Governance by Contract: The Implications for Corporate Bylaws

Boards and shareholders are increasing using charter and bylaw provisions to customize their corporate governance. Recent examples include forum selection bylaws, majority voting bylaws and advance notice bylaws. Relying on the contractual conception of the corporation, Delaware courts have accorded substantial deference to board-adopted bylaw provisions, even those that limit shareholder rights. This Article challenges the rationale for deference under the contractual approach. With respect to corporate bylaws, the Article demonstrates that shareholder power to adopt and amend the bylaws is, under Delaware law, more limited than the board’s power to do so. As a result, shareholders cannot effectively constrain the board’s adoption of bylaws with which they disagree. The resulting power imbalance offers reasons to question the scope of the contract paradigm. This analysis has two implications. First, it suggests that the Delaware courts and possibly the legislature may want to re-consider existing constraints on shareholder power in order to realize the contractual paradigm fully. In so doing, they will have to consider the normative implications of greater shareholder empowerment. Second, to the extent that Delaware law retains the existing limitations on shareholder power, this analysis suggests that courts should scrutinize board-adopted bylaws more closely.

[1]  Michal Barzuza Do Heterogenous Firms Select their Right “Size” of Corporate Governance Arrangements? , 2016 .

[2]  Frank Partnoy,et al.  The Second Wave of Hedge Fund Activism: The Importance of Reputation, Clout, and Expertise. , 2016 .

[3]  M. Dooley,et al.  The Role of the Board in Derivative Litigation: Delaware Law and the Current ALI Proposals Compared , 2016 .

[4]  Jill E. Fisch The New Governance and the Challenge of Litigation Bylaws , 2016 .

[5]  Sean J. Griffith,et al.  Confronting the Peppercorn Settlement in Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis and a Proposal for Reform , 2015 .

[6]  Matthew D. Cain,et al.  A Great Game: The Dynamics of State Competition and Litigation , 2015 .

[7]  Sean J. Griffith Correcting Corporate Benefit: How to Fix Shareholder Litigation by Shifting the Doctrine on Fees , 2014 .

[8]  Érica Gorga,et al.  Litigation Discovery and Corporate Governance: The Missing Story About the 'Genius of American Corporate Law' , 2014 .

[9]  J. Verret Defending Against Shareholder Proxy Access: Delaware's Future Reviewing Company Defenses in the Era of Dodd-Frank , 2010 .

[10]  Kelli A. Alces The Equity Trustee , 2010 .

[11]  Leo E. Strine,et al.  Toward Common Sense and Common Ground? Reflections on the Shared Interests of Managers and Labor in a More Rational System of Corporate Governance , 2007 .

[12]  Iman Anabtawi Some Skepticism About Increasing Shareholder Power , 2005 .

[13]  Jill E. Fisch,et al.  How to Fix Wall Street: A Voucher Financing Proposal for Securities Intermediaries , 2002 .

[14]  Jill E. Fisch The Peculiar Role of the Delaware Courts in the Competition for Corporate Charters , 2000 .

[15]  Jeffrey N. Gordon Just Say Never? Poison Pills, Deadhand Pills, and Shareholder Adopted Bylaws: An Essay for Warren Buffett , 1999 .

[16]  Margaret M. Blair,et al.  A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law , 1999 .

[17]  Morgan N. Neuwirth Shareholder Franchise-No Compromise: Why the Delaware Courts Must Proscribe All Managerial Interference with Corporate Voting , 1996 .

[18]  O. Hart Corporate Governance: Some Theory and Implications , 1995 .

[19]  L. Bebchuk Limiting Contractual Freedom in Corporate Law: The Desirable Constraints on Charter Amendments , 1989 .