kaal:claim:1558614-023

Because U.S. law frames the inquiry around corporate waste, and most risk taking does not meet the waste standard, showing that a decision was hazardous or excessively risky is not enough to rebut the business judgment rule in the United States.

Because most risk taking does not meet the definition of corporate waste, a showing of hazard or excessive risk is insufficient to rebut the 98 business judgment rule in the United States.

Painter and Kaal, Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in (2010), IV.A. The Business Judgment Rule, p. 29
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1558614 · source PDF

Painter and Kaal, Initial Reflections on an Evolving Standard Constraints on Risk Taking by Directors and Officers in (2010). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1558614

• U.S. courts presume absence of corporate waste and ask only whether that presumption is rebutted

failuresupport: arguedfailure: waste standard too narrowfamily: enforcement-gaprisk-and-incentivescorporate-governancelaw-and-legal-systems

• supported_by kaal:claim:kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-005 Under Delaware law as applied in In re Citigroup, directors' incorrect evaluation of business risk and their i...

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is e898211630f4116879329d6de8397523dca5b066864147421aa5cbc7429dc83b. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/e2050ccb7b3cfa17...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-023.md | sha256sum