股东至上准则

D. Smith, Gordon H. Smith
{"title":"股东至上准则","authors":"D. Smith, Gordon H. Smith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.10571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Corporate directors have a fiduciary duty to make decisions in the best interests of the shareholders. This aspect of fiduciary duty is often called the shareholder primacy norm. Legal scholars generally assume that the shareholder primacy norm is a major factor considered by boards of directors of publicly traded corporations in making ordinary business decisions and that changing the shareholder primacy norm would have an effect on the substance of those decisions. This Article challenges this view and argues that the shareholder primacy norm was never equipped to mediate conflicts between shareholders and nonshareholder constituencies of a corporation. The origins and development of the shareholder primacy norm suggest that it was introduced into corporate law to perform a much different and somewhat surprising function: the shareholder primacy norm was first used by courts to resolve disputes among majority and minority shareholders, and over time this use of the shareholder primacy norm evolved into the modern doctrine of minority oppression. This application of the shareholder primacy norm seems incongruous today because minority oppression cases involve conflicts among shareholders, not conflicts between shareholders and nonshareholders. Nevertheless, when early courts employed rules requiring directors to act in the interests of all shareholders (not just the majority shareholders), they were creating the shareholder primacy norm. Once used to resolve minority oppression cases, the shareholder primacy norm easily found its way into cases involving publicly traded corporations because courts did not routinely distinguish closely held corporations from publicly traded corporations until the middle of this century. But the application of the shareholder primacy norm to the ordinary business decisions of publicly traded corporations is muted by the business judgment rule. As a result, even though the shareholder primacy norm is closely associated with debates about the social responsibility of publicly traded corporations, it's impact on the ordinary business decisions of such corporations is extremely limited.","PeriodicalId":83094,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of corporation law","volume":"23 1","pages":"277-323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.10571","citationCount":"125","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Shareholder Primacy Norm\",\"authors\":\"D. Smith, Gordon H. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.10571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Corporate directors have a fiduciary duty to make decisions in the best interests of the shareholders. This aspect of fiduciary duty is often called the shareholder primacy norm. Legal scholars generally assume that the shareholder primacy norm is a major factor considered by boards of directors of publicly traded corporations in making ordinary business decisions and that changing the shareholder primacy norm would have an effect on the substance of those decisions. This Article challenges this view and argues that the shareholder primacy norm was never equipped to mediate conflicts between shareholders and nonshareholder constituencies of a corporation. The origins and development of the shareholder primacy norm suggest that it was introduced into corporate law to perform a much different and somewhat surprising function: the shareholder primacy norm was first used by courts to resolve disputes among majority and minority shareholders, and over time this use of the shareholder primacy norm evolved into the modern doctrine of minority oppression. This application of the shareholder primacy norm seems incongruous today because minority oppression cases involve conflicts among shareholders, not conflicts between shareholders and nonshareholders. Nevertheless, when early courts employed rules requiring directors to act in the interests of all shareholders (not just the majority shareholders), they were creating the shareholder primacy norm. Once used to resolve minority oppression cases, the shareholder primacy norm easily found its way into cases involving publicly traded corporations because courts did not routinely distinguish closely held corporations from publicly traded corporations until the middle of this century. But the application of the shareholder primacy norm to the ordinary business decisions of publicly traded corporations is muted by the business judgment rule. As a result, even though the shareholder primacy norm is closely associated with debates about the social responsibility of publicly traded corporations, it's impact on the ordinary business decisions of such corporations is extremely limited.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of corporation law\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"277-323\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.10571\",\"citationCount\":\"125\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of corporation law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.10571\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of corporation law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.10571","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 125

摘要

公司董事负有信义义务,必须做出符合股东最大利益的决策。信义义务的这一方面通常被称为股东至上准则。法律学者普遍认为,股东优先规范是上市公司董事会在进行日常经营决策时考虑的主要因素,改变股东优先规范会对这些决策的实质产生影响。本文对这一观点提出了挑战,并认为股东至上规范从未被用来调解公司股东与非股东群体之间的冲突。股东优先规范的起源和发展表明,它被引入公司法,以执行一个非常不同的和有些令人惊讶的功能:股东优先规范首先被法院用于解决大股东和小股东之间的纠纷,随着时间的推移,股东优先规范的这种使用演变成少数人压迫的现代学说。这种股东至上准则的应用在今天看来是不协调的,因为少数人压迫案件涉及股东之间的冲突,而不是股东与非股东之间的冲突。然而,当早期的法院采用要求董事为所有股东(而不仅仅是大股东)的利益行事的规则时,他们创造了股东至上的规范。股东优先原则曾被用于解决少数人受压迫的案件,但它很容易就在涉及上市公司的案件中找到了自己的方式,因为直到本世纪中叶,法院才开始例行公事地将少数人持股的公司与上市公司区分开来。但是,股东至上准则在上市公司一般经营决策中的应用却受到商业判断规则的制约。因此,尽管股东至上规范与上市公司社会责任的争论密切相关,但它对上市公司日常经营决策的影响却极为有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Shareholder Primacy Norm
Corporate directors have a fiduciary duty to make decisions in the best interests of the shareholders. This aspect of fiduciary duty is often called the shareholder primacy norm. Legal scholars generally assume that the shareholder primacy norm is a major factor considered by boards of directors of publicly traded corporations in making ordinary business decisions and that changing the shareholder primacy norm would have an effect on the substance of those decisions. This Article challenges this view and argues that the shareholder primacy norm was never equipped to mediate conflicts between shareholders and nonshareholder constituencies of a corporation. The origins and development of the shareholder primacy norm suggest that it was introduced into corporate law to perform a much different and somewhat surprising function: the shareholder primacy norm was first used by courts to resolve disputes among majority and minority shareholders, and over time this use of the shareholder primacy norm evolved into the modern doctrine of minority oppression. This application of the shareholder primacy norm seems incongruous today because minority oppression cases involve conflicts among shareholders, not conflicts between shareholders and nonshareholders. Nevertheless, when early courts employed rules requiring directors to act in the interests of all shareholders (not just the majority shareholders), they were creating the shareholder primacy norm. Once used to resolve minority oppression cases, the shareholder primacy norm easily found its way into cases involving publicly traded corporations because courts did not routinely distinguish closely held corporations from publicly traded corporations until the middle of this century. But the application of the shareholder primacy norm to the ordinary business decisions of publicly traded corporations is muted by the business judgment rule. As a result, even though the shareholder primacy norm is closely associated with debates about the social responsibility of publicly traded corporations, it's impact on the ordinary business decisions of such corporations is extremely limited.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The nature of profits Conclusion Investment Corporate governance How to Enhance Directors’ Independence at Controlled Companies
×
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