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

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]