read this:

"In the United States, the business judgment rule is referred to in lawsuits when a director of a corporation takes an action that affects the corporation, and a plaintiff sues alleging that the director violated the duty of care to the corporation. As explained in the website law.cornell.edu, directors and officers of companies tend to have business expertise that the courts lack and that courts should not interfere with their business decisions when those decisions are made with reasonable care, in the best interest of the company, and with good faith.

According to the lerners.ca website, in Canada, the business judgment rule, when applied in courts, will concede to the directors' business judgment if the directors demonstrated an appropriate degree of prudence and diligence in making the business decision.

I agree with the argument that business leaders possess more knowledge regarding business decisions than courts do. Many businesses leaders make risky decisions betting for more significant rewards. This decision does not necessarily mean that they are acting against the company's interests.

In my opinion, both countries' business judgment rules are stated in similar ways because they are neighbors allies and sustain many business relationships, especially between Canada and the northern states of the United States.

I would not change anything in the U.S. business judgment rule because it works well since it allows companies to expand and become more innovative. If courts negatively judge directors' or business owners' decisions every time a business decision fails, these leaders would contain themselves from traying new plans and strategies slowing down innovation and development."

after reading this, what's your opinion on this?

- please go into detail, preferably more than a paragraph

- use your own words to help me understand why

-cite sources if needed (to look up later)

- paragraph form (no bullet points or lists)