Die Haftung der Muttergesellschaft und ihres Vorstands für Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Konzern

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Nordhues
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Multinational Companies ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The Board Of Directors

Given the increasing number of human rights violations by multinational companies, the call for liability of western companies is growing louder and louder. The question whether such liability already exists de lege lata has so far been answered only fragmentarily. With her paper on the liability of multinational companies for human rights violations, the author fills this gap. The author not only investigates the liability of a parent company, but also examines whether compliance duties of the board of directors comprise a group-wide obligation to prevent human rights violations. While an explicit implementation of such duty of care has repeatedly been considered, but not yet realised, in Germany, the French legislator has already implemented an obligation to monitor compliance with human rights. Based on this act, the author examines how the liability of multinational companies could be structured de lege ferenda.

The Accountability of Multinational Companies for Human Rights Violations, Regulatory Trends and New Punitive Approaches Across Europe

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-62
Author(s):  
Rossella Sabia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Multinational Companies ◽  
Financial Disclosure ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Disclosure Laws ◽  
Global Operations ◽  
Regulatory Trends

This article investigates the emergence of new regulatory trends in the context of human rights accountability - traditionally characterised by soft law and non-binding guidelines -, where in recent times mandatory non-financial disclosure laws have started to impose on multinational companies new legal obligations complemented by sanctions of a different nature and intensity. By comparing three relevant pieces of legislation in the European panorama, this contribution addresses the reasons why also criminal law scholars should pay attention to the evolution of such regulatory framework, as the prospect of punitive mechanisms aimed at holding large companies accountable for human rights violations in their global operations could become, to some extent, less remote.

7 Governance Issues in Offshore Companies Used as Private Investment Funds

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Spangler Timothy
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Private Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Cayman Islands ◽  
Investment Funds ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Uk

This chapter examines issues of governance arising from the use of offshore companies as private investment funds. Funds established in offshore jurisdictions are often structured as limited companies that issue shares to investors. Governance issues can arise in offshore companies when voting rights are separated from economic participation. The chapter first considers the role of the board of directors in private investment funds before discussing taxation issues affecting offshore companies used as private investment funds in the UK and in the United States. It then explains the duties of directors under Cayman Islands law, including fiduciary duty, duty of care, diligence, and skill, and duty of confidentiality. It also describes the composition of the board of directors, its meetings, relationship with the fund manager, and responsibility for approval of fund documentation.

scholarly journals PENCATATAN PERUBAHAN DIREKSI DI KEMENTERIAN TERKAIT SEBAGAI DASAR PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KEWENANGAN DIREKSI

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Maleakhi W. Sitompul
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Limited Liability Company ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

Research on the recording of changes to directors in the relevant Ministry, namely the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, aims to examine whether the authorized Directors in a company are Directors registered at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. In addition, it is also to examine whether the provisions of Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and / or the Company's Articles of Association is sufficient to resolve disputes of authority in the event of a dispute regarding the composition and number of directors in a company, which one has the right to act against other parties. Disputes regarding the composition and authority of the Board of Directors in a limited liability company often become disputes in court, even though Indonesia's positive legal provisions have provided clear and firm rules about who the Board of Directors can represent in and out of court. Based on research, it can be seen that the starting point is from the provisions in Law No. 40 of 2007 Articles 29 and 98, changes in the members of the board of directors can only be effective for third parties, as from the date the changes are recorded in the Company Register by the Minister of Law and Human Rights in accordance with Law No. 40 of 2007 Articles 29 and 98.

Human Rights Litigation against Multinationals in Practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-84
Author(s):  
Daniel Leader
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Group Actions ◽  
Child Labour ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Ball Rolling ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens

Daniel Leader reviews multinational human rights cases that have developed English law on jurisdiction and parent company liability. He considers the first batch of parent company cases that started the ball rolling in the 1990s, leading to the establishment of the parent company duty of care principle in Chandler v. Cape. He explains the principles of the 2019 and 2021 Supreme Court decisions in Lungowe v. Vedanta and Opkabi v. Shell, and the first trial of a parent company case, where an international auditor was found in breached of its duty to act ethically. The key principles developed on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens are explained. He reviews security and human rights cases, including recent settlements against Gemfields and Kakuzi. He also reviews supply chain cases arising from shipbreaking and child labour on Malawian tobacco farms. Procedural and practical issues concerning discovery, group actions, witness anonymity, and funding and viability of cases are outlined.

