Abstract

The shareholder primacy model has been increasingly used to manage corporations, even though U.S. and Canadian corporate law does not require it. This paper analyzes three major arguments for using this model. The first relies upon contract law, the second appeals to concerns regarding agency costs, and the third focuses on property. In spite of these pervasive arguments, the adverse consequences of shareholder primacy are much greater than its benefits. Three adverse consequences include clashing interests between shareholders and creditors; the inadequacy of this model to address the interests of different shareholders; and the model’s inefficient and inequitable effects on stakeholders and the corporation. Instead of pitting the interests of stakeholders against each other, we should be developing a model whereby the value of each stakeholder to the corporation is calculated according to each corporation’s unique financial and social situation.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.