1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Law
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 從公司治理論機構投資人股東權之行使－以公共基金為中心
作者 王育慧
貢獻者 林國全
王育慧
關鍵詞 機構投資人
公共基金
公司治理
股東權
股東提案
委託書
表決權
團體訴訟
受託義務
機構投資人積極主義
Institutional Shareholder
Institutional Shareholder Activism
Public Fund
Corporate Governance
Shareholder Proposal
Proxy
Vote
Class Action
Fiduciary Duty
shareholder right
日期 2007
上傳時間 17-Sep-2009 14:35:54 (UTC+8)
摘要 隨著企業經營規模日趨複雜、專業化，股東因人數眾多、股東意見不一，在面臨公司所有與經營分離所產生的代理成本控制上，實有困難。一般小股東因持股過低，對於公司經營事務只能消極以待，若對公司經營成果不滿意，只能選擇華爾街準則(Wall Street Walk or Vote with Feet)，而賣掉股票，甚難對管理階層進行更進一步的影響。相較之下，機構投資人基於其人力及資源優勢，能深入參與公司治理、監督管理階層，進而提昇公司經營績效，增進股東投資價值，此即為機構投資人積極主義。
本篇論文探討機構投資人行使股東權以促進公司治理發展。首先討論機構投資人積極主義之兩大基礎支柱－其一，良好公司治理確能對公司績效表現有所助益，其二機構投資人促進公司治理乃其善盡受託義務之體現。
由於美國機構投資人主義高度成熟發展，而國內機構投資人積極主義仍屬起步階段，本篇論文即以比較研究法，探討美國機構投資人行使股東權如股東提案、委託書投票、直接與管理階層溝通、發布黑名單、團體訴訟與股東提名董事草案等，及分析說明我國公司治理相關條文與機構投資人行使表決權時所會遭逢之困境。
此外，本論文經由案例研究，深入蒐集資料並訪談兩個在促進公司治理領域夙負盛名的退休基金-美國威斯康辛州投資委員會與加拿大安大略省教師退休計畫，從而細膩地觀察美國及加拿大機構投資人積極主義之發展、瓶頸與挑戰。
最後，本論文提出促進機構投資人提出公司治理及表決權行使政策、鼓勵機構投資人於股東提案權與表決權等議案進行合作及建置對機構投資人餐與公司治理友善之法規環境等建議，期能對於我國機構投資人積極主義之發展有所助益。
The increase in institutional funds has been extraordinarily rapid. Comparing with the minority shareholders, the institutional shareholders’ size and expertise can minimize the collective choice problem and agency costs. Their resources enable them to investigate and monitor management in corporate governance field. This is the “Institutional Shareholder Activism“.
This article discusses the institutional shareholder’s enhancement of corporate governance. It explores from the two backbones of the Institutional Shareholder Activism: Firstly, the correlation between corporate governance and corporate performance, and secondly, fiduciary duties of the Institutional Shareholder. It makes two conclusions: Good corporate governance certainly helps protect shareholder interests, and contributes to superior long-term economic performance, and institutional shareholders can comply with fiduciary duties by enhancing corporate governance.
Furthermore, due to America institutional shareholder activism is highly developed, while Taiwan institutional shareholder activism is not developed. This paper compares America institutional shareholder activism with Taiwan’s. It discusses America institutional shareholder activism in many aspects, such as shareholder proposal, proxy solicitation, vote, direct negotiation with the corporate management, focus list, class action, security holder director nominations bill etc. Then, it analyses some of Taiwan’s corporate governance related articles such as shareholder proposal and security holder director nominations, and some difficulties which the pension fund and the security investment trust fund face when they vote as shareholders.
Moreover, through case study, this paper analyses two prestigious pension funds: State of Wisconsin Investment Board (SWIB) and The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), and investigates their stages of development and current operation and future challenges in the corporate governance field.
At last, this paper provides some suggestions and inspirits the institutional shareholder activism in our country.
參考文獻 中文資料
一、書籍
王文宇，公司法論，元照，2005年8月。
王文宇，公司與企業法制(二)，元照，2007年1月。
王志誠，信託法，五南，2005年3月。
方嘉麟，信託法之理論與實務，元照，2003年3月。
余雪明，證券交易法，財團法人證券暨期貨市場發展基金會，2003年4月。
余雪明，比較退休基金法，元照，2001年8月。
吳當傑，公司治理理論與實務，財團法人中華民國證券暨期貨發展基金會，2004年7月。
易明秋，公司治理，弘智文化，2003年6月。
邱聰智，民法債編通則，自版，1996年。
我國公司治理，財團法人證券暨期貨市場發展基金會，2001年12月。
陳春山，證券投資信託專論，五南，2000年10月。
陳隆麒，財務管理概論，華泰，2005年3月。
符寶玲，退休基金制度與管理，華泰，2001年3月。
黃銘傑，公司治理與企業金融法制之挑戰與興革，2006年9月。
馮震宇，公司證券重要爭議問題研究，元照，2005年5月。
劉連煜，公司法理論與判決研究（一），自版，1995年1月。
劉連煜，現代公司法，新學林，2008年2月。
劉連煜，公司法理論與判決（四），元照，2007年4月。
劉連煜，新證券交易法實例研習，元照，2007年2月。
劉連煜，公司監控與社會責任，五南，1995年9月。
賴源河、王志誠，現代信託法論，五南，2003年11月。
謝哲勝，信託法總論，元照，2003年3月。
二、期刊及學位論文
王文宇，信託法原理與商業信託法制，臺大法學論叢，第二十九卷第二期，2000年1月。
王志誠，股東提案權，月旦法學教室，第48期，2006年10月。
王志誠，股東之董監事提名權，月旦法學教室，第50期，2006年12月。
何曜琛，公司治理與公開發行公司董事之告知義務--以美國法為中心，華岡法粹，第30期，2003年12月。
柯承恩，我國公司監理體系之問題與改進建議（上），會計研究月刊，第173期，2000年4月。
林國全，2005年公司法修正條文解析（上），月旦法學，第124期，2005年9月。
林國全，二○○五年公司法修正條文解析（下），月旦法學，第125期，2005年10月。
易明秋，公司控制之失靈與法制改革，收錄於中央大學產業經濟研究所第二屆產業經濟研討會－公司控制論文集，1999年6月25日。
易明秋，美國聯邦委託書規則逐條說明，集保月刊，第56期，1998年7月。
張俊生，美國機構投資人在公司治理中的作用，深圳證券交易所證券市場導報，第8期，2001年。
陳春山，我國公司治理改造策略（下），證交資料，第502期，2004年2月。
陳惠如，謹慎投資人原則之研究-兼論我國受託人投資權限之規範，中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2004年7月。
梁懷信、林文鵬合著，證券投資信託基金得否為締約主體之初探，證券暨期貨月刊，2005年2月。
黃銘傑，公司監控與監察人制度改革論，台灣大學法學論叢，第29卷第4期，2000年7月。
游志煌，主導私權證券訴訟之法制模型探討—律師驅策vs.非營利組織，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，2004年1月。
趙德樞，股東提案制度之研究，政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，1988年6月。
楊光華，機構投資人與公司管理，政大法學評論，第53期，1995年6月。
劉興善，從信賴關係談受託人、受任人、法人代表及公司負責人之注意義務，政大法學評論，第57期，1997年6月。
劉連煜，股東表決權之行使與公司治理，收錄於現代公司法制之新課題─賴英照大法官六秩華誕祝賀論文集，元照，2005年8月。
劉連煜，公司社會責任與股東提案權，公益信託台灣財政金融法學研究基金舉辦之「公司社會責任」研討會，2006年12月23日。
劉連煜、林俊宏，投資人團體訴訟新時代的來臨，月旦法學，第111期，2004年8月。
劉連煜，健全獨立董監事與公司治理之法制研究--公司自治、外部監控與政府規制之交錯，月旦法學雜誌，第94期，2003年3月。
劉連煜，股東書面及電子方式投票，台灣本土法學，第72期，2005年7月，第159頁。
劉連煜，股東提案制度與公司社會責任，中興法學，第39期，1995年7月。
劉绍樑，從莊子到安隆A+公司治理，天下雜誌，2002年12月。
三、其它
公務人員退休撫卹基金通訊，第5卷第2期，公務人員退休撫卹基金管理委員會，2006年4月。(http://www.fund.gov.tw.)
