Disproportional Application of the Business Judgment Rule and Its Effects on Corporate Governance and Minority Shareholders' Rights

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor at the Department of law, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Master's degree student in private law, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
The Business Judgment Rule is a fundamental principle in corporate law that governs managerial and board decision-making within corporate governance. This rule protects directors and officers from liability for business decisions, provided those decisions are made in good faith, with adequate information, and on a rational basis. The purpose of this study is to examine the background and elements of the Business Judgment Rule, its advantages and disadvantages, and, most importantly, its balanced impact on minority shareholders' rights and corporate governance structures. This research aims to identify and analyze the role of the Business Judgment Rule as an effective tool for balancing managerial discretion with the protection of stakeholders, especially minority shareholders.
 
Methods
 This study is descriptive-analytical in nature and is based on a review of legal texts, academic articles, and judicial precedents. Primary and secondary legal sources in corporate law, the Business Judgment Rule, and shareholder rights were reviewed. Content analysis and comparative approaches were used to systematically identify and assess the rule's components and its effects. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of the rule were evaluated according to various legal scholars' perspectives and practical experiences in different legal systems. Finally, the rule's influence on corporate governance and the balance of minority shareholders' rights was thoroughly discussed.
 
Results and Discussion
 The Business Judgment Rule rests on three main pillars: decision-making based on sufficient information, good faith in the decision-making process, and the absence of conflicts of interest. These pillars provide a framework enabling directors to make reasonable business decisions without fear of legal repercussions. The main benefits of this rule include guaranteeing managerial freedom in strategic decision-making and preventing unnecessary judicial interference in complex commercial matters. This fosters quicker decision-making, reduces legal costs, and creates an environment conducive to innovation and risk-taking within companies. However, there are notable drawbacks associated with the rule. The most significant concern is the potential misuse of legal protection by managers. In some cases, directors may interpret the rule broadly to justify decisions that benefit personal or specific group interests, potentially harming minority shareholders' rights. This can lead to reduced transparency, increased risk of conflicts of interest, and diminished shareholder trust. The analysis of the rule's impact on minority shareholders' rights and corporate governance reveals a dual role. On the one hand, by limiting court intervention and protecting managerial decisions, it enhances management dynamism and efficiency, benefiting the company as a whole. On the other hand, excessive legal protection can leave minority shareholders vulnerable, reducing their influence and ability to object. Hence, striking a balance between protecting managers and safeguarding minority shareholders is a critical challenge in applying this rule.
In many advanced legal systems, supplementary regulations such as increased transparency requirements, disclosure obligations, and conflict-of-interest rules have been implemented to maintain this balance. These measures ultimately strengthen corporate governance and ensure the interests of all stakeholders are protected. The Iranian legislator, through the enactment of the 'Bill on the Management of Conflict of Interest in the Performance of Legal Duties and Provision of Public Services' in 2022, has endeavored to mitigate the misuse resulting from conflict-of-interest situations by employing general mechanisms for conflict management.
 
