# kaal:claim:kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-017

**Claim.** Despite the limits of the comparison, had In re Citigroup and Disney been decided in Germany the allocation of liability would have been different, because German courts are generally more willing than Delaware courts to second-guess directors' decisions.

**Type.** empirical  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- cases involving extreme facts at the cusp of culpable conduct

**Source quote.**

> it seems difficult to escape the conclusion that had the two American cases, In re Citigroup and Disney, been decided in Germany, the liability allocation would have been different. German courts generally seem more willing to second-guess directors' decisions than Delaware courts.

**From.** Kaal, *A Comparative Perspective on the Limitations of the Duty of Oversight – A Comment on Lisa Fairfax* (2013), A Comparative Perspective on the Duty to Monitor, page 7

**Cite as.** Kaal, A Comparative Perspective on the Limitations of the Duty of Oversight – A Comment on Lisa Fairfax (2013)

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `ac5c955fe01209c54c78c4575c0b8bf570e5f1259c3f855510697cf51a32e59a` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202013%20-%20A%20Comparative%20Perspective%20on%20the%20Limitations%20of%20the%20Duty%20of%20Oversight%20%E2%80%93%20A%20Comment%20on%20Lisa%20Fairfax.pdf

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

**Keywords.** comparative-corporate-law, judicial-review, director-liability, german-law, delaware-law

**Related claims.**

- specializes: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-006

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