邱靖博，世界主要國家公司治理之國際趨勢與未來發展－美、英、法、德、日、韓、港、星，台灣證券交易所股份有限公司、財團法人中華民國證券櫃檯買賣中心委託專題研究，2003年6月。
陳春山，共同投資機制之股東權運作與公司治理關聯性探討，財團法人中華民國證券暨期貨市場發展基金會委託研究，2003年。
蔡英文，中美兩國共同基金管理規範之比較研究，財政部證券管理委員會委託計畫，1993年6月。
張俊生，美國機構投資人在公司治理中的作用，深圳證券交易所證券市場導報，第八期，2001年。At http://www.szse.cn/main/guide/Article.aspx? ArticleID=696.
劉連煜、陳美卿、陳茵琦，證券暨期貨爭議案件訴訟進行之研究，證券暨期貨市場發展基金會，1998年。
經濟日報，2004年8月21日，A8版。
英文資料
一、書籍
AMBACHTSHEER, PENSION REVOLUTION: A SOLUTION TO THE PENSIONS CRISIS (2007).
CAROLYN KAY BRANCATO, INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE： BEST PRACTICES FOR INCREASING CORPORATE VALUE (1997).
CAMILLE Q. BRADFORD ET AL., NATIONAL LEGAL CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTERET, INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, SOCIAL INVESTING, AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (1996).
GEORGE T. BOGERT, TRUST (1987).
GEORGE GLEASON BOGERT ＆ DALLIN H. OAKS ＆ H. REESE HANSEN ＆ STANLEY D. NEELENMAN, LAW OF TRUSTS (2001).
JOHN C. BOGLE, JOHN BOGLE ON INVESTING: THE FIRST 50 YEARS (2001).
JONATHAN CHARKHAM & ANNE SIMPSON, FAIR SHARES: THE FUTURE OF SHAREHOLDER POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY (1999).
GILE R. DOWNES ET AL., INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AND CORPORATE BEHAVIOR (1999).
F.H. EASTERBROOK ＆ D. R. FISCHEL, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF CORPORATE LAW (1991).
TAMAR FRANKEL ＆ CLIFFORD E. KIRSCH, INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT REGULATION (1998).
DOWNES, GILE R., INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AND CORPORATE BEHAVIOR (1999).
JAMES P. HAWLEY, ANDREW T. WILLIAMS, THE RISE OF FIDUCIARY CAPITALISM : HOW INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS CAN MAKE CORPORATE AMERICA MORE DEMOCRATIC (2000).
BETTY LINN KRIKORIAN, FIDUCIARY STANDARDS IN PENSION AND TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT (1990).
BEVIS LONGSTRETH, MODERN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND THE PRUDENT MAN RULE (1986).
BURTON G. MALKIEL, A RANDOM WALK DOWN WALL STREET: THE TIME-TESTED STRATEGY FOR SUCCESSFUL INVESTING (2003).
HARRY M. MARKOWITZ, PORTFOLIO SELECTION: EFFICIENT DIVERSIFICATION OF INVESTMENTS (1959).
ROBERT A.G. MONKS ＆ NELL MINOW, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (2001).
OECD PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, OECD (2004).
POLICY STATEMENT ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, TIAA-CREF (2000).
MARK J. ROE, STRONG MANAGERS, WEAK OWNERS: THE POLITICAL ROOTS OF AMERICAN CORPORATE FINANCE (1994).
G. P. STAPLEDON, INSTITUTIONAL SHAREHOLDERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (1996).
JANIS SARRA (editor), CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN GLOBAL CAPITAL MARKETS (2003).
STATE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN CANADA, TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE AND INSTITUTE OF CORPORATE DIRECTORS (2000).
DON TAPSCOTT ＆ DAVID TICOLL, THE NAKED CORPORATION: HOW THE AGE OF TRANSPARENCY WILL REVOLUTIONIZE BUSINESS 238 (2003).
WHERE WERE THE DIRECTORS? GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVED CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN CANADA, THE TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE (December 1994).
二、期刊論文
Mark Anson ＆ Ted White ＆ Ho Ho, Good corporate governance works: More evidence from CalPERS, 5 J. of Asset Management 149 (2004).
Andrew S. Butler, Modern Portfolio Theory and the Investment Powers of Trustees: The New Zealand Experience, 7 Bond L. Rev. 119 (1995).
Bill Barnhart, As Shareholders Speak Up, Many Funds Are Silent, Chi. Trib. C3 (1998).
Bernard S. Black, Agents Watching Agents: The Promise and Limits of Shareholder Voice, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 811 (1992).
Bernard S. Black, The Value of Institutional Investor Monitoring: The Empirical Evidence, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 895 (1992).
Bernard Black, Institutional Investors and Corporate Governance: The Case for Institutional Voice, J. of Applied Corporate Finance 19 (1992).
Douglas M. Branson, Corporate Governance "Reform" And the New Corporate Social Responsibility, 62 Pitt. L. Rev. 605 (2001).
Larry D. Barnett, When is a Mutual Fund Director Independent? The Unexplored Role of Professional Relationships under Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act, 4 DePaul Business & Commercial L.J. 168 (2006).
Martin D. Begleiter, Does the Prudent Investor Need the Uniform Prudent Investor Act—An Empinical Study of Trust Investment Practices, 51 ME. L. Rev. 27 (1999).
Sanjai Bhagat & Bernard Black, The Uncertain Relationship Between Board Composition and Firm Performance, 54 Bus. L. 921 (1999).
Alfred F. Conard, Beyond Managerialism: Investor Capitalism?, 22 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 117 (1988).
Cleaning Up Corporate Governance, One Company at A Time, Report On Business (6/27/2005).
John C. Coffee, Jr., “When Smoke Gets in Your Eyes” Myth and Reality about the Synthesis of Private Counsel and Public Client, 51 DePaul L. Rev. 241 (2001)
John C. Coffee, Jr., A Gentle Critique of the Third Circuit Task Force Report, 74 Temple L. Rev. 805 (2001).
John C. Coffee, Liquidity versus Control: The Institutional Investor As Corporate Monitor, 91 Colum. L. Rev. 1278 (1991).
K. A. D. Camara, Classifying Institutional Investors, 30 Iowa J. Corp. L. 219 (2005).
Paulo Coelho, The Pension Revolution- Are You A Believer Yet ?, Pension Revolution 13 (2007).
R. C. Clark, The Four Stages of Capitalism: Reflections on Investment Management Trends, 94 Harv. L. Rev. 561 (1981).
William B. Chandler III, On the Instructiveness of Insiders, Independents, and Institutional Investors, 67 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1083 (1999).
George W. Dent, Jr., Toward Unifying Ownership and Control in the Public Corporation, 5 Wis. L. Rev. 881 (1989).
George W. Dent, Jr., SEC Rule 14a-8: A Study in Regulatory Failure, 30 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 1 (1985).
Patty M. DeGaetano, The Shareholder Direct Access Teeter-Totter: Will Increased Shareholder Voice in the Director Nomination Process Protect Investors?, 41 Cal. W. L. Rev. 361 (2005).
Austin Fleming, Prudent Investments: The Varying Standards of Prudence, 12 Real Prop. & Trust J. 243 (1977).
James A. Fanto, The Transformation of French Corporate Governance and United States Institutional Investors, 21 Brook. J. Int`l L. 1 (1995).
Jill E. Fisch, From Legitimacy to Logic: Reconstructing Proxy Regulation, 46 Vand. L. Rev. 1129 (1993).
John P. Freeman & Stewart L. Brown, Mutual Fund Advisory Fees: The Cost of Conflicts of Interest, 26 J. Corporation Law 609 (2001).
Timothy L. Feagans, SEC Rule 14a-8: New Restrictions on Corporate Democracy?, 33 Buff. L. Rev. 225 (1984).
Del Guercio, Diane Hawkins, Jennifer, Motivation and Impact of Pension Fund Activism, 52 J. of Financial Economics 293 (1999).
Goldcorp Closes Glamis Acquisition, E&MJ: Engineering & Mining J., Vol. 207 Issue 8 (2006).
Harvey Gelb, Corporate Governance Guidelines－A Delaware Response, 1 Wyo. L. Rev. 523 (2001).
Jeffrey N. Gordon, The Puzzling Persistence of the Constrained Prudent Man Rule, 62 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 52 (1987).
Ronald J. Gilson ＆ Reinier Kraakman, Reinventing the Outside Director: An Agenda for Institutional Investors, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 863 (1991).
Carol E. Head, The Dormant Foreign Affairs Power: Constitutional Implications for State and Local Investment Restrictions Impacting Foreign Countries, 42 B. C. L. Rev 123 (2000).
David Hess, Public Pensions and the Promise of Shareholder Activism for the Next Frontier of Corporate Governance: Sustainable Economic Development, 2 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 221 (2007).
Edward C. Halbach, Trust Investment Law in the Third Restatement, 77 Iowa L. Rev. 1151 (1992).
