Minnesota Law Review

Corporate Control and the Need for Meaningful Board Accountability

Corporations are vulnerable to the greed, self-dealing, and conflicts of those in control of the corporation. Courts traditionally regulate these potential abuses by designating the board of directors and senior management as fiduciaries. In some instances, however, shareholders, creditors, or others outside of corporate management influence corporate decisions and, in the process, extract corporate value. Courts generally address this type of corporate damage in one of two ways, depending on the party involved. Courts often designate controlling shareholders as corporate fiduciaries, while they characterize creditors, customers, and others as contract parties with no fiduciary duties.

The traditional roles of corporate shareholders and creditors may support the courts’ willingness to treat the former, but not the latter, as corporate fiduciaries. But shareholders and creditors do not always necessarily act in accordance with their traditional roles. Institutional investors, led primarily by hedge funds and private equity firms, are pursuing activist agendas as both shareholders and debtholders and frequently are successful in their efforts to influence corporate affairs. These efforts, however, may not benefit the corporation or stakeholders generally. This Article explores the increasing convergence in the rights and activism of shareholders and creditors and proposes an approach for governing their conduct that focuses on the board of directors.

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days