The Third Way

Greenfield, Kent

Journal: Seattle University Law Review

Volume: 37

First Page: 749

Year: 2014

Bluebook Citation: 37 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 749 (2014)

Author: Kent Greenfield: all 19 publications


Abstract

Shareholder supremacists argue that corporate management should be constrained by additional shareholder power to nominate directors, approve executive pay, or receive financial disclosures. Meanwhile, managerial and directorial apologists suggest that the way forward is to protect managerial prerogative. But, there is a third way: Managerial obligation could be increased without the obligation running solely to the holders of equity. This Article situates the current moment of intellectual churning in corporate law in a larger historical narrative and explains why we find ourselves in this moment.

This Article then suggests what a third way might require in terms of conceptualization, process, and substance of corporate governance, before proposing some affirmative benefits we could achieve with these changes.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.