A commonly held view in business studies is that the management of a company are legally obligated to only serve the interests of the shareholders. This viewpoint seems to be the most coherently developed in the fields relating to corporate governance which also could be an explanation for its popularity. The aim of the article is to show that legal regulations about directors’ duties are more permissible when it comes to business decisions. The article mainly focuses on available scientific literature and the provisions of relevant statutes and rulings. The main finding of the article is that while certain jurisdictions explicitly state the requirement for giving special attention to shareholders, however, legally the management has the freedom to exercise business judgement in the interest of company, especially in jurisdictions where the shareholders are not given special treatment in the provisions on directors’ duties.
X. ÉVF. 2022. Különszám 48-50
ALCHIAN, A. – DEMSETZ H. (1972): Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. The American Economic Review Vol. 62, No. 5. pp. 777-795.
BERLE, A. (1932): For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees: A Note, Harvard Law Review, Vol 45. , No. 8., pp. 1365-1372.
BERLE, A. (1954): The 20th Century Capitalist Revolution. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York 978-0151917037 p. 192.
BRATTON, W. – WACHTER, M. (2008): Shareholder Primacy’s Corporatist Origins: Adolf Berle and the Modern Corporation. The Journal of Corporate Law, Vol. 34, No 1. pp. 99-152.
BISCONTI, A. (2009): The Double Bottom Line: Can Constituency Statutes Protect Socially Responsible Corporations Stuck in Revlon Land? Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 3. pp. 765-806.
BUJTÁR, ZS. – HALÁSZ, V. – KECSKÉS, A. (2019): Tőzsdeuniverzum. HVG-ORAC Budapest: ISBN: 978 963 258 431 7, p. 1080.
DODD, M. (1932): For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees? Harvard Law Review, Vol. 45., No. 7., pp. 1145-1163.
GILSON, R. J. (2005): Separation and the Function of Corporation Law. Berkeley Business Law Journal, Vol.3. No.1. pp. 141-152.
HALÁSZ, V. (2016): A „társaság érdeke”: a vállalati vezetők tevékenységére irányadó szabályokról Európában és Amerikában. Magyar Jog, LXIII. évf. 12. szám pp. 698-707.
HANSEN, C. (1991): Other Constituency Statutes: A Search for Perspective. The Business Lawyer, Vol. 46. No. 4. pp. 1355-1376.
LANGEVOORT, D. C. (2020): The Effects of Shareholder Primacy, Publicness, and Privateness on Corporate Cultures. Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 377-411.
MARNET, O. (2011): Behaviour and Rationality in Corporate Governance. Routledge, Abingdon, ISBN 978 041 562 034 5 p. 320.
MAYER, C. (2018): Prosperity. Oxford University Press. Oxford, ISBN: 978-0198866824, p. 277.
MILLON, D. (2013): Radical Shareholder Primacy. University of St. Thomas Law Journal Vol. 10, no. 4. pp. 1013-1044.
MITCHELL, D. (2019): From Dodge to Ebay: The Elusive Corporate Purpose. Virginia Law & Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 2. pp. 155-211.
ORTS, E. W. (1992): Beyond Shareholders: Interpreting Corporate Constituency Statutes. George Washington Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 1. pp. 14-135.
SILVER-THOMPSON, M. (2014): Reasonable Consideration of Non-Shareholders: Redrafting State Constituency Statutes to Encourage Socially-Minded Business Decisions. Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 253-280.
SMITH, N. C. – RÖNNEGARD, D. (2016): Shareholder Primacy, Corporate Social Responsibility, and the Role of Business Schools. Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 134. No. 3. pp. 463-478.
STOUT, L. (2002): Bad and Not-so-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy. Southern California Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 5. pp. 1189-1210. STOUT, L. (2008): Why We Should Stop Teaching Dodge v. Ford. Virginia Law and Business Review, Vol. 3, No. 1. pp. 163-190.