Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2013
  • Online publication date: July 2013

24 - United States

from C - The Americas



Corporate governance has been described as “the system by which companies are directed and controlled.” Because of the importance of publicly traded corporations in society, there are significant issues over the focus of corporate governance, how power should be allocated within the corporation, and the role of law and non-legal mechanisms in protecting investors and other stakeholders and allowing those who manage to function effectively. Traditional concerns have focused on mismanagement and self-dealing, but modern scandals have focused on financial statements, risk management, and executive compensation.

This chapter will look at the importance of the publicly traded corporation in the US and the influence of the focus of corporate governance, the nature of shareholder ownership, and federalism on the policy and laws concerning corporate governance. This chapter will focus on both the internal and external corporate governance mechanisms and the significant effect of scandals in corporate governance.

US publicly traded corporations

The US has approximately 16,000 publicly traded corporations. At the end of 2008, there were over 6,000 listed companies on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and the NASDAQ with a total domestic market capitalization of over US $11 trillion. Corporations during 2001 accounted for 60 percent of US gross domestic product (“GDP”). These corporations are not only major employers and taxpayers with a significant impact on the US economy, but also are an important repository for the savings of US citizens.

Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance, Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance (1992), section 2.5, p. 14, available at .
Pinto, A., “The European Union's Shareholder Voting Rights Directive from an American Perspective: Some Comparisons and Observations,”Fordham International Law Journal 32 (2009), 587
Black, B., “The US as ‘Reluctant Shareholder’: Government, Business, and the Law,” Entrepreneurial Business Law Journal (forthcoming)
Zaring, D., “The Post-Crisis and Its Critics,”University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law 12 (2010), 1169, 1173.
Maher, M. and Andersson, T., “Corporate Governance: Effects on Firm Performance and Economic Growth,” in Renneboog, L. (ed.), Convergence and Diversity of Corporate Governance Regimes and Capital Markets (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 386.
Williams, C., “Corporate Responsibility in an Era of Economic Globalization,”UC Davis Law Review 35 (2002), 705, 712–720, 722–724.
Greenfield, K., “The Place of Workers in Corporate Law,”Boston College Law Review 39 (1998), 283.
Blair, M. and Stout, L., “A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law,”Virginia Law Review 85 (1999), 247.
Licht, A., “The Maximands of Corporate Governance: A Theory of Values and Cognitive Style,”Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 29 (2004), 649
Fisch, J., “Measuring Efficiency in Corporate Law: The Role of Shareholder Primacy,”Journal of Corporate Law 31 (2006), 637, 643–651.
Clark, R., Corporate Law (Boston et al.: Little, Brown & Co., 1986), pp. 390–396.
Roe, M., Strong Managers, Weak Owners: The Political Roots of American Corporate Governance (Princeton University Press, 1994)
Pinto, A., “Globalization and the Study of Corporate Governance,”Wisconsin International Law Journal 23 (2005), 477.
Anderson, R. and Reeb, D., “Founding Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500,”Journal of Finance 58 (2003), 1301
Anderson, R., Duru, A., and Reeb, D., “Founders, Heirs, and Corporate Opacity in the US,”Journal of Financial Economics 92 (2008), 205–222 (in 2,000 largest industrial US firms, founder and heir ownership in 22 percent and 25 percent of these firms, respectively).
Black, B., “Agents Watching Agents: The Promise of Institutional Investor Voice,”UCLA Law Review 39 (1992), 811.
