Radical Shareholder Primacy

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation 2014-09-24

Summary:

Editor's Note: The following post comes to us from David Million, the J.B. Stombock Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University.

My article, Radical Shareholder Primacy, written for a symposium on the history of corporate social responsibility, seeks to make sense of the surprising disagreement within the corporate law academy on the foundational legal question of corporate purpose: does the law require shareholder primacy or not? I argue that disagreement on this question is due to an unappreciated ambiguity in the shareholder primacy idea. I identify two models of shareholder primacy, the "radical" and the "traditional." Radical shareholder primacy makes strong claims about both shareholder governance rights, conceiving of management as the shareholders' agent, and also about corporate purpose, insisting that corporate law mandates shareholder wealth maximization. Because there is no legal basis for either of these claims, those who deny that shareholder primacy is the law are correct at least as to this model. However, the traditional version of shareholder primacy accords to shareholders a special place in the corporation's governance structure vis-à-vis the corporation's nonshareholder stakeholders, for example, with respect to voting rights and the right to bring derivative suits. Beyond this privileged position in the horizontal dimension, there is no maximization mandate and corporate law does very little to provide shareholders with the tools necessary to exercise governance powers; there is no primacy in the vertical dimension or on the question of corporate purpose. Nevertheless, this conception of shareholder primacy—modest as it is—is enshrined in corporate law. Those who deny that shareholder primacy is the law need to acknowledge this fact, but once it is understood that traditional shareholder primacy has little in common with the radical version there is no reason to be reluctant to do so.

Click here to read the complete post...

Link:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2014/09/24/radical-shareholder-primacy/

From feeds:

Blogs.law Aggregation Hub » The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation

Tags:

academic research comparative corporate governance & regulation corporate elections & voting corporate social responsibility accountability agency model david million fiduciary duties management shareholder power shareholder rights shareholder voting

Authors:

June Rhee, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation,

Date tagged:

09/24/2014, 10:20

Date published:

09/24/2014, 09:00