scholarly journals On the Nature of Corporations

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 775-789 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn A Stout

Legal experts traditionally distinguish corporations from unincorporated business forms by focusing on such corporate characteristics as limited shareholder liability, centralised management, perpetual life, and freely transferred shares. While this approach has value, this essay argues that the nature of the corporation can be better understood by focusing on a fifth, often-overlooked, characteristic of corporations: their capacity to “lock in” equity investors’ initial capital contributions by making it far more difficult for those investors to subsequently withdraw assets from the firm. Like a tar pit, a corporation is much easier for equity investors to get into, than to get out of. An emerging school of theorists has begun to explore the implications of this idea for corporate law and practice. The idea is still novel enough to lack a uniformly- accepted label—in addition to the phrase “capital lock-in,” scholars have described this aspect of incorporation as “affirmative asset partitioning,” “the absence of a repurchase condition,” and “asset separation from shareholders.” Whatever label one chooses, the idea shows great promise for illuminating a variety of thorny problems that have long troubled corporate scholars and practitioners. In illustration, this essay considers how the idea of capital lock-in sheds light on three corporate mysteries in the United States: the sui generis nature of corporate directors’ fiduciary duties; the rise of the large modern service partnership; and lawmakers’ enthusiasm for meddling with corporate governance rules.

Author(s):  
Md. Rezaul Karim Miajee

Introduction Corporate governance (CG) has recently been extensively discussed, intensely debated and variously defined in the United States. For the purposes of this chapter, CG shall mean the internal arrangements within a corporation intended to provide reasonable assurances that corporate directors and officers make and implement decisions in accordance with their duties of care and loyalty to their corporations. CG in the United States is often associated with the recent initiatives taken in the wake of corporate scandals such as Enron and MCI. While the recent initiatives are undoubtedly important, their significance can best be understood in the context of the existing frameworks under corporate and securities law. The current initiatives in the United States (i.e. the recently adopted CG provisions in the listing requirements for the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) – and the provisions of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 – often called “Sarbanes– Oxley”) in important ways simply add to the governance measures already in place pursuant to corporate law and securities regulation in the United States. Only after understanding foundations in corporate law and securities regulation in the United States is it possible to understand the significance, and the limitations, of the recently adopted NYSE listing requirements and of Sarbanes–Oxley. In general, the recent NYSE initiatives attempt to improve the degree of independence among directors of corporations listed there so that they are better able – and more likely – to meet the performance standards currently applicable to directors under corporate law (i.e. duties of care and loyalty), but the NYSE does not change those standards. Unfortunately, the NYSE listing requirements do not have the force of law. Sarbanes–Oxley, on the other hand, in general, attempts to improve the independence of external auditors and corporate directors so that they are better able – and more likely – to prepare public disclosures in form and substance required by US securities regulations. There are also provisions intended to enhance the care with which corporate officers prepare required public disclosures. Unfortunately, Sarbanes–Oxley applies only to disclosure requirements under US securities regulations. With limited exceptions, Sarbanes–Oxley is not specifically intended to apply to directors’ or officers’ broader obligations to their corporations or the standards applicable to their performance of those obligations.


Author(s):  
Sara Roy

Many in the United States and Israel believe that Hamas is nothing but a terrorist organization, and that its social sector serves merely to recruit new supporters for its violent agenda. Based on extensive fieldwork in the Gaza Strip and West Bank during the critical period of the Oslo peace process, this book shows how the social service activities sponsored by the Islamist group emphasized not political violence but rather community development and civic restoration. The book demonstrates how Islamic social institutions in Gaza and the West Bank advocated a moderate approach to change that valued order and stability, not disorder and instability; were less dogmatically Islamic than is often assumed; and served people who had a range of political outlooks and no history of acting collectively in support of radical Islam. These institutions attempted to create civic communities, not religious congregations. They reflected a deep commitment to stimulate a social, cultural, and moral renewal of the Muslim community, one couched not only—or even primarily—in religious terms. Vividly illustrating Hamas's unrecognized potential for moderation, accommodation, and change, the book also traces critical developments in Hamas' social and political sectors through the Second Intifada to today, and offers an assessment of the current, more adverse situation in the occupied territories. The Oslo period held great promise that has since been squandered. This book argues for more enlightened policies by the United States and Israel, ones that reflect Hamas' proven record of nonviolent community building. A new afterword discusses how Hamas has been affected by changing regional dynamics and by recent economic and political events in Gaza, including failed attempts at reconciliation with Fatah.


Author(s):  
Matthew Conaglen

This chapter examines the principles of fiduciary doctrine that are found in contemporary common law systems. More specifically, it considers the current similarities and differences between various jurisdictions such as England, Australia, Canada, and the United States. The similarities focus on the duties of loyalty, care and skill, and good faith, as well as when fiduciary duties arise and the kinds of interests that are protected by recognition of fiduciary relationships. The chapter also discusses the issue of differences between various jurisdictions with regard to the duty of care and skill before concluding with an analysis of differences between remedies that are made available in the various contemporary common law jurisdictions when a breach of fiduciary duty arises. It shows that the regulation of fiduciaries appears to be reasonably consistent across common law jurisdictions and across various types of actors, even as such actors are expected to meet differing standards of care. Statute plays a key role in the regulation of various kinds of fiduciary actors, especially corporate directors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document