Research Handbook on Fiduciary Law
Show Less

Research Handbook on Fiduciary Law

Edited by D. G. Smith and Andrew S. Gold

The Research Handbook on Fiduciary Law offers specially commissioned chapters written by leading scholars and covers a wide range of important topics in fiduciary law. Topical contributions discuss: various fiduciary relationships; the duty of loyalty and other fiduciary obligations; fiduciary remedies; the role of equity; the role of trust; international and comparative perspectives; and public fiduciary law. This Research Handbook will be of interest to readers concerned with both theory and practice, as it incorporates significant new insights and developments in the field.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 16: Corporate opportunities in the US and in the UK: how differences in enforcement explain differences in substantive fiduciary duties

Martin Gelter and Geneviève Helleringer


Fiduciary duties are often today held out as typical instruments of shareholder protection in the common law of both the US and the UK, which are sometimes cited as examples for a consensus model for what is considered good corporate law conducive to good capital market development. However, fiduciary duties in these two jurisdictions often operate in strikingly different ways. This chapter looks at the specific example of corporate opportunities, with which the UK and the US deal in remarkably different ways. Each of them focuses on a starting point: avoiding conflicts of interest in the UK approach versus identifying the correct owner of the opportunity in the US approach. While the US relies on an open-ended standard, the UK corporate opportunities doctrine effectively constitutes a rule. In this chapter, we suggest an explanation for why the two core jurisdictions of the common law world have developed so differently in this respect. We argue that only in the US fiduciary duties are typically enforced by the courts, whereas in the UK, corporate law enforcement is typically left to ex ante monitoring by outside directors and institutional investors. Only courts, in applying an ex post substantive assessment, are capable of implementing a complex “standard” for corporate opportunities. Institutional enforcement, as in the UK, lends itself better to a hard-and-fast rule. We suggest that this distinction is only an example of a larger distinction between the corporate laws of these two jurisdictions, and indicative of a broader difference in how corporate fiduciary duties operate.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.