# kaal:claim:1558614-023

**Claim.** 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.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

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

**Source quote.**

> 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.

**From.** 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, page 29

**Cite as.** 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

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `e898211630f4116879329d6de8397523dca5b066864147421aa5cbc7429dc83b` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Painter%20and%20Kaal%20-%202010%20-%20Initial%20Reflections%20on%20an%20Evolving%20Standard%20Constraints%20on%20Risk%20Taking%20by%20Directors%20and%20Officers%20in.pdf

**Failure mode.** waste standard too narrow  (family: enforcement-gap)

**Topics.** risk-and-incentives, corporate-governance, law-and-legal-systems

**Keywords.** corporate-waste, business-judgment-rule, excessive-risk, director-liability

**Related claims.**

- supported_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-005

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.