Briggs, T., “Corporate Governance and the New Hedge Fund Activism: An Empirical Analysis,”Iowa Journal of Corporate Law 32 (2007), 681
Briggs, T., “Shareholder Activism and Insurgency Under the Proxy Rules,”Business Lawyer 50 (1994), 99.
Fisch, J., “Class Action Reform: Lessons from Securities Litigation,”Arizona Law Review 39 (1997), 533.
Thomas, R., “The Evolving Role of Institutional Investors in Corporate Governance and Corporate Litigation,”Vanderbilt Law Review 61 (2008), 299, 300.
Investment Company Institute (“ICI”), Profile of Mutual Fund Shareholders (2008), p. 4, available at
Zweig, J., “Why Do Investors Sit Tight in 401K's?” Wall Street Journal (September 5, 2009), B1.
The National Center for Employee Ownership, New Data Show Widespread Employee Ownership in US (2007), available at
Thompson, R. and Sale, H., “Securities Fraud as Corporate Governance: Reflections upon Federalism,”Vanderbilt Law Review 56 (2003), 859
US Census Bureau, Delaware State Government Tax Collections: 2001 (2002), available at .
Cary, W., “Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections on Delaware,”Yale Law Journal 83 (1974), 663.
Nader, R., Green, M., and Seligman, J., Constitutionalizing the Corporation: The Case for the Federal Chartering of Giant Corporations (Washington DC: Corporate Accountability Research Group, 1976).
Romano, R., The Genius of American Corporate Law (Washington DC: AEI Press, 1993), p. 1.
McDonnell, B., “Two Cheers for Corporate Law Federalism,”Iowa Journal of Corporate Law 30 (2004), 99, 138–139
Roe, M., “Delaware's Competition,”Harvard Law Review 117 (2004), 588.
Seligman, J., The Transformation of Wall Street (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1982).
Steinberg, M. and Wang, W., Insider Trading, 2nd edn. (Oxford University Press, 2008).
Loss, L., Seligman, J., and Paredes, T. (eds.), Securities Regulation, 4th edn. (Aspen Publishers, 2006), pp. 4838–4875
Stewart, R., “The Reformation of American Administrative Law,”Harvard Law Review 88 (1975), 1669.
Gordon, J., “The Rise of Independent Directors in the United States, 1950–2005: Of Shareholder Value and Stock Market Prices,”Stanford Law Review 59 (2007), 1465.
Lin, L., “The Effectiveness of Outside Directors as a Corporate Governance Mechanism: Theories and Evidence,”Northwestern University Law Review 90 (1996), 898.
Millstein, I., “The Professional Board,”Business Lawyer (1995), 1427
Tobin, J., “The Squeeze on Directors – Inside Is Out,”Business Lawyer 49 (1994), 1707.
Strine, L., “Derivative Impact? Some Early Reflections on the Corporation Law Implications of the Enron Debacle,”Business Lawyer 57 (2002), 1371
Page, A., “Unconscious Bias and the Limits of Director Independence,” University of Illinois Law Review (2009), 237, 288 (discussing the failure of independent directors at Enron).
Fanto, J., “Recognizing the ‘Bad Barrel’ in Public Business Firms: Social and Organizational Factors in Misconduct by Senior Decision-Makers,”Buffalo Law Review 57 (2009), 1, 29 (presenting social and psychological factors that lead directors to engage in misconduct).
Gevurtz, F., “The Business Judgment Rule: Meaningless Verbiage or Misguided Notion?”Southern California Law Review 67 (1994), 287.
Gevurtz, F., “Shareholders Democracy: United States' Perspective,”Tijdschrift voor Ondernemingsbestuur 6 (2008), 145.
Gevurtz, F., Corporation Law, 2nd edn. (St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2010)
Eisenberg, M., “The Structure of Corporation Law,”Columbia Law Review 89 (1989), 1461, 1480–1485.
Gordon, J., “Ties that Bind: Dual Class Common Stock and the Problem of Shareholder Choice,”California Law Review 76 (1988), 3, 40–41.
Gilson, R., “Evaluating Dual Class Common Stock: The Relevance of Substitutes,”Virginia Law Review 73 (1987), 807, 811–823.
Fairfax, L., “Making the Corporation Safe for Shareholder Democracy,”Ohio State Law Journal 69 (2008), 53, 67–77.
Pinto, A. and Branson, D., Understanding Corporate Law, 3rd edn. (New Providence: Lexis Nexis, 2009)
