課程資訊
課程名稱
 比較公司法制專題研究一
SEMINAR ON COMPARATIVE CORPORATION LAW (I) 
開課學期
 94-2 
授課對象
 法律學院  法律研究所  
授課教師
 林仁光 
課號
 LAW7285 
課程識別碼
 A21EM7950 
班次
  
學分
 2 
全/半年
 半年 
必/選修
 選修 
上課時間
 星期五3,4(10:20~12:10) 
上課地點
 社法研5 
備註
 本課程以英語授課。 
  
課程簡介影片
 
核心能力關聯
 核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖
課程大綱
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
課程概述

本課程挑選特定公司法議題，進行案例以及文獻研討，先由老師針對每一議題說明規範架構與重點，再由同學們共同參與討論。本課程所研讀之資料以及上課，原則上以英文進行，必要時佐以中文進行討論。 

課程目標
 藉由挑選之公司法議題，選擇以美國法院案例，文獻，以及其他國家之重要文獻，進行比較分析討論，深入瞭解每一議題之規範內容與規範之趨勢。 
課程要求
 1.案例文獻研讀
2.到課參與討論
3.期末報告 
預期每週課後學習時數
  
Office Hours
 每週三 11:00~12:00 
指定閱讀
  
參考書目
 講義（隨堂分發） 
評量方式
(僅供參考)
  
No.
項目
百分比
說明
1. 
 Assigned reading and class participation 
50% 
  
2. 
 Term paper 
50% 
  
 
課程進度
週次
日期
單元主題
第1週
 2/24  Course Introduction 
第2週
 3/03  Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977)
The shareholder brought derivative suit against corporations, officers, and directors for the mismanagement causing damages to the company. Although the substantive issue is regarding corporate responsibility, it is important to know procedural issues, such as choice of forum and choice of law. The core issue of this case is regarding the constitutionality of the Delaware's sequestration statute and whether the Del. state court can exercise its jurisdiction. 
第3週
 3/10  James L. MILLER v. U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., et al., 361 F.Supp.2d 470 (US District Court, District of Maryland, March 23, 2005) Employee brought action in state court against employers, a parent company and wholly-owned subsidiary, alleging breach of contract and other related state-law claims. Companies removed action to federal court under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Companies counterclaimed, asserting, among other causes of action, violations of the fiduciary duties of due care, good faith, and loyalty. 
第4週
 3/17  ROSELINK INVESTORS, L.L.C. v. SHENKMAN, 386 F.Supp.2d 209 (US District Court, SDNY, May 19, 2004) Creditors brought action against directors of subsidiary of bankrupt corporation alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, fraudulent transfer, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court held that:
(1) directors did not breach their fiduciary duties to creditors; (2) directors were not liable to creditors for damages caused by allegedly fraudulent transfer; and (3) directors could not tortiously interfere with subsidiary's agreement with creditors. Judgment for Defendants. 
第5週
 3/24  Continue Discussion: ROSELINK INVESTORS, L.L.C. v. SHENKMAN, 386 F.Supp.2d 209 (May 19, 2004) 
第6週
 3/31  NULL 
第7週
 4/07  NULL 
第8週
 4/14  NULL 
第9週
 4/21  NULL 
第10週
 4/28  NULL 
第11週
 5/05  NULL 
第12週
 5/12  NULL 
第13週
 5/19  NULL 
第14週
 5/26  NULL 
第15週
 6/02  NULL 
第16週
 6/09  NULL 
第17週
 6/16  NULL 
第18週
 6/23  NULL 
第19週
 6/30  NULL