Lisa Holton, Help Wanted: Filling Vacancies on Corporate Boards Creates Headaches for In-House Lawyers, 90 A. B. A. J. 30 (2004).
Paul Haskell, The Prudent Person Rule for Trustee Investment and Modern Portfolio Theory, 69 The N. C. L. Rev. 87 (1990).
Ryan Houseal, Beyond the Business Judgment Rule: Protecting Bidder Firm Shareholders From Value-Reducing Acquisitions, 37 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 193 (2003).
Michael T. Johnson, Speculating on the Efficacy of "Speculation": An Analysis of the Prudent Person`s Slipperiest Term of Art in Light of Modern Portfolio Theory, 48 Stanford L. Rev. 419 (1996).
Roberta S. Karmel, Mutual Funds, Pension Funds, Hedge Funds and Stock Market Volatility - What Regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission Is Appropriate?, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 909 (2005).
Samuel S. Kim, Mutual Funds: Solving the Shortcomings of the Independent Director Response to Advisory Self-Dealing Through Use of the Undue Influence Standard, 98 Columbia L. Rev. 478 (1998).
John H. Langbein, The Contractarian Basis of the Law of the Trusts, 105 Yale L.J. 625 (1995).
John H. Langbein, Meador Lecture Series 2005-2006: Why Did Trust Law Become Statute Law in the United States?, 58 Ala. L. Rev. 1069 (2007).
Martin Lipton & Steven A. Rosenblum, Election Contests in the Company’s Proxy: An Idea Whose Time Has not Come, 59 Bus. Lawyer 67 (2003).
Susan W. Liebeler, A Proposal to Rescind the Shareholder Proposal Rule, 18 Ga. L. Rev. 425 (Spring 1984).
Brett H. Mcdonnell, Shareholder Bylaws, Shareholder Nominations, and Poison Pills, 3Berkeley Bus. L.J. 205 (2005).
Craig C. Martin ＆ Matthew H. Metcalf, The Fiduciary Duties of Institutional Investors in Securities Litigation, 56 The Business Lawyer 1381 (2001).
John H. Matheson, Corporate Governance at the Millennium: The Decline of the Poison Pill Antitakeover Defense, 22 Ham. L. Rev. 703 (1999).
Joseph A. McCahery ＆ Piet Moerland ＆ Theo Raaijmakers ＆ Luc Renneboog, Corporate Governance Regimes: Convergence and Diversity, 52 American J. of Comparative Law 770 (2004).
Rob Norton, Who Owns this Company, Anyhow?, Fortune 131 (July 29, 1991).
Marleen O`Connor-Felman, American Corporate Governance and Children: Investing in Our Future Human Capital during Turbulent Times, 77 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1258 (2004).
Alan R. Palmiter, Mutual Fund Voting of Portfolio Shares: Why Not Disclose?, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1419 (2002).
Arthur R. Pinto, Section III: Corporate Governance: Monitoring the Board of Directors in American Corporations, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 317 (1998).
Robert C. Pozen, Institutional Perspective on Shareholder Nominations of Corporate Directors, 59 Bus. L. 95 (2003).
Roberta Romano, Less is More: Making Institutional Investor Activism a Valuable Mechanism of Corporate Governance, 18 Yale J. on Regulation 174 (2001).
Roberta Romano, Corporate Law and Corporate Governance, 5 Indus. & Corp. Change 277 (1996).
Clifford W. Smith, Jr. & Jerold B. Warner, On Financial Contracting: An Analysis of Bond Covenants, 7 J. Fin. Econ. 117 (1979).
D. Gordon Smith, Corporate Governance and Managerial Incompetence: Lessons from Kmart, 74 N. C .L. Rev. 1037 (1996).
Donald E. Schwartz, The Public-Interest Proxy Contest: Reflections on Campaign GM, 69 Mich. L. Rev. 419 (1971).
Leo E. Strine, Jr., Derivative Impact, Some Early Reflections on the Corporation Law Implications of the Enron Debacle, 57 Bus. L. 1371 (2002).
Lewis J. Sundquist III, Proposal to Allow Shareholder Nomination of Corporate Directors: Overreaction in Times of Corporate Scandal, 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1471 (2004).
Marc I. Steinberg, Symposium: Securities Law After the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act - Unfinished Business, 50 Smu. L. Rev. 9 (1996).
Mayo Adams Shattuck, The Development of the Prudent Man Rule for Fiduciary Investment in the United States in the Twentieth Century, 12 Ohio. ST. L.J. 491 (1951).
William F. Sharp, Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk, 19 J. of Finance 425 (1964).
TIAA-CREF has had a busy shareholder year, 166 The Corporate Board 28 (2007).
Farah Z. Usmani, Inequities in the Resolution of Securities Disputes: Individual or Class Action; Arbitration or Litigation, 7 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 193 (2001).
David Wasick ＆ Joseph Tabacco Jr., Navigating the Waters of Securities Litigation, 12 Nevada Lawyer 18 (2004).
Eric A. Welter, The Shareholder Proposal Rule: A Change to Certainty, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1980 (1992).
Richard H. Walker ＆ J. Gordon Seymour, Recent Judicial and Legislative Developments Affecting the Private Securities Fraud Class Action, 40 Arizona L. Rev. 1003 (1998).
Tiffany M. Wong, Defendants` Standing to Oppose Lead Plaintiff Appointment Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 2003 U Chi. L. F. 833 (2003).
三、其它
紐約國際治理體系公司網頁。(http://www.gmiratings.com/(wgt1zezzsco1hzyb5hprgt55)/Release20030728.html.)
加拿大安大略教師退休金計畫網頁。(http://www.otpp.com/web/website.nsf/web/cghome.)
加州公共退休基金網頁。(http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/facts/corpgov.pdf.)
Assessment of Regulatory Reforms to Improve the Management and Sale of Mutual Funds, United States General Accounting Office, 11 (March 10, 2004).
Brad M. Barber, Monitoring the Monitor: Evaluating CalPERS’ Shareholder Activism (April 2006), at http://www.investorwelfare.com/themes/pushbutton/pdf/UCDavisGSMCalPERSStudy.pdf.
Bill S-11: An Act to Amend The Canada Business Corporations Act And The Canada Cooperatives Act and to Amend Other Acts, at http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=S11&source=library_prb&Parl=37&Ses=1#1. Proxy%20Solicitation%20Rules(txt).
Jennifer E. Bethel & Stuart Gillan, Corporate Voting and the Proxy Process: Managerial Control versus Shareholder Oversight, Soc. Sci. Res. Network, Working Paper (June 2000), at http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract<uscore>id=236099.
Lewis Braham, Bring Democracy to Boardroom Elections, Business Week (10/21/2002).
Bill Cara, McEwen`s case for Goldcorp shareholder rights (Oct. 21, 2006), at http://www.billcara.com/archives/2006/10/mcewens_case_for_goldcorp_shar.html.
Comments of Harvard University (June 6, 2003), at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/s71003/harvard060603.htm.
Canadian Democracy and Corporate Accountability Commission Vector research (2001), at http://www.pensionsatwork.ca/english/pdfs/scholarly_works/sw_edition3/Boutin-Dufresne2005.pdf.
Stephen J. Choi, Jill E. Fisch & A.C. Pritchard, Do Institutions Matter? The Impact of the Lead Plaintiff Provisionof the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (June 2005), at http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:j4CaAcxckM4J:www.luc.edu/law/faculty/facworkshops/fisch_do_institutions_matter.pdf+Elayne+Demby,+Ducking+Lead+Plaintiff+Status+(May+1999)&hl=zh-TW&gl=tw&ct=clnk&cd=1.
ERISA-Litigation, Procedure, Preemption And Other Title issues, Tax Management Portfolios (2006).
ERISA-Fiduciary Responsibility and Prohibited Transactions, Tax Management Portfolios (2001).
Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 90 (Third Quarter 2006), at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20061207/z1.pdf.
Fiduciary Obligations of Board Members (June 2003), at http://www.nasra.org/resources/fiduciaryobligations.pdf.
Gary Findlay,Trustee delegation of decisions to staff (June 23, 2003), at http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:wl8fwV5w3kQJ:www.pionline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20030623/PRINTSUB/306230708/-1/TOC01+gary+findlay+p%26i+potter&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us.
Kemba J. Dunham, Reforms Turn Search for Directors Into a Long, Tedious Task, Wall St. J. (Aug. 29, 2002).
Kathleen Saluk Failla, Connecticut, the Investor, Seeks an Accounting, N.Y. Times (Connecticut) (May 16, 1993).
