Corporate shareholders, especially those of very large businesses, rarely have a considerable role in business decisions. The corporation's affairs are managed by the board of directors, who also selects the officials. They frequently engage in self-dealing and corruption as a result of their distance from the shareholders, which negatively affects the company and, by extension, the shareholders. A shareholder does not have the right to sue a director or officer for misconduct unless the shareholder has suffered damage as a direct result. A shareholder may file a derivative lawsuit against the wrongdoers as a result. A shareholder (or shareholders) bringing a lawsuit on the corporation's behalf is known as a derivative action. The shareholders representing the corporation in the litigation are suing the wrongdoers for damages as a result of their conduct would have a cost that the firm would be able to collect. In America, this is how it works. The legal ability of shareholders to bring derivative actions against dishonest directors and officials is restricted in several nations, such as Germany. In a similar vein, shareholders in the UK can only legally invalidate actions taken by directors and officers before challenging them. While shareholder derivative actions are permitted under Japanese law, if the shareholders lose, the corporation may pursue the losing shareholders for damages.

Choose Japan or the UK and research the laws/statutes/rules/court cases dealing with shareholder derivative suits of the country you choose;

A) Describe the way board of directors and officers are held legally accountable for their wrongdoings and to the extent shareholders acting on behalf of the corporation can be potentially harmed in this pursuit; and

B) Explain whether you conclude that the rules governing shareholder derivative suits in the country you have chosen adequately or inadequately has encouraged businesses to be more accountable to their shareholders? Give at least one specific example.