Comparing Corporate Law Principles in Iran and the United States: Derivative Suits, Veil Piercing, and Director Duties

Corporate law systems around the world aim to balance the powers of directors and the rights of shareholders. In this post, we compare how key principles in U.S. corporate law—such as shareholder derivative suits, piercing the corporate veil, the business judgment rule, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are addressed in Iranian law.

1. Shareholder Derivative Suits

U.S. Law: In the U.S., shareholders can file a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the corporation if the board fails to act against wrongdoing by insiders. These lawsuits require procedural steps, such as making a demand to the board or showing that such a demand would be futile.

Iranian Law: Iranian law recognizes similar rights, though in a less formalized way. Under Article 276 of the Amended Commercial Code, any interested party (including shareholders) may bring claims against directors. However, Iran lacks a codified mechanism for demand or futility analysis.

Conclusion: Derivative action exists in both systems, but the U.S. approach is far more structured.

2. Piercing the Corporate Veil

U.S. Law: Courts may "pierce the corporate veil" when shareholders misuse the company as an alter ego or engage in fraud. The doctrine prevents abuse of limited liability.

Iranian Law: While not expressly mentioned, Iranian legal scholars and court rulings acknowledge this concept in practice. If shareholders mix personal and company assets or commit fraud, courts may hold them personally liable.

Conclusion: The doctrine exists in Iranian law by implication but lacks a statutory framework.

3. Business Judgment Rule

U.S. Law: This rule protects directors from liability when acting in good faith, with reasonable care, and in the best interest of the company. Courts avoid second-guessing business decisions unless there’s fraud or conflict of interest.

Iranian Law: Iran does not have an explicit business judgment rule, but similar protections are inferred. Article 142 of the Commercial Code provides that directors are only liable if they breach duties or act in bad faith.

Conclusion: The principle exists in substance in Iran, but without a clearly articulated rule.

4. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

U.S. Law: Cases like A.P. Smith v. Barlow permit donations to universities and public causes if they serve the company's long-term interest.

Iranian Law: CSR is not directly regulated in Iran’s Commercial Code. Still, some companies engage in charitable activities, especially listed firms with corporate governance standards.

Conclusion: CSR is emerging in Iran, but without formal legal support.

Final Thoughts

While Iranian corporate law shares many underlying principles with the U.S. system, it generally lacks the procedural sophistication and judicial doctrines that define American corporate jurisprudence. Concepts like derivative actions and veil piercing are acknowledged in Iran, but often depend on judge-made law and legal commentary rather than codified statutes.

As Iranian companies increasingly engage in international business, especially through U.S.-based litigation or partnerships, understanding these cross-system differences becomes crucial for legal professionals and stakeholders.

Need Expert Guidance?

If you're navigating cross-border corporate issues involving Iran and the U.S., our legal team at 1844IRANLAW.com is here to help. Contact us for specialized consultation on Iranian commercial law and compliance.

© 2025 – 1844IRANLAW. All rights reserved.