Susannah Blake Goodman, Jonas Kron, Tim Little, The Environmental Fiduciary－The Environmental Fiduciary: The Case for Incorporating Environmental Factors into Investment Management Policies（2002）, at http://www.rosefdn.org/images/EFreport.pdf.
IRRC, Corporate Governance Service 1997 Background Report F: Poison Pill (Feb. 21, 1997).
IRRC, Corporate Governance Service 1998 Background Report E: Poison Pill (June 25, 1998).
2007 Investment Company Factbook, Investment Company Institute 1 (2007), at http://www.icifactbook.org/index.html.
Howell Jackson, Changes to the Independent Director Requirement：The 2004 Amendments in Context 12 (2005), at http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/papers/Poss-Brudney_June.2005.pdf.
Tad Kopinski, Canadian Investors Argue for a Vote on Acquisitions (11/3/2006), at http://blog.riskmetrics.com/2006/11/canadian_investors_argue_for_a.html.
Justin McMurray, The facts about corporate governance (June 11, 2003), athttp://www.gmiratings.com/(2zg3nlqwhac3d4mebztc1r45)/InNews.aspx.
Mutual Fund Fact Book 2004, Investment Company Institute 24 (2004), at http://www.business.uiuc.edu/gpennacc/2004_factbook.pdf.
McEwen, Open Letter to All Shareholders of All Canadian Public Companies (10/30/2006), at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1Y1-99734863.html.
Patrick McGurn, 2008 Proxy Session, Directors’ Summit, UW-Madison Business School (Nov. 15, 2007).
Romina Maurino Cp, Goldcorp founder brings last-ditch effort to vote against merger to court, Canadian Press (1 Nov. 2006).
OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (1999), at http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/principles_en.pdf.
David Pauly, Wall Street`s New Musclement, Newsweek (June 5, 1989).
Policy Statement on Corporate Governance, TIAA-CREF (2000).
Troy A. Paredes, Enron: The Board, Corporate Governance, and Some Thoughts on the Role of Congress, at http://law.wustl.edu/faculty/workingpapers/paredes/enron.pdf.
RiskMetrics Group網頁。(http://www.issproxy.com/issgovernance/esg/cgq.html.)
Richard C. Breeden, Activists and Governance: An Old Clash or a New Era?, 2 (April 10, 2006), at http://www.otpp.com/web/website.nsf/web/activists_and_governance_breeden_0406/$FILE/Activists_and_Governance_Breeden_0406.pdf..
Report to the President and the Congress on the First Year of Practice under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, SEC (Apr, 1997).
Roberta Romano, Does Confidential Proxy Voting Matter?, Yale Law School and National Bureau of Economic Research (September 1, 2002), at http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=blewp.
Report to the President and the Congress on the First Year of Practice under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, SEC (Apr. 1997).
Jim Surowiecki, Challenging the Rules (1997), at http://www.fool.com/Rogue/1997/Rogue970725.htm.
Joe Schneider, Goldcorp`s McEwen Loses Bid for Vote on Glamis Deal, at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=asqqCuvp1SE8&refer=canada.
Marc Saltzburg, Union`s Pill Proposal Could Set Precedent (05/2006), at http://blog.riskmetrics.com/2006/05/000083print.html.
Max M. Schanzenbach & Robert H. Sitkoff, Did Reform of Prudent Investor Laws Change Trust Investment Practices?, 2 (2005), at http://repositories.cdlib.org/berkeley_law_econ/.
Staff Report On Corporate Accountability, SEC (1980).
Jennifer S. Taub, Able But Not Willing:The Failure Of Mutual Fund Advisers To Advocate For Shareholders’ Rights, Shareholders and Corporate Governance Conference(Oxford University) (October 19-20, 2007).
The value of corporate governance 1 (July 2003), at http://www.hermes.co.uk/pdf/corporate_governance/value_of_corporate_governance_0703.pdf.
The corporate reform weekly, Volume II (July 28, 2003), at http://www.citizenworks.org/news/index.php?id=88.
Testimony Concerning the Mutual Funds Integrity and Fee Transparency Act Of 2003, H.R. (June 18, 2003), at http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/061803tspfr.htm.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
法律學研究所
926515011
96
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0926515011
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林國全zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 王育慧zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 王育慧zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2007en_US
dc.date.accessioned 17-Sep-2009 14:35:54 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 17-Sep-2009 14:35:54 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 17-Sep-2009 14:35:54 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0926515011en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32858-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 法律學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 926515011zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 96zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著企業經營規模日趨複雜、專業化，股東因人數眾多、股東意見不一，在面臨公司所有與經營分離所產生的代理成本控制上，實有困難。一般小股東因持股過低，對於公司經營事務只能消極以待，若對公司經營成果不滿意，只能選擇華爾街準則(Wall Street Walk or Vote with Feet)，而賣掉股票，甚難對管理階層進行更進一步的影響。相較之下，機構投資人基於其人力及資源優勢，能深入參與公司治理、監督管理階層，進而提昇公司經營績效，增進股東投資價值，此即為機構投資人積極主義。
本篇論文探討機構投資人行使股東權以促進公司治理發展。首先討論機構投資人積極主義之兩大基礎支柱－其一，良好公司治理確能對公司績效表現有所助益，其二機構投資人促進公司治理乃其善盡受託義務之體現。
由於美國機構投資人主義高度成熟發展，而國內機構投資人積極主義仍屬起步階段，本篇論文即以比較研究法，探討美國機構投資人行使股東權如股東提案、委託書投票、直接與管理階層溝通、發布黑名單、團體訴訟與股東提名董事草案等，及分析說明我國公司治理相關條文與機構投資人行使表決權時所會遭逢之困境。
此外，本論文經由案例研究，深入蒐集資料並訪談兩個在促進公司治理領域夙負盛名的退休基金-美國威斯康辛州投資委員會與加拿大安大略省教師退休計畫，從而細膩地觀察美國及加拿大機構投資人積極主義之發展、瓶頸與挑戰。
最後，本論文提出促進機構投資人提出公司治理及表決權行使政策、鼓勵機構投資人於股東提案權與表決權等議案進行合作及建置對機構投資人餐與公司治理友善之法規環境等建議，期能對於我國機構投資人積極主義之發展有所助益。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The increase in institutional funds has been extraordinarily rapid. Comparing with the minority shareholders, the institutional shareholders’ size and expertise can minimize the collective choice problem and agency costs. Their resources enable them to investigate and monitor management in corporate governance field. This is the “Institutional Shareholder Activism“.
This article discusses the institutional shareholder’s enhancement of corporate governance. It explores from the two backbones of the Institutional Shareholder Activism: Firstly, the correlation between corporate governance and corporate performance, and secondly, fiduciary duties of the Institutional Shareholder. It makes two conclusions: Good corporate governance certainly helps protect shareholder interests, and contributes to superior long-term economic performance, and institutional shareholders can comply with fiduciary duties by enhancing corporate governance.
Furthermore, due to America institutional shareholder activism is highly developed, while Taiwan institutional shareholder activism is not developed. This paper compares America institutional shareholder activism with Taiwan’s. It discusses America institutional shareholder activism in many aspects, such as shareholder proposal, proxy solicitation, vote, direct negotiation with the corporate management, focus list, class action, security holder director nominations bill etc. Then, it analyses some of Taiwan’s corporate governance related articles such as shareholder proposal and security holder director nominations, and some difficulties which the pension fund and the security investment trust fund face when they vote as shareholders.
Moreover, through case study, this paper analyses two prestigious pension funds: State of Wisconsin Investment Board (SWIB) and The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), and investigates their stages of development and current operation and future challenges in the corporate governance field.
