Abstract
This paper argues that a hypothetical contract analysis of fiduciary duty requires a corporate law norm that the total value of financial claims against the firm be maximized. This conclusion follows from using rational investors complying with the CAPM mandate as the parties making the hypothetical contract under which resources are committed to the firm. The analysis shows some inadequacies in the shareholder value maximization norm that is assumed in most corporate law literature. The norm of maximizing firm value fits best with an abstract conception of fiduciary duty in which the duty is owed to the corporation, rather than to shareholders or any other particular class of security holders. Adopting this conception dissolves many of the fiduciary duty puzzles posed by derivative securities, such as those stressed by Hu.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