scholarly journals Outlining the Case for a Common Law Duty of Care of Business to Exercise Human Rights Due Diligence

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doug CASSEL
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
A Company ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

AbstractThis article outlines the case for a business duty of care to exercise human rights due diligence, judicially enforceable in common law countries by tort suits for negligence brought by persons whose potential injuries were reasonably foreseeable. A parent company’s duty of care would extend to the human rights impacts of all entities in the enterprise, including subsidiaries. A company would not be liable for breach of the duty of care if it proves that it reasonably exercised due diligence as set forth in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. On the other hand, a company’s failure to exercise due diligence would create a rebuttable presumption of causation and hence liability. A company could then avoid liability only by carrying its burden to prove that the risk of the human rights violations was not reasonably foreseeable, or that the damages would have resulted even if the company had exercised due diligence.

Differences between company officers and company executives

2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (3/4) ◽  
pp. 157-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa V. Sison ◽  
Brian H. Kleiner
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Corporate Structure ◽  
Corporate Executives ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
Duty Of Loyalty

Considers the nature of the modern corporate structure and the divorce of ownership from control. Discusses the board’s role versus the management’s role. Looks at hiring and appointing. Covers specific responsibilities of corporate executives and compares this with the role of corporate officers. Addresses the duty of loyalty and the duty of care. Provides some guidelines for performance of duties by boards and officers. Suggests some initiatives which can build the effectiveness of the board of directors.

The Duty of Care of the Parent Company: A Comparison between French Law, UK Precedents and the Swiss Proposals

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (02) ◽  
pp. 265-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalia PALOMBO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
French Law ◽  
Legislative Proposals ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Parent Companies

AbstractIn 2017, France established a due diligence statutory obligation for French parent companies to monitor extraterritorial human rights and environmental abuses committed by their off-shore affiliates. Switzerland is also considering adopting a similar law for Swiss parent companies. These obligations are comparable to the duty of care that, according to recent case law, British parent companies owe towards their subsidiaries’ neighbours. This article compares and contrasts the newly introduced French due diligence statutory obligation, the UK precedents, and two alternative Swiss legislative proposals on the due diligence and duty of care of parent companies.

JURISDICTION OF THE ENGLISH COURTS OVER OVERSEAS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-471
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Aristova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Foreign Subsidiary ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Court ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Overseas Operations

IN Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC), the High Court allowed a claim to be heard in England against parent company incorporated in England and its foreign subsidiary in relation to the overseas subsidiary's operations. The judge considered whether the claim against the English-domiciled defendant could be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens, and whether jurisdiction could be established over its foreign subsidiary as a necessary and proper party to the case. The overall analysis of the judgment suggests that (1) the claims against the parent company in relation to the overseas operations of the foreign subsidiary can be heard in the English courts and (2) the existence of an arguable claim against the English-domiciled parent company also establishes jurisdiction of the English courts over the subsidiary even if the factual basis of the case occurs almost exclusively in the foreign state.

Social representations of human rights violations: Further evidence

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Clémence ◽  
Thierry Devos ◽  
Willem Doise
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Young People ◽  
Social Representations ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Tolerance ◽  
Individual Actions

Social representations of human rights violations were investigated in a questionnaire study conducted in five countries (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Romania, and Switzerland) (N = 1239 young people). We were able to show that respondents organize their understanding of human rights violations in similar ways across nations. At the same time, systematic variations characterized opinions about human rights violations, and the structure of these variations was similar across national contexts. Differences in definitions of human rights violations were identified by a cluster analysis. A broader definition was related to critical attitudes toward governmental and institutional abuses of power, whereas a more restricted definition was rooted in a fatalistic conception of social reality, approval of social regulations, and greater tolerance for institutional infringements of privacy. An atypical definition was anchored either in a strong rejection of social regulations or in a strong condemnation of immoral individual actions linked with a high tolerance for governmental interference. These findings support the idea that contrasting definitions of human rights coexist and that these definitions are underpinned by a set of beliefs regarding the relationships between individuals and institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document