Drexler, D., Black, L., and Sparks, A., Delaware Corporation Law and Practice (New York: Bender, 2007).
Barbaro, M., “Home Depot to Investors: Mea Culpa,”NY Times (May 23, 2007).
Birnhak, D., “Online Shareholder Meetings: Corporate Law Anomalies or the Future of Governance?”Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 29 (2003), 423, 427–429.
Gordon, J., “Proxy Contests in an Era of Increasing Shareholder Power: Forget Issuer Proxy Access and Focus on E-Proxy,”Vanderbilt Law Review 61 (2008), 475 (arguing that e–proxy can help shareholder activism).
Scannell, K. and Phillips, M., “Shareholder Voting Declines as Companies Adopt Web Ballots,”Wall Street Journal (April 23, 2008)
Adams, E., “Bridging the Gap Between Ownership and Control,”Journal of Corporation Law 34 (2009), 409, 424
Collins, G., “SEC Allows Priests' Bids for Vote on Nabisco Spinoff,” NY Times (January 3, 1996), D3.
Bebchuk, L., “The Case for Increasing Shareholder Power,”Harvard Law Review 118 (2005), 833
Bainbridge, S., “Director Primacy and Shareholder Disempowerment,”Harvard Law Review 119 (2005), 1735
Lublin, J., “Directors Lose Elections but Not Seats: Staying Power of Board Members Raises Questions About Investor Democracy,” Wall Street Journal (September 28, 2009)
Lublin, J., “Corporate Funding for Shareholder Activism? Critics Cite Strategic Issues, but Backers See Fairer Game; Judge Offers a Compromise,” Wall Street Journal (July 3, 2006), B3.
Lowenstein, L., “Financial Transparency and Corporate Governance: You Manage What You Measure,”Columbia Law Review 96 (1996), 1335.
O'Connor, S., “Strengthening Auditor Independence: Reestablishing Audits as Control and Premium Signaling Mechanisms,”Washington Law Review 81 (2006), 525.
Pinto, A., “Control and Responsibility of Credit Rating Agencies in the United States,”American Journal of Comparative Law 54 (Suppl. 2006), 341
Darcy, D., “Credit Rating Agencies and the Credit Crisis: How the ‘Issuer Pays’ Contributed and What Regulators Might Do About It,”Columbia Business Law Review (2009), 605
Coffee, J., “Understanding Enron: ‘It's About the Gatekeepers, Stupid,’”Business Lawyer 57 (2003), 1403.
McTamaney, R., “New York's Martin Act: Expanding Enforcement in an Era of Federal Securities Regulation,”Legal Backgrounder 16 (2003), 5, available at .
Sorkin, A., “Ex-Tyco Officers Get 8 to 25 Years,” NY Times (September 20, 2005), A.
Bauman, J., Palmiter, A., and Partnoy, F., Corporations Law and Policy: Materials and Problems, 5th edn. (St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, Suppl. 2006), 157–158 (discussing prosecution of Tyco CEO, Dennis Kozlowski).
Fairfax, L., “Spare the Rod, Spoil the Director? Revitalizing Directors' Fiduciary Duty through Legal Liability,”Houston Law Review 42 (2005), 393, 394.
Pinto, A., “Corporate Takeovers Through the Public Markets in the United States,”American Journal of Comparative Law 42 (Suppl. 1994), 339 (discusses the legal and policy issues).
Steinberg, M., Understanding Securities Law, 3rd edn. (New Providence, NJ: Lexis Nexis, 2001)
Pinto, A., “The Constitution and the Market for Corporate Control: State Takeover Statutes After CTS Corp.,”William and Mary Law Review 29 (1988), 699
Bratton, W., “Enron and the Dark Side of Shareholder Value,”Tulane Law Review 76 (2002), 1275.
McClean, B. and Elkind, P., The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron (New York: Penguin, 2003).
Symposium, “Lessons from Enron: How Did Corporate and Securities Law Fail?”Villanova Law Review 48 (2003), 989–1280.
Labaton, S., “Corporate Conduct: Accounting; New Rules on Accountants, but also Questions,” NY Times (July 26, 2002), C1.
Bostelman, J., The Sarbanes-Oxley Deskbook (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 2008).
Brown, Jr. J., “Criticizing the Critics: Sarbanes-Oxley and Quack Corporate Governance,”Marquette Law Review 90 (2006), 309 (discusses the critics)
Fairfax, L., “The Future of Shareholder Democracy,”Indiana Law Journal 84 (2009), 1259, 1273–1279 (providing a history of proxy access).