At last, this paper provides some suggestions and inspirits the institutional shareholder activism in our country.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章、緒論 .................................................................................... 1
第一節、研究目的 .................................................................... 1
一、具備能力及意願： .................................................... 2
二、與公司無實質利益衝突情況： ................................ 2
第二節、研究方法 .................................................................... 4
一、文獻探討法 ................................................................ 4
二、比較研究法 ................................................................ 4
三、個案研究法 ................................................................ 4
四、實地參訪法 ................................................................ 5
第三節、論文架構 .................................................................... 5
第四節、文獻回顧 .................................................................... 6
一、美國文獻 .................................................................... 6
二、中文文獻 .................................................................. 10
第二章、機構投資人與公司治理 .................................................. 11
第一節、公司治理之內涵 ...................................................... 11
一、建置有效率的公司治理架構 .................................. 12
二、股東的權利與主要股東運作 .................................. 12
三、公平對待股東 .......................................................... 13
四、公司治理中利害關係人角色 .................................. 13
五、揭露與透明化 .......................................................... 13
六、董事會責任 .............................................................. 13
第二節、公司治理對證券市場之重要性 .............................. 14
一、公司治理與公司績效不具或僅具極些微關聯性 .. 14
二、公司治理與公司績效具有正向關聯性 .................. 15
三、小結 .......................................................................... 19
第三節、機構投資人參與公司治理之階段 .......................... 20
一、美國資本主義企業與公司治理主導權之演進 ...... 20
二、機構投資人參與公司治理之階段 .......................... 22
第四節、小結 .......................................................................... 31
第三章、機構投資人積極主義興起 .............................................. 33
第一節、機構投資人之分類 .................................................. 33
一、以參與公司治理之程度分類（機構投資人的投資與
表決策略） .............................................................................. 33
二、以參與公司治理之方式與目的分類 ...................... 34
三、動機誘因動力分類 .................................................. 35
四、以從事業務特性分類 .............................................. 40
第二節、機構投資人積極主義興起 ...................................... 43
一、機構投資人消極行為 .............................................. 43
二、機構投資人積極主義 .............................................. 46
第三節、機構投資人積極主義發展的限制與困境 .............. 49
一、積極主義與公司股價或營運績效間的關聯性難以量
化 ...............................................................................................49
二、機構投資人因持股分散，而無足夠動機參與公司治
理 ...............................................................................................49
三、不願承擔領導者的角色 .......................................... 50
四、機構投資人扮演多元角色的衝突 .......................... 50
第四節、小結 .......................................................................... 51
第四章、機構投資人受託義務 ...................................................... 52
第一節、美國法注意義務內涵 .............................................. 53
一、審愼之人原則(Prudent Man Rule) .......................... 54
二、合法投資清單(Legal Lists) ...................................... 56
三、回歸審慎之人原則 .................................................. 58
四、現代投資組合理論(Modern Portfolio Theory)對回歸
後審慎之人原則之衝擊 .......................................................... 63
五、審慎投資人原則(Prudent Investor Rule) ................ 67
六、審慎投資專家規則(Prudent Expert Rule) ............... 74
七、小結 .......................................................................... 74
第二節、我國信託法注意義務內涵 ...................................... 75
第三節、美國法忠實義務內涵 .............................................. 77
一、忠實義務之具體類型 .............................................. 78
二、違反忠實義務之法律效果 ...................................... 81
第四節、我國信託法忠實義務規範 ...................................... 82
一、忠實義務之條文 ...................................................... 82
二、違反忠實義務之法律效果 ...................................... 84
第五節、員工退休所得保障法案(ERISA) 第404 條受託責任
立法例 ...............................................................................................85
一、立法目的 .................................................................. 85
二、對受託人及受託義務之定義 .................................. 86
三、規範重點演變 .......................................................... 88
第六節、投資公司法第15 條及36 條獨立董事受託義務立法
例 ....................................................................................................... 88
一、美國共同基金法律架構 .......................................... 89
二、共同基金獨立董事資格與最低比例 ...................... 92
三、獨立董事受託義務與權責功能 .............................. 97
四、投資顧問契約的批准 ............................................ 100
五、投資顧問費用 ........................................................ 102
第七節、小結： .................................................................... 108
第五章、美國機構投資人行使股東權現況 ................................ 111
第一節、股東提案權(Shareholder Proposal) ....................... 112
一、美國委託書規則14a-8 規定 ................................. 112
二、委託書規則14a-8 的功能 ..................................... 116
三、機構投資人行使股東提案權 ................................ 119
第二節、徵求委託書(Proxy Solicitation)、行使表決權(Vote)
......................................................................................................... 121
一、美國共同基金表決權行使實務態度之變遷 ........ 123
二、美國證管會新規則 ................................................ 129
第三節、檯面下勸說、直接與管理階層溝通 .................... 136
第四節、公開表示意見（包括發布黑名單公司） ............ 137
一、量化審查(Quantitative Screen) .............................. 138
二、質化複查(Qualitative Review) ...............................139
三、參與程序(Engagement Process) ............................ 139
第五節、進行集團訴訟 ........................................................ 140
一、集團訴訟之規範 .................................................... 140
二、私權證券集體訴訟之改革： ................................ 142
三、機構投資人之角色 ................................................ 144
第六節、股東提名董事候選人制度（草案） .................... 147
一、現行董事提名制度 ................................................ 147
二、規則14a-11 內容 ................................................... 151
三、反對草案見解 ........................................................ 154
四、機構投資人之角色 ................................................ 158
五、二條平行線－股東提名董事候選人權與股東提案權
................................................................................................. 164
第七節、小結 ........................................................................ 165
第六章、我國機構投資人行使股東權現況 ................................ 167
第一節、股東提案權 ............................................................ 167
第二節、董事候選人提名制度 ............................................ 175
一、條文說明 ................................................................ 175
二、董事候選人提名制度與股東提案權之交錯 ........ 181
第三節、行使表決權 ............................................................ 191
一、退撫基金 ................................................................ 192
二、證券投資信託基金 ................................................ 194
第四節、進行團體訴訟 ........................................................ 197
第五節、小結 ........................................................................ 198
第七章、個案研究－美國威斯康辛州投資委員會與加拿大安大略
省教師退休計畫 .................................................................................... 201
第一節、美國與加拿大機構投資人概說 ............................ 201
第二節、公共退休基金與公司治理 .................................... 203
第三節、威斯康辛投委會與公司治理 ................................ 207
一、概況 ........................................................................ 207
二、訪談紀錄 ................................................................ 208
第四節、安大略教師退休計畫與公司治理 ........................ 220
一、安大略教師基金的信念-良好的治理即是良好公司
(Good Governance Is Good Company) .................................. 221
二、安大略教師基金之訪談 ........................................ 226
三、由Goldcorp v. McEwen 案談加拿大公司治理 .... 228
第五節、結論與建議 ............................................................ 241
一、公共退休基金董事產生機制之再思考 ................ 242
二、公共退休基金的預算及員額編制問題 ................ 244
三、建置一套退休基金最佳實務運作原則 ................ 244
四、他山之石-公開及完全揭露 ................................... 244
第八章、結論與建議 .................................................................... 246
第一節、促進退休基金及證券投資信託基金提出公司治理及
表決權行使政策 ............................................................................ 247
一、加強公共基金管理者及相關人員有關受託義務與公
司治理的訓練及研習 ............................................................ 248
二、促其發布公司治理政策 ........................................ 249
三、制定表決權行使指引 ............................................ 249
四、發表投資原則聲明 ................................................ 250
五、建置一套標準化的公司治理最佳實務運作 ........ 250
第二節、鼓勵機構投資人於股東提案權與表決權等議案進行
合作 .................................................................................................250
一、股東提案權與表決權進行合作 ............................ 252
二、中長程目標： ........................................................ 252
第三節、建置對機構投資人參與公司治理友善之法規環境
......................................................................................................... 252
一、對證券投資信託基金相關法規之建議 ................ 253
二、對公共基金相關法規之建議 ................................ 253
參考文獻.........................................................................................256
中文資料.........................................................................................256
一、書籍 ................................................................................ 256
二、期刊及學位論文 ............................................................ 257
三、其它 ................................................................................ 259
英文資料.........................................................................................260
一、書籍 ................................................................................ 260
二、期刊論文 ........................................................................ 263
三、其它 ................................................................................ 271
附錄一SWIB and Corporate Governance (Mr. Keith L. Johnson)
................................................................................................................. 278
附錄二SWIB and Corporate Governance (Miss. TerriJo Saarela) 287
附錄三SWIB Domestic Proxy Voting Guidelines ........................ 294
附錄四Ontario Teachers Pension Plan and Corporate Governance
(Miss.Carol Dunsmore) .......................................................................... 318
附錄五OTPP Corporate Governance Policies and Proxy Voting
Guidelines ............................................................................................... 322		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 46628 bytes-
dc.format.extent 87185 bytes-
dc.format.extent 129773 bytes-
dc.format.extent 467906 bytes-
dc.format.extent 432153 bytes-
dc.format.extent 391603 bytes-
dc.format.extent 557106 bytes-
dc.format.extent 580962 bytes-
dc.format.extent 417624 bytes-
dc.format.extent 450166 bytes-
dc.format.extent 204004 bytes-
dc.format.extent 141926 bytes-
dc.format.extent 131232 bytes-
dc.format.extent 127885 bytes-
dc.format.extent 108804 bytes-
