# Judicial review

`kaal:entity:judicial-review`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 3 claims that carry the concept tag `judicial-review`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself.

## Every claim under this term

3 claims across 3 works, 2010 to 2016.

**2010**

- [1558614-033](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/1558614-033) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- U.S. courts applying the business judgment rule give little or no weight to the overall health of the company or to whether the risk jeopardizes the company's very existence, so managers are permitted to incur most of the risks they wish to incur.
  > courts applying the business judgment rule in the United States give little or no consideration to the overall health of the company or even whether the risk is jeopardizing the company's very existence
  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

**2013**

- [kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-017](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-017) [empirical/argued] -- 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.
  > 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.
  Kaal, A Comparative Perspective on the Limitations of the Duty of Oversight – A Comment on Lisa Fairfax (2013)

**2016**

- [2714974-006](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2714974-006) [failure/evidenced] *(failure mode)* -- The SEC's 2004 hedge fund adviser registration rule failed in court because the agency lacked authority to define the term client, which the Investment Advisers Act had not otherwise defined, and the D.C. Circuit in Goldstein vacated the rule as arbitrary rulemaking.
  > Because the term "client" had not otherwise been defined in the Investment Advisers Act, the SEC had no authority to determine the meaning of the term.
  Kaal and Oesterle, The History of Hedge Fund Regulation in the United States (2016). SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2714974

## Verify

Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust.

    curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/judicial-review.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.