative position in English law that ageneral meeting of shareholders was required in conflict-of-interestsituation.
Breen v. Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71.
Re HIH Insurance Ltd (in prv liq); Australian Securities and Investments.
Hospital Products Ltd v. United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 per Mason J at 103.
Phipps v. Boardman (1966) UKHL 2; (1967) 2 AC 46 per Lord Upjohn (at 124).
Queensland Mines Ltd v. Hudson (1978) 18 ALR 1.
Mills v. Mills (1938) HCA 4; (1938) 60 CLR 150 per Latham CJ (at 164-65).
Permanent Building Society (In Liq) v McGee (1993) 11 ACSR 260per Anderson J (at 289).
Fitzsimmons v. R (1997) 23 ACSR 355 per Owen J (at 358).
R v. Byrnes (1995) HCA 1; (1995) 183 CLR 501 per Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ at 517.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Author’s profile
![figure 1](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.7603%2Fs40741-016-0003-7/MediaObjects/40741_2016_3_Fig1_HTML.jpg)
Dr. Chris Chadien joined Central Queensland University in 2001 where he is a Senior Lecturer and the Course Coordinator for third year LL.B courses. After being Called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1982, he practised law in London until he moved to New Zealand in 1992. He moved to Australia in 2000 and has taught at LaTrobe University, Charles Darwin University and Deakin University. His teaching repertoire includes Criminal Law, Equity and Trusts, Succession and Company Law. His research interests lie in the fields of corporate criminal liability and issues in corporate governance
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Chadien, C. The Law on Corporate Opportunity Transactions by Directors: A Comparative Analysis of Delaware Law and Australian Law. GSTF J Law Soc Sci 5, 3 (2015). https://doi.org/10.7603/s40741-016-0003-7
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7603/s40741-016-0003-7