dc.format.extent 119401 bytes-
dc.format.extent 116060 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0926515011en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 機構投資人zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公共基金zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公司治理zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 股東權zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 股東提案zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 委託書zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 表決權zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 團體訴訟zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 受託義務zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 機構投資人積極主義zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institutional Shareholderen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institutional Shareholder Activismen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Public Funden_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporate Governanceen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Shareholder Proposalen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Proxyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Voteen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Class Actionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Fiduciary Dutyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) shareholder righten_US
dc.title (題名) 從公司治理論機構投資人股東權之行使－以公共基金為中心zh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文資料zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、書籍zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王文宇，公司法論，元照，2005年8月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王文宇，公司與企業法制(二)，元照，2007年1月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王志誠，信託法，五南，2005年3月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 方嘉麟，信託法之理論與實務，元照，2003年3月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 余雪明，證券交易法，財團法人證券暨期貨市場發展基金會，2003年4月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 余雪明，比較退休基金法，元照，2001年8月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 吳當傑，公司治理理論與實務，財團法人中華民國證券暨期貨發展基金會，2004年7月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 易明秋，公司治理，弘智文化，2003年6月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 邱聰智，民法債編通則，自版，1996年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 我國公司治理，財團法人證券暨期貨市場發展基金會，2001年12月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳春山，證券投資信託專論，五南，2000年10月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳隆麒，財務管理概論，華泰，2005年3月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 符寶玲，退休基金制度與管理，華泰，2001年3月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 黃銘傑，公司治理與企業金融法制之挑戰與興革，2006年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 馮震宇，公司證券重要爭議問題研究，元照，2005年5月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，公司法理論與判決研究（一），自版，1995年1月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，現代公司法，新學林，2008年2月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，公司法理論與判決（四），元照，2007年4月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，新證券交易法實例研習，元照，2007年2月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，公司監控與社會責任，五南，1995年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 賴源河、王志誠，現代信託法論，五南，2003年11月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 謝哲勝，信託法總論，元照，2003年3月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 二、期刊及學位論文zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王文宇，信託法原理與商業信託法制，臺大法學論叢，第二十九卷第二期，2000年1月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王志誠，股東提案權，月旦法學教室，第48期，2006年10月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王志誠，股東之董監事提名權，月旦法學教室，第50期，2006年12月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 何曜琛，公司治理與公開發行公司董事之告知義務--以美國法為中心，華岡法粹，第30期，2003年12月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 柯承恩，我國公司監理體系之問題與改進建議（上），會計研究月刊，第173期，2000年4月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林國全，2005年公司法修正條文解析（上），月旦法學，第124期，2005年9月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 林國全，二○○五年公司法修正條文解析（下），月旦法學，第125期，2005年10月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 易明秋，公司控制之失靈與法制改革，收錄於中央大學產業經濟研究所第二屆產業經濟研討會－公司控制論文集，1999年6月25日。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 易明秋，美國聯邦委託書規則逐條說明，集保月刊，第56期，1998年7月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 張俊生，美國機構投資人在公司治理中的作用，深圳證券交易所證券市場導報，第8期，2001年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳春山，我國公司治理改造策略（下），證交資料，第502期，2004年2月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳惠如，謹慎投資人原則之研究-兼論我國受託人投資權限之規範，中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2004年7月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 梁懷信、林文鵬合著，證券投資信託基金得否為締約主體之初探，證券暨期貨月刊，2005年2月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 黃銘傑，公司監控與監察人制度改革論，台灣大學法學論叢，第29卷第4期，2000年7月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 游志煌，主導私權證券訴訟之法制模型探討—律師驅策vs.非營利組織，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，2004年1月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 趙德樞，股東提案制度之研究，政治大學法律研究所碩士論文，1988年6月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 楊光華，機構投資人與公司管理，政大法學評論，第53期，1995年6月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉興善，從信賴關係談受託人、受任人、法人代表及公司負責人之注意義務，政大法學評論，第57期，1997年6月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，股東表決權之行使與公司治理，收錄於現代公司法制之新課題─賴英照大法官六秩華誕祝賀論文集，元照，2005年8月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，公司社會責任與股東提案權，公益信託台灣財政金融法學研究基金舉辦之「公司社會責任」研討會，2006年12月23日。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜、林俊宏，投資人團體訴訟新時代的來臨，月旦法學，第111期，2004年8月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，健全獨立董監事與公司治理之法制研究--公司自治、外部監控與政府規制之交錯，月旦法學雜誌，第94期，2003年3月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，股東書面及電子方式投票，台灣本土法學，第72期，2005年7月，第159頁。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜，股東提案制度與公司社會責任，中興法學，第39期，1995年7月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉绍樑，從莊子到安隆A+公司治理，天下雜誌，2002年12月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 三、其它zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 公務人員退休撫卹基金通訊，第5卷第2期，公務人員退休撫卹基金管理委員會，2006年4月。(http://www.fund.gov.tw.)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 邱靖博，世界主要國家公司治理之國際趨勢與未來發展－美、英、法、德、日、韓、港、星，台灣證券交易所股份有限公司、財團法人中華民國證券櫃檯買賣中心委託專題研究，2003年6月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 陳春山，共同投資機制之股東權運作與公司治理關聯性探討，財團法人中華民國證券暨期貨市場發展基金會委託研究，2003年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 蔡英文，中美兩國共同基金管理規範之比較研究，財政部證券管理委員會委託計畫，1993年6月。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 張俊生，美國機構投資人在公司治理中的作用，深圳證券交易所證券市場導報，第八期，2001年。At http://www.szse.cn/main/guide/Article.aspx? ArticleID=696.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 劉連煜、陳美卿、陳茵琦，證券暨期貨爭議案件訴訟進行之研究，證券暨期貨市場發展基金會，1998年。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 經濟日報，2004年8月21日，A8版。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 英文資料zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、書籍zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) AMBACHTSHEER, PENSION REVOLUTION: A SOLUTION TO THE PENSIONS CRISIS (2007).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) CAROLYN KAY BRANCATO, INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE： BEST PRACTICES FOR INCREASING CORPORATE VALUE (1997).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) CAMILLE Q. BRADFORD ET AL., NATIONAL LEGAL CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTERET, INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, SOCIAL INVESTING, AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) GEORGE T. BOGERT, TRUST (1987).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) GEORGE GLEASON BOGERT ＆ DALLIN H. OAKS ＆ H. REESE HANSEN ＆ STANLEY D. NEELENMAN, LAW OF TRUSTS (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) JOHN C. BOGLE, JOHN BOGLE ON INVESTING: THE FIRST 50 YEARS (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) JONATHAN CHARKHAM & ANNE SIMPSON, FAIR SHARES: THE FUTURE OF SHAREHOLDER POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) GILE R. DOWNES ET AL., INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AND CORPORATE BEHAVIOR (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) F.H. EASTERBROOK ＆ D. R. FISCHEL, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF CORPORATE LAW (1991).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) TAMAR FRANKEL ＆ CLIFFORD E. KIRSCH, INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT REGULATION (1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) DOWNES, GILE R., INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AND CORPORATE BEHAVIOR (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) JAMES P. HAWLEY, ANDREW T. WILLIAMS, THE RISE OF FIDUCIARY CAPITALISM : HOW INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS CAN MAKE CORPORATE AMERICA MORE DEMOCRATIC (2000).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) BETTY LINN KRIKORIAN, FIDUCIARY STANDARDS IN PENSION AND TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT (1990).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) BEVIS LONGSTRETH, MODERN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND THE PRUDENT MAN RULE (1986).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) BURTON G. MALKIEL, A RANDOM WALK DOWN WALL STREET: THE TIME-TESTED STRATEGY FOR SUCCESSFUL INVESTING (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) HARRY M. MARKOWITZ, PORTFOLIO SELECTION: EFFICIENT DIVERSIFICATION OF INVESTMENTS (1959).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) ROBERT A.G. MONKS ＆ NELL MINOW, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) OECD PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, OECD (2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) POLICY STATEMENT ON CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, TIAA-CREF (2000).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) MARK J. ROE, STRONG MANAGERS, WEAK OWNERS: THE POLITICAL ROOTS OF AMERICAN CORPORATE FINANCE (1994).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) G. P. STAPLEDON, INSTITUTIONAL SHAREHOLDERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) JANIS SARRA (editor), CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN GLOBAL CAPITAL MARKETS (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) STATE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN CANADA, TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE AND INSTITUTE OF CORPORATE DIRECTORS (2000).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) DON TAPSCOTT ＆ DAVID TICOLL, THE NAKED CORPORATION: HOW THE AGE OF TRANSPARENCY WILL REVOLUTIONIZE BUSINESS 238 (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) WHERE WERE THE DIRECTORS? GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVED CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN CANADA, THE TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE (December 1994).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 二、期刊論文zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mark Anson ＆ Ted White ＆ Ho Ho, Good corporate governance works: More evidence from CalPERS, 5 J. of Asset Management 149 (2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Andrew S. Butler, Modern Portfolio Theory and the Investment Powers of Trustees: The New Zealand Experience, 7 Bond L. Rev. 119 (1995).