Framing a purpose for corporate law.

• Author: Bratton, William W.

INTRODUCTION I. PARAMETERS II. MAXIMIZATION AND EFFICIENCY III. SHAREHOLDER PRIMACY IV. SOCIAL WELFARE V. EXPANSION CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION

This Essay seeks to frame a short statement of purpose for corporate law on which all reasonable observers can agree. The statement, in order to succeed at its intended purpose, must satisfy two strict conditions: first, it must have enough content to be meaningful; second, it must be completely uncontroversial, both descriptively and normatively. The exercise, thus described, involves avoiding the issues that occupy center stage in discussions about corporate law while at the same time highlighting the discussants' generally held presuppositions.

A question arises at the outset: why not just remit the matter to economic theory, which suggests a quick resolution in the form of a maximization instruction? Presumably, all reasonable observers will agree that corporate law is a function in an optimization endeavor that seeks to maximize a utility conceived either as wealth or welfare. While the suggestion seems sensible, it still raises a problem. Even if we are certain that all reasonable observers will sign onto a formulation built around wealth maximization, we still would need to uncouple the maximization statement from its context of origin in economic theory and resituate and reconsider it for statement as a legal precept. There is no reason to suppose a seamless process of transition and every reason to undertake a close inspection of any points of cross-disciplinary friction.

Consider in this regard the best known legal statement of the purpose of the corporation (as opposed to purpose of corporate law), the statement contained in section 2.01(a) of the American Law Institute's Principles of Corporate Governance', "a corporation ... should have as its objective the conduct of business activities with a view to enhancing corporate profit and shareholder gain." (1) The ALI statement proceeds with notable caution as regards economic concepts. Indeed, it manages to bestow a wealth productive purpose on the corporation without a reference, direct or indirect, to economic theory. The ALI drafter uses the word "enhancing" in place of the economists' word "maximizing" and invokes neither the concept of efficiency nor the concept of social welfare in stating the corporation's economic goal. These omissions are pointed in an era in which terms like maximization, efficiency, and optimality are ubiquitous in policy discussions, implying an unspoken qualification or objection to the standard economic instruction on the part of the ALI drafter. Moreover, the ALI's stated economic goal is bifurcated, divided into corporate profit and shareholder gain, mentioned separately but in conjunction. This strongly implies a preference against shareholder value as an exclusive goal, simultaneously maintaining normative distance from economic theory more generally.

There follow three issues for the present exercise. First, whether the statement of the purpose of corporate law should speak in the stronger terms of maximization and economic efficiency rather than settle for the less demanding notion of "enhancement." Second, whether the statement of purpose should be tied to the shareholder interest, or, to restate the issue in more familiar terms, whether the shareholder primacy principle should be incorporated into the statement of corporate law's purpose. Third, whether the utility to be maximized should (or may) be framed as social welfare. We will see that the three issues are closely interconnected.

Part I states some basic assumptions. Part II takes up the question regarding maximization and efficiency in the statement of legal purpose. Part III considers the appropriateness of designating shareholder value maximization as a singular goal for corporate law. Part IV considers and rejects the inclusion of social welfare as the end in view. The inquiry at this point yields a notably minimal statement of purpose, containing neither a maximization, nor shareholder primacy, nor a social welfare directive. Part V fleshes out the statement by reference not to economic theory but to the inherited structure of corporate law.

1. PARAMETERS

   The assignment is to state the purpose of corporate law subject to a constraint of descriptive accuracy. It accordingly needs a start point grounded in basic factual assumptions respecting the law on the ground. Two simple, positive observations should provide grounding sufficient for the task. First, corporate law is about creating wealth. This follows from a basic fact respecting corporate operations--business corporations exist to create wealth by producing goods and services at a profit in capitalist economies. There would be no reason to put up with them if they didn't thus succeed as profitable economic producers. Indeed, real world companies that fail to do so disappear in the long run. Second, corporate law addresses a limited set of matters concerning business organizations--it only provides a template for their organization and channels their on-going governance.

   These home truths about production for profit and corporate law's role in the wider world of productive enterprise imply parameters for a statement of corporate law's purpose.

   The statement must begin with a statement of the purpose of the corporation itself. Since corporate law's job is to set up corporations and regulate their governance, corporate law's objectives must draw on and follow from those of the enterprises it encases. At the same time, the statement of corporate law's purpose must distinguish the function played by the law from the function played by corporate entities. Strictly speaking, corporate law does not produce anything; the enterprises themselves do that. The law's role is secondary and facilitative.

   We can put these points together to yield a minimal statement of purpose: corporations exist to create wealth by producing goods and services; corporate law is there to help them.

   These positive observations imply some conceptual, even philosophical boundaries on the analytical process pursuant to which we more fully articulate the statement. Corporate law assumes production for profit and accordingly occupies a relatively narrow range of economic, political, and ethical territory. It does not purport to influence fundamental political, economic or moral choices. It instead follows from them. By hypothesis, the same goes for any legal theory abstracted from corporate law or brought to bear thereon: it cannot aspire to be all-encompassing. More particularly, corporate legal theory occupies a zone that makes all discussants welfare consequentialists who keep their eyes on productivity. Whatever the discussants' economic, political, or ethical predispositions in other, broader frames of reference, in corporate law their evaluations always center on economic results. The determinative consequence above all other consequences is economic success, usually measured in financial terms. It is determinative because legitimacy for both corporations and the law that governs them follows from success at wealth creation.

2. MAXIMIZATION AND EFFICIENCY

   Having specified welfare consequentialism as a theoretical framework, it would seem natural to cast a lot with economic theory and frame the statement of purpose in terms of maximization. But so doing has normative implications, which need to be specified. One of economic theory's base points--the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics--provides a useful point of reference at this juncture.

   The first fundamental theorem follows from a general equilibrium model of the economy. All individuals and firms are price takers, each firm produces so as to maximize its profits subject to...