The Case for Limited Shareholder Voting Rights

Stephen M. Bainbridge
{"title":"The Case for Limited Shareholder Voting Rights","authors":"Stephen M. Bainbridge","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.781429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent years have seen a number of efforts to extend the shareholder franchise. These efforts implicate two fundamental issues for corporation law. First, why do shareholders - and only shareholders - have voting rights? Second, why are the voting rights of shareholders so limited? This essay proposes answers for those questions. As for efforts to expand the limited shareholder voting rights currently provided by corporation law, the essay argues that the director primacy-based system of U.S. corporate governance has served investors and society well. This record of success occurred not in spite of the separation of ownership and control, but because of that separation. Before changing making further changes to the system of corporate law that has worked well for generations, it would be appropriate to give those changes already made time to work their way through the system. To the extent additional change or reform is thought desirable at this point, surely it should be in the nature of minor modifications to the newly adopted rules designed to enhance their performance, or rather than radical and unprecedented shifts in the system of corporate governance that has existed for decades.","PeriodicalId":83406,"journal":{"name":"University of California, Davis law review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"106","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of California, Davis law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.781429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 106

Abstract

Recent years have seen a number of efforts to extend the shareholder franchise. These efforts implicate two fundamental issues for corporation law. First, why do shareholders - and only shareholders - have voting rights? Second, why are the voting rights of shareholders so limited? This essay proposes answers for those questions. As for efforts to expand the limited shareholder voting rights currently provided by corporation law, the essay argues that the director primacy-based system of U.S. corporate governance has served investors and society well. This record of success occurred not in spite of the separation of ownership and control, but because of that separation. Before changing making further changes to the system of corporate law that has worked well for generations, it would be appropriate to give those changes already made time to work their way through the system. To the extent additional change or reform is thought desirable at this point, surely it should be in the nature of minor modifications to the newly adopted rules designed to enhance their performance, or rather than radical and unprecedented shifts in the system of corporate governance that has existed for decades.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有限股东投票权的案例
近年来,我们看到了一些扩大股东特许经营权的努力。这些努力涉及公司法的两个基本问题。首先,为什么股东——而且只有股东——才有投票权?第二,为什么股东的投票权如此有限?本文为这些问题提供了答案。对于扩大公司法目前规定的有限股东投票权的努力,本文认为,美国公司治理中以董事为基础的制度对投资者和社会都有很好的服务。这一成功的记录并非是在所有权和控制权分离的情况下发生的,而是因为这种分离。在对几代人以来运作良好的公司法体系进行进一步修改之前,给已经做出的修改留出时间,让它们在整个体系中发挥作用,这是合适的。如果说目前人们认为有必要进行额外的改变或改革,那当然应该是对新采用的规则进行微小的修改,以提高它们的绩效,而不是对已经存在了几十年的公司治理体系进行彻底的、前所未有的改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Highways and Side Roads of Statistical Capacity Building How COVID-19 Changed Our Saving Habits? O EFÊMERO PASSEIO DOS PATINETES ELÉTRICOS NO BRASIL (The Ephemeral Ride of Electric Scooters in Brazil) No Panic in Pandemic: The Impact of Individual Choice on Public Health Policy and Vaccine Priority Merger Breakups
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1