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bill Barnhart, As Shareholders Speak Up, Many Funds Are Silent, Chi. Trib. C3 (1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bernard S. Black, Agents Watching Agents: The Promise and Limits of Shareholder Voice, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 811 (1992).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bernard S. Black, The Value of Institutional Investor Monitoring: The Empirical Evidence, 39 UCLA L. Rev. 895 (1992).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bernard Black, Institutional Investors and Corporate Governance: The Case for Institutional Voice, J. of Applied Corporate Finance 19 (1992).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Douglas M. Branson, Corporate Governance "Reform" And the New Corporate Social Responsibility, 62 Pitt. L. Rev. 605 (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Larry D. Barnett, When is a Mutual Fund Director Independent? The Unexplored Role of Professional Relationships under Section 2(a)(19) of the Investment Company Act, 4 DePaul Business & Commercial L.J. 168 (2006).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Martin D. Begleiter, Does the Prudent Investor Need the Uniform Prudent Investor Act—An Empinical Study of Trust Investment Practices, 51 ME. L. Rev. 27 (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sanjai Bhagat & Bernard Black, The Uncertain Relationship Between Board Composition and Firm Performance, 54 Bus. L. 921 (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Alfred F. Conard, Beyond Managerialism: Investor Capitalism?, 22 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 117 (1988).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cleaning Up Corporate Governance, One Company at A Time, Report On Business (6/27/2005).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) John C. Coffee, Jr., “When Smoke Gets in Your Eyes” Myth and Reality about the Synthesis of Private Counsel and Public Client, 51 DePaul L. Rev. 241 (2001)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) John C. Coffee, Jr., A Gentle Critique of the Third Circuit Task Force Report, 74 Temple L. Rev. 805 (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) John C. Coffee, Liquidity versus Control: The Institutional Investor As Corporate Monitor, 91 Colum. L. Rev. 1278 (1991).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) K. A. D. Camara, Classifying Institutional Investors, 30 Iowa J. Corp. L. 219 (2005).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Paulo Coelho, The Pension Revolution- Are You A Believer Yet ?, Pension Revolution 13 (2007).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) R. C. Clark, The Four Stages of Capitalism: Reflections on Investment Management Trends, 94 Harv. L. Rev. 561 (1981).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) William B. Chandler III, On the Instructiveness of Insiders, Independents, and Institutional Investors, 67 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1083 (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) George W. Dent, Jr., Toward Unifying Ownership and Control in the Public Corporation, 5 Wis. L. Rev. 881 (1989).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) George W. Dent, Jr., SEC Rule 14a-8: A Study in Regulatory Failure, 30 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 1 (1985).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Patty M. DeGaetano, The Shareholder Direct Access Teeter-Totter: Will Increased Shareholder Voice in the Director Nomination Process Protect Investors?, 41 Cal. W. L. Rev. 361 (2005).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Austin Fleming, Prudent Investments: The Varying Standards of Prudence, 12 Real Prop. & Trust J. 243 (1977).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) James A. Fanto, The Transformation of French Corporate Governance and United States Institutional Investors, 21 Brook. J. Int`l L. 1 (1995).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jill E. Fisch, From Legitimacy to Logic: Reconstructing Proxy Regulation, 46 Vand. L. Rev. 1129 (1993).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) John P. Freeman & Stewart L. Brown, Mutual Fund Advisory Fees: The Cost of Conflicts of Interest, 26 J. Corporation Law 609 (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Timothy L. Feagans, SEC Rule 14a-8: New Restrictions on Corporate Democracy?, 33 Buff. L. Rev. 225 (1984).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Del Guercio, Diane Hawkins, Jennifer, Motivation and Impact of Pension Fund Activism, 52 J. of Financial Economics 293 (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldcorp Closes Glamis Acquisition, E&MJ: Engineering & Mining J., Vol. 207 Issue 8 (2006).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Harvey Gelb, Corporate Governance Guidelines－A Delaware Response, 1 Wyo. L. Rev. 523 (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jeffrey N. Gordon, The Puzzling Persistence of the Constrained Prudent Man Rule, 62 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 52 (1987).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ronald J. Gilson ＆ Reinier Kraakman, Reinventing the Outside Director: An Agenda for Institutional Investors, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 863 (1991).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Carol E. Head, The Dormant Foreign Affairs Power: Constitutional Implications for State and Local Investment Restrictions Impacting Foreign Countries, 42 B. C. L. Rev 123 (2000).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) David Hess, Public Pensions and the Promise of Shareholder Activism for the Next Frontier of Corporate Governance: Sustainable Economic Development, 2 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 221 (2007).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Edward C. Halbach, Trust Investment Law in the Third Restatement, 77 Iowa L. Rev. 1151 (1992).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lisa Holton, Help Wanted: Filling Vacancies on Corporate Boards Creates Headaches for In-House Lawyers, 90 A. B. A. J. 30 (2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Paul Haskell, The Prudent Person Rule for Trustee Investment and Modern Portfolio Theory, 69 The N. C. L. Rev. 87 (1990).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ryan Houseal, Beyond the Business Judgment Rule: Protecting Bidder Firm Shareholders From Value-Reducing Acquisitions, 37 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 193 (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Michael T. Johnson, Speculating on the Efficacy of "Speculation": An Analysis of the Prudent Person`s Slipperiest Term of Art in Light of Modern Portfolio Theory, 48 Stanford L. Rev. 419 (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Roberta S. Karmel, Mutual Funds, Pension Funds, Hedge Funds and Stock Market Volatility - What Regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission Is Appropriate?, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 909 (2005).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Samuel S. Kim, Mutual Funds: Solving the Shortcomings of the Independent Director Response to Advisory Self-Dealing Through Use of the Undue Influence Standard, 98 Columbia L. Rev. 478 (1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) John H. Langbein, The Contractarian Basis of the Law of the Trusts, 105 Yale L.J. 625 (1995).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) John H. Langbein, Meador Lecture Series 2005-2006: Why Did Trust Law Become Statute Law in the United States?, 58 Ala. L. Rev. 1069 (2007).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Martin Lipton & Steven A. Rosenblum, Election Contests in the Company’s Proxy: An Idea Whose Time Has not Come, 59 Bus. Lawyer 67 (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Susan W. Liebeler, A Proposal to Rescind the Shareholder Proposal Rule, 18 Ga. L. Rev. 425 (Spring 1984).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brett H. Mcdonnell, Shareholder Bylaws, Shareholder Nominations, and Poison Pills, 3Berkeley Bus. L.J. 205 (2005).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Craig C. Martin ＆ Matthew H. Metcalf, The Fiduciary Duties of Institutional Investors in Securities Litigation, 56 The Business Lawyer 1381 (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) John H. Matheson, Corporate Governance at the Millennium: The Decline of the Poison Pill Antitakeover Defense, 22 Ham. L. Rev. 703 (1999).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Joseph A. McCahery ＆ Piet Moerland ＆ Theo Raaijmakers ＆ Luc Renneboog, Corporate Governance Regimes: Convergence and Diversity, 52 American J. of Comparative Law 770 (2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rob Norton, Who Owns this Company, Anyhow?, Fortune 131 (July 29, 1991).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Marleen O`Connor-Felman, American Corporate Governance and Children: Investing in Our Future Human Capital during Turbulent Times, 77 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1258 (2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Alan R. Palmiter, Mutual Fund Voting of Portfolio Shares: Why Not Disclose?, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1419 (2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Arthur R. Pinto, Section III: Corporate Governance: Monitoring the Board of Directors in American Corporations, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 317 (1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Robert C. Pozen, Institutional Perspective on Shareholder Nominations of Corporate Directors, 59 Bus. L. 95 (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Roberta Romano, Less is More: Making Institutional Investor Activism a Valuable Mechanism of Corporate Governance, 18 Yale J. on Regulation 174 (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Roberta Romano, Corporate Law and Corporate Governance, 5 Indus. & Corp. Change 277 (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Clifford W. Smith, Jr. & Jerold B. Warner, On Financial Contracting: An Analysis of Bond Covenants, 7 J. Fin. Econ. 117 (1979).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) D. Gordon Smith, Corporate Governance and Managerial Incompetence: Lessons from Kmart, 74 N. C .L. Rev. 1037 (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Donald E. Schwartz, The Public-Interest Proxy Contest: Reflections on Campaign GM, 69 Mich. L. Rev. 419 (1971).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Leo E. Strine, Jr., Derivative Impact, Some Early Reflections on the Corporation Law Implications of the Enron Debacle, 57 Bus. L. 1371 (2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lewis J. Sundquist III, Proposal to Allow Shareholder Nomination of Corporate Directors: Overreaction in Times of Corporate Scandal, 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1471 (2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Marc I. Steinberg, Symposium: Securities Law After the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act - Unfinished Business, 50 Smu. L. Rev. 9 (1996).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mayo Adams Shattuck, The Development of the Prudent Man Rule for Fiduciary Investment in the United States in the Twentieth Century, 12 Ohio. ST. L.J. 491 (1951).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) William F. Sharp, Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk, 19 J. of Finance 425 (1964).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) TIAA-CREF has had a busy shareholder year, 166 The Corporate Board 28 (2007).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Farah Z. Usmani, Inequities in the Resolution of Securities Disputes: Individual or Class Action; Arbitration or Litigation, 7 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 193 (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) David Wasick ＆ Joseph Tabacco Jr., Navigating the Waters of Securities Litigation, 12 Nevada Lawyer 18 (2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Eric A. Welter, The Shareholder Proposal Rule: A Change to Certainty, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1980 (1992).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Richard H. Walker ＆ J. Gordon Seymour, Recent Judicial and Legislative Developments Affecting the Private Securities Fraud Class Action, 40 Arizona L. Rev. 1003 (1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tiffany M. Wong, Defendants` Standing to Oppose Lead Plaintiff Appointment Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 2003 U Chi. L. F. 833 (2003).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 三、其它zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 紐約國際治理體系公司網頁。(http://www.gmiratings.com/(wgt1zezzsco1hzyb5hprgt55)/Release20030728.html.)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 加拿大安大略教師退休金計畫網頁。(http://www.otpp.com/web/website.nsf/web/cghome.)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 加州公共退休基金網頁。(http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/facts/corpgov.pdf.)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Assessment of Regulatory Reforms to Improve the Management and Sale of Mutual Funds, United States General Accounting Office, 11 (March 10, 2004).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brad M. Barber, Monitoring the Monitor: Evaluating CalPERS’ Shareholder Activism (April 2006), at http://www.investorwelfare.com/themes/pushbutton/pdf/UCDavisGSMCalPERSStudy.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bill S-11: An Act to Amend The Canada Business Corporations Act And The Canada Cooperatives Act and to Amend Other Acts, at http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=S11&source=library_prb&Parl=37&Ses=1#1. Proxy%20Solicitation%20Rules(txt).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jennifer E. Bethel & Stuart Gillan, Corporate Voting and the Proxy Process: Managerial Control versus Shareholder Oversight, Soc. Sci. Res. Network, Working Paper (June 2000), at http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract<uscore>id=236099.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lewis Braham, Bring Democracy to Boardroom Elections, Business Week (10/21/2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bill Cara, McEwen`s case for Goldcorp shareholder rights (Oct. 21, 2006), at http://www.billcara.com/archives/2006/10/mcewens_case_for_goldcorp_shar.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Comments of Harvard University (June 6, 2003), at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/s71003/harvard060603.htm.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Canadian Democracy and Corporate Accountability Commission Vector research (2001), at http://www.pensionsatwork.ca/english/pdfs/scholarly_works/sw_edition3/Boutin-Dufresne2005.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Stephen J. Choi, Jill E. Fisch & A.C. Pritchard, Do Institutions Matter? The Impact of the Lead Plaintiff Provisionof the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (June 2005), at http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:j4CaAcxckM4J:www.luc.edu/law/faculty/facworkshops/fisch_do_institutions_matter.pdf+Elayne+Demby,+Ducking+Lead+Plaintiff+Status+(May+1999)&hl=zh-TW&gl=tw&ct=clnk&cd=1.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) ERISA-Litigation, Procedure, Preemption And Other Title issues, Tax Management Portfolios (2006).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) ERISA-Fiduciary Responsibility and Prohibited Transactions, Tax Management Portfolios (2001).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 90 (Third Quarter 2006), at http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20061207/z1.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fiduciary Obligations of Board Members (June 2003), at http://www.nasra.org/resources/fiduciaryobligations.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gary Findlay,Trustee delegation of decisions to staff (June 23, 2003), at http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:wl8fwV5w3kQJ:www.pionline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20030623/PRINTSUB/306230708/-1/TOC01+gary+findlay+p%26i+potter&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kemba J. Dunham, Reforms Turn Search for Directors Into a Long, Tedious Task, Wall St. J. (Aug. 29, 2002).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kathleen Saluk Failla, Connecticut, the Investor, Seeks an Accounting, N.Y. Times (Connecticut) (May 16, 1993).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Susannah Blake Goodman, Jonas Kron, Tim Little, The Environmental Fiduciary－The Environmental Fiduciary: The Case for Incorporating Environmental Factors into Investment Management Policies（2002）, at http://www.rosefdn.org/images/EFreport.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) IRRC, Corporate Governance Service 1997 Background Report F: Poison Pill (Feb. 21, 1997).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) IRRC, Corporate Governance Service 1998 Background Report E: Poison Pill (June 25, 1998).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 2007 Investment Company Factbook, Investment Company Institute 1 (2007), at http://www.icifactbook.org/index.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Howell Jackson, Changes to the Independent Director Requirement：The 2004 Amendments in Context 12 (2005), at http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/papers/Poss-Brudney_June.2005.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tad Kopinski, Canadian Investors Argue for a Vote on Acquisitions (11/3/2006), at http://blog.riskmetrics.com/2006/11/canadian_investors_argue_for_a.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Justin McMurray, The facts about corporate governance (June 11, 2003), athttp://www.gmiratings.com/(2zg3nlqwhac3d4mebztc1r45)/InNews.aspx.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mutual Fund Fact Book 2004, Investment Company Institute 24 (2004), at http://www.business.uiuc.edu/gpennacc/2004_factbook.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) McEwen, Open Letter to All Shareholders of All Canadian Public Companies (10/30/2006), at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1Y1-99734863.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Patrick McGurn, 2008 Proxy Session, Directors’ Summit, UW-Madison Business School (Nov. 15, 2007).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Romina Maurino Cp, Goldcorp founder brings last-ditch effort to vote against merger to court, Canadian Press (1 Nov. 2006).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (1999), at http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/principles_en.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) David Pauly, Wall Street`s New Musclement, Newsweek (June 5, 1989).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Policy Statement on Corporate Governance, TIAA-CREF (2000).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Troy A. Paredes, Enron: The Board, Corporate Governance, and Some Thoughts on the Role of Congress, at http://law.wustl.edu/faculty/workingpapers/paredes/enron.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) RiskMetrics Group網頁。(http://www.issproxy.com/issgovernance/esg/cgq.html.)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Richard C. Breeden, Activists and Governance: An Old Clash or a New Era?, 2 (April 10, 2006), at http://www.otpp.com/web/website.nsf/web/activists_and_governance_breeden_0406/$FILE/Activists_and_Governance_Breeden_0406.pdf..zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Report to the President and the Congress on the First Year of Practice under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, SEC (Apr, 1997).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Roberta Romano, Does Confidential Proxy Voting Matter?, Yale Law School and National Bureau of Economic Research (September 1, 2002), at http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=blewp.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Report to the President and the Congress on the First Year of Practice under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, SEC (Apr. 1997).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jim Surowiecki, Challenging the Rules (1997), at http://www.fool.com/Rogue/1997/Rogue970725.htm.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Joe Schneider, Goldcorp`s McEwen Loses Bid for Vote on Glamis Deal, at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=asqqCuvp1SE8&refer=canada.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Marc Saltzburg, Union`s Pill Proposal Could Set Precedent (05/2006), at http://blog.riskmetrics.com/2006/05/000083print.html.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Max M. Schanzenbach & Robert H. Sitkoff, Did Reform of Prudent Investor Laws Change Trust Investment Practices?, 2 (2005), at http://repositories.cdlib.org/berkeley_law_econ/.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Staff Report On Corporate Accountability, SEC (1980).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jennifer S. Taub, Able But Not Willing:The Failure Of Mutual Fund Advisers To Advocate For Shareholders’ Rights, Shareholders and Corporate Governance Conference(Oxford University) (October 19-20, 2007).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) The value of corporate governance 1 (July 2003), at http://www.hermes.co.uk/pdf/corporate_governance/value_of_corporate_governance_0703.pdf.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) The corporate reform weekly, Volume II (July 28, 2003), at http://www.citizenworks.org/news/index.php?id=88.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Testimony Concerning the Mutual Funds Integrity and Fee Transparency Act Of 2003, H.R. (June 18, 2003), at http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/061803tspfr.htm.zh_TW