of review in delaware corporation law，the business lawyers，vol．56，2001，p．1287．
[28]aronson v．lewis，473 a．2d 805，del．1984，p．812．
[29]see lyman p．q．johnson and david millon，recalling why corporate officers are fiduciaries，william & mary law review，vol．46，2005，pp．1597—1653，at p．1631．
[30]hinton v．dibbin（1842）2 qb 646，114 er 253，by lord denman cj．
[31]pentecost and another v．london district auditor and another，（1951）2 kb 759，at p．764．
[32]wilson v．brett（1843）11 m．& w．113．
[33]see s．samuel arsht，the business judgment rule revisited，hofstra law review，vol．8，1979，p．93．
[34]see supra note 27，pp．300—301．
[35]auerbach v．bennett，47 n．y．2d 619，393 n．e．2d 994，419 n．y．s．2d 920（1979），at p．1002．
[36]see thomas rivers，how to be good：the emphasis on corporate directors’good faith in the post—enron era，vanderbilt law review，vol．58，2005，pp.631—675．
[37]john l．reed and matt neiderman，“good faith”and the ability of directors to assert &102（b）（7）of the delaware general corporation law as a defense to claims alleging abdication，lack of oversight，and similar breaches of fiduciary duty，delaware journal of corporate law，vol．29，2004，p．111，at p．121．
[38]see hillary a．sale，delaware’s good faith，cornell law review，vol．89，2004，p．456．
[39]see jay p．moran，business judgment rule or relic？：cede v．technicolor and the continuing metamorphosis of director duty of care，emory law journal，vol．45，1996，pp．339—386，at p．339．
[40]see ralph a．peeples，the use and misuse of the business judgment rule in the close corporation，notre dome law review，vol．60，1985，pp．456—508，at p．482．
[41]see f．hodge o’neal，oppression of minority shareholders：protecting minority rights in squeeze—outs and other intracorporate conflicts，west group，1985，& 9．04．
[42]see zohar goshen，the efficiency of controlling corporate self—dealing：theory meets reality，california law review，vol．91，2003，pp．393—438，at p．428．
[43]see supra note 2．p．634．
[44]see k．e．scott，corporation law and the american law institute corporate governance project，stanford law review，vol．35，1983，p．927．
[45]see j．h．farrar，corporate governance，business judgment and the professionalism of directors，canadian business law journal，vol．6，1993，p．1．
[46]see lisa m．fairfax，spare the rod，spoil the director？revivalizing directors’fiduciary duty through legal liability，houston law review，vol．42，2005，pp.393—456．
[47]see p．john kozyris，etc．，sympos

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]  ... 下一页  >>