Conclusion
The Business Judgment Rule, as a vital pillar of corporate law, serves as an effective tool to shield managers in their business decision-making. However, its application must be carefully balanced to avoid undermining minority shareholders' rights. Achieving this balance requires a precise and effective legal and regulatory framework. Ultimately, the success of the rule in enhancing corporate governance depends on transparency, accountability, and continuous oversight to prevent potential abuses and safeguard the interests of all shareholders.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Abhary, H., Mosavi Khatir,T. and Ramzanzadeh Badeli,O. (2025). The Uniform Model of the Business-Judgment Rule: a Comparative Study in English, American, Australian and Iranian Law. Comparative Law Researches, 28(4), 31-62. https://clr.modares.ac.ir/article_14171.html [In Persian]
Andika, L. R., Vanida, N., Aprilia, J., & Irjanto, M. G. (2024). Relevance of Good Corporate Governance Towards the Principle of Business Judgement Rule for State-Owned Enterprises’ Corruption Cases: A Legal Perspective. Asia Pacific Fraud Journal, 6(1), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.21532/apfjournal.v6i1.197
Annamoradnejad, D., Mohammadi, S. and hosseini moghadam, S. H. (2021). Legislation necessity in management of conflict of interests. Journal of Legal Studies, 13(4), 1-24. doi: 10.22099/jls.2021.40291.4349
Armour, J., & Gordon, J. N. (2014). Systemic Harms and Shareholder Value. Journal of Legal Analysis, 6(1), 35-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/lau004
Bahrami, H. (2022). Directors' Personal Use from the Confidential Information of Company and Opportunities that Result from it with Recognition in the British Legal System, Journal of Legal Studies, 14(3), 127-160. doi: https://doi.org/10.22099/jls.2022.40925.4423 [In Persian]
Bainbridge, S. M. (2004). The Business Judgment Rule as Abstention Doctrine. Vanderbilt Law Review, 57(1), 83-130. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.429260
Bariklou, A; Sardoueinasab, M; Mirjalili, M. (2021). "The Study of the Business Judgment Rule in Americans Corporate Law and its Comparison with Iranian 's Law", Law Comparative of Journal, 8(1), 87-110. https://doi.org/10.22096/law.2020.107409.1447 [In Persian]
Block, D. J., & Prussin, H. A. (1981). The Business Judgment Rule and Shareholder Derivative Actions: Viva Zapata?, The Business Lawyer, 37(1), 27–75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40686343
Bratton, W. W., & Wachter, M. L. (2008). Shareholder primacy's corporatist origins: Adolf Berle and the modern corporation. Journal of Corporation Law, 34, 99. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1021273
Brown, M. M., & Phillips, W. J. (1981). The Business Judgment Tule: Burks v. Lasker and Other Recent Developments. Journal of Corporation Law, 6(3), 453-480.
Brown Jr, J. R. (2003). The Irrelevance of State Corporate Law in the Governance of Public Companies. University of Richmond Law Review, 38, 317-380.
Coffee, J. C., & Schwartz, D. E. (1981). The Survival of the Derivative Suit: An Evaluation and a Proposal for Legislative Reform. Columbia Law Review, 81(2), 261–336. https://doi.org/10.2307/1122149
Easterbrook, F. H., & Fischel, D. R. (1981). The Proper Role of a Target’s Management in Responding to a Tender Offer. Harvard Law Review, 94(6), 1161–1204. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340753
Engert, A., & Goldlücke, S. (2013). Why Agents Need Discretion: The Business Judgment Rule as Optimal Standard of Care. Review of Law & Economics, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2015-0033
Enriques, L., Hansmann, H., and Kraakman, R. (2009). The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach 3rd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faccio, M., Marchica, M. T., & Mura, R. (2011). Large Shareholder Diversification and Corporate Risk-taking. The Review of Financial Studies, 24(11), 3601-3641. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhr065
Fawal, C. (2010). Protecting Shareholder Access to Director Elections: A Response to CA, Inc. v. AFSCME Urging the Adoption of a Blasius Standard of Review for the Exercise of a Fiduciary-Out Clause. Duke Law Journal, 59(7), 1457–1500. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27806858
Fischel, D. R. (1985). The Business Judgment Rule and the Trans Union Case. The Business Lawyer, 40(4), 1437–1455. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40686696
Friedlander, J. E. (2021). Performances of Equity: Why Court of Chancery Transcript Rulings Are Law. The Business Lawyer, 77, 51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27174211
Garner, B. A. (2011). Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Pocket Edition, United States of America: West Publishing co.
Goshen, Z., & Hamdani, A. (2016). Corporate Control and Idiosyncratic Vision. The Yale Law Journal, 125(3), 560–617. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43894496
Gower, L. C. B. (1956). Some Contrasts between British and American Corporation Law. Harvard Law Review, 69(8), 1369–1402. https://doi.org/10.2307/1337659
Gurrea-Martínez, A. (2018). Re-examining the Law and Economics of the Business Judgment Rule: Notes for Its Implementation in Non-US Jurisdictions. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 18(2), 417-438. DOI: 10.1080/14735970.2017.1412688
Grossman, N. (2007). Director Compliance with Elusive Fiduciary Duties in a Climate of Corporate Governance Reform. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 12, 393. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1414962
Hoffrage, Ulrich; Pohl, Rüdiger (2003). Research on Hindsight Bias: A Rich Past, a Productive Present, and a Challenging Future. Memory, 11 (4–5): 329–335. doi:10.1080/09658210344000080. PMID 14562866. S2CID 22496794.
