Standards of Conduct and Standards of Review in Corporate Law: The Need for Closer Alignment

I. Introduction . . . . . 671 II. Assessing the Argument for Maintaining Divergent Standards for the Corporate Fiduciary Duty of Care . . . . . 673 A. The Limited Body of Scholarship Justifying Divergent Standards in the Corporate Law Context . . . . . 673 B. The Dan-Cohen Arguments and the Singer Response . . . . . 676 1. Bentham’s Recognition of the Distinction Between Conduct Rules and Decision Rules . . . . . 676 2. The Prerequisite of Acoustic Separation . . . . . 678 3. The Argument for Legitimacy . . . . . 681 C. The Phillips and Eisenberg Arguments Regarding Whether Divergent Standards Are Justified in the Corporate Fiduciary Duty of Care Context . . . . . 686 III. Conclusion . . . . . 691