Abstract:An important development in American corporate law is the recent explicit recognition, in a series of Delaware cases, that corporate managers owe a fiduciary duty of good faith in addition to their traditional duties of care and loyality. The duty of good faith was not created by those cases. On the contrary, the duty has long been explicit under the statutes and has also long existed implicitly in the case law. Nevertheless, the explicit recognition of the duty of good faith in recent Delaware cases shines a spotlight on that duty, and therefore makes it especially important to develop the contours of the duty and to examine the duty from a normative perspective. Briefly, the duty of good faith in American corporate law is comprised of a general baseline conception and specific obligations that instantiate that conception. The baseline conception consists of four elements: subjective honesty, or sincerity; nonviolation of generally accepted standards of decency applicable to the conduct of business; nonviolation of generally accepted basic corporate norms; and fidelity to office. Among the specific obligations that instantiate the baseline conception are the obligation not to knowingly cause the corporation to disobey the law and the obligation of candor even in non-self-interested contexts. Turning to the normative issue, there are several basic reasons why the duty of good faith is desirable. To begin with, the duties of care and loyalty do not cover all types of improper conduct by managers, because certain kinds of improper managerial conduct fall outside the spheres of those duties. Most of these types of conduct fall within the duty of good faith. Furthermore, various rules limit a manager's accountability under the duties of care and loyalty, and these limiting rules should be and are inapplicable to conduct that violates the duty of good faith. Moreover, the duties of care and loyalty characteristically (although not invariably) function as platforms for liability rules, while the duty of good faith characteristically (although not invariably) functions as a condition to the application of rules that do not in themselves impose liability. This difference in characteristic function makes it desirable to treat good faith separately from care and loyalty. Finally, the duty of good faith provides a principled basis for the courts to develop new specific fiduciary obligations that come to be seen as appropriate in response to changes in social and business norms, and in the general understanding of efficiency and other policy considerations that are applicable to corporate law, but cannot be easily accommodated within the duties of care or loyalty.

Commercial Relationships and the Burgeoning Fiduciary Principle

Disclosure in insurance law: a comparative analysis

The principle of good faith and fair dealing in English contract law

Statutory principles governing director conduct when a company is in financial distress – a Trans-Tasman comparison

The Duty of Good Faith in American Corporate Law

Industry-Led Standards, Relational Contracts and Good Faith: Are the UK and Australia Setting the Pace in (Construction) Contract Law?

The Disproportionate Rights and Duties of the Insurer and the Insured in Fiji

Accountability of insurers under s 54: Striking the balance between commerciality and consumer protection

Legal issues and challenges in online shopping: A comparative analysis of Australia and New Zealand

The Uncertainties in the Rule in Re Hasting-Bass

Does the Duty of Good Faith Need to Be the Third Component of the Fiduciary Duty? Chinese Full Text

‘If you take a horse to water it usually does drink’—mandatory mediation of trust disputes in New Zealand: Wright v Pitfield [2022] NZHC 385

Implied Representations in Derivative Transactions after Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

Liability of Multinational Corporations in Canada for International Human Rights Violations

Navigating Judicial Conflict amidst Jurisdictional Expansion: Common Law Commercial Courts in Arab Civil Law Countries

ESG and the Weakening Business Judgment Rule

Investment art and the operation of the "good faith" buyer defence for New Zealand

Independence of Commercial Dispute Trials

Lift Not the Painted Veil! To Whom Are Directors’ Duties Really Owed?

Third Party Funding in International Arbitration: A Slippery Slope or Levelling the Playing Field?