Holland, R J. (2009). Delaware Directors’ Fiduciary Duties: The Focus on Loyalty, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, Vol.11:3, 675-701.
Horsey, H. R. (1994). The Duty of Care Component of the Delaware Business Judgment Rule. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 19(3), 971-998. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2359187
Ibrahim, D. M. (2007). Individual or Collective Liability for Corporate Directors. Iowa Law. Review, 93, 929. https://ssrn.com/abstract=918119
Johnson, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2000). Tunneling. American Economic Review, 90(2), 22-27. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.204868
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Klein, R. J. (1991). The Case for Heightened Scrutiny in Defense of the Shareholders’ Franchise Right. Stanford Law Review, 44(1), 129–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228942
Korsmo, C., & Myers, M. (2016). Reforming Modern Appraisal Litigation. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 41, 279. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2712088
Koziak, Jaromir. (2013). Business Judgement Rule in Czech Corporations Act. Juridical Tribune, 3(2), 126-135.
La Porta, R., Florencio., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate Ownership Around the World. The Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2697717
Lipton, M. (2010). Delaware, (last viewed 2025/10/01) at: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/02/21/delaware/
Macey, J. R. (2008). Corporate governance: Promises kept, promises broken. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Mantese, G., & Louis, P. (2020). The Verdict on the Business Judgement Rule. Journal of the Missouri Bar, 76(2), 64-88. https://manteselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Mantese-Verdict-on-Business-Judgment-The-Missouri-Bar.pdf
Manning, Bayless. (1984). Business Judgement Rule in Overview, the Ohio State Law Journal, 45(3), 615-628. https://kb.osu.edu/bitstreams/f400377e-46cf-5d8b-8e01-5bab8f1b0463/download
Milhaupt, C. J. (2003). A Lost Decade for Japanese Corporate Governance Reform? What's Changed, What Hasn't, and Why. New York City, Columbia Law School. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.442960
McMillan, L. (2013). The Business Judgment Rule as an Immunity Doctrine. William and Mary Law Review, 4, 521-574. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmblr/vol4/iss2/5/
Means, B., & Moll, D. K. (2023). Against Contractual Formalism in Shareholder Oppression Law. UC Davis Law Review, 57, 1867-1931. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755758
Nickel, M. N., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A Review of Research on the Negative Accounting Relationship Between Risk and Return: Bowman's Paradox. Omega, 30(1), 1-18. DOI:10.1016/S0305-0483(01)00055-X
OECD (2025), Methodology for Assessing the Implementation of the G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/80996ea9-en.
Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight Bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 411-426. DOI:10.1177/1745691612454303
Pinto, A. (2014). Protection of Close Corporation Minority Shareholders in the United States, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 62. 361-386. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2398059
Sametz, A. W. (1991). The Battle for Corporate Control: Shareholder Rights. Stakeholder Interests, and Managerial Responsibilities, Irwin Professional Pub: Chicago.
Sharfman, B. S. (2014). Kahn v. m&f Worldwide Corporation: Small but Significant Step Forward in the War Against Frivolous Shareholder Lawsuits. Journal of Corporation Law, 40(1), 197-216. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2470646
Sharfman, B. S. (2017). The Importance of the Business Judgment Rule. New York University Journal of Law & Business, 14, 27-70. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2888052
Skeel, D. A. (2001). Shaming in corporate law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149(6), 1811-1868. DOI:10.2307/3312899
Soltani, M. and Gholami, V. (2018). Directors ‘Liability in Light of Business Judgment Rule, with emphasis on Delaware’s Laws. Journal of Legal Studies, 10(3), 131-157. https://doi.org/10.22099/jls.2018.28690.2846 [In Persian]
Turava, M. (2023). The Scope of the Business Judgment Rule and its Relation to the Fiduciary Duties of Company Directors. Journal of Law, (1), 260–291. https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2023.7073
Thompson, R. B. (1993). The Shareholder’s Cause of Action for Oppression. The Business Lawyer, 48(2), 699–745. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40687386
Varzaly, J. (2012). Protecting the authority of directors: an empirical analysis of the statutory business judgment rule. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 12(2), 429-463. DOI:10.5235/JCLS.12.2.429
Veasey, E. N. (1990). Duty of Loyalty: The Criticality of the Counselor’s Role. The Business Lawyer, 45(4), 2065–2081. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40687141
Wallach, E. R. (1957). Corporations: Application of the Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity to the Investment Company Director. California Law Review, 45(2), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/3478841
Wander, H. S., & LeCoque, A. G. (1986). Boardroom Jitters: Corporate Control Transactions and Today’s Business Judgment Rule. The Business Lawyer, 42(1), 29–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40686834
Weiss, E. J. (1982). The law of take out mergers: weinberger v. uop, inc. ushers in phase six. Cardozo Law Review, 4(2), 245-262.
Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 18, Issue 3 - Serial Number 58
October 2026
Pages 309-350

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics