MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980459580 · doi:10.7202/043056ar

Former corporate managers, fiduciary obligations, and the public policy in favor of competition

2005· article· en· W1980459580 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bruce L. Welling

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiduciaryDamagesObligationBusinessCompetition (biology)DoctrineSupreme courtEquity (law)Corporate lawLaw and economicsLawAccountingEconomicsCorporate governanceFinancePolitical scienceDuty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In common law sytstems corporate managers owe fiduciary obligations to their corporations. This has complicated the legal analysis of competitive business activities by former corporate managers, particularly since the 1974 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canaero . Other former corporate employees have long been allowed to compete with their ex-employers, so long as they do not use their ex-employers' property or breach terms of any contracts restraining their business activities. Attempts to contract to restrain future competitive business activities have long been restricted by the public policy in favor of competition. Former corporate managers can also be sued in Equity : the remedy is for an accounting of profits or for equitable damages. The judicial analysis of these equitable actions has been mystified by the "corporate opportunity doctrine" and the mistaken notion that a fiduciary obligation can survive resignation from the fiduciary position that created the obligation. A review of the basics exposes the errors and shows that equitable accounting and equitable damages remedies are also subject to the public policy in favor of competition, but that the calculation is more complicated than in contracts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207