Martin Gelter Lift not the Painted Veil! To Whom are Directors? Duties Really Owed (01 Apr 2014) Available at ECGI: https://ecgi.global/working-paper/lift-not-painted-veil-whom-are-directors-duties-really-owed
In this article, we identify a fundamental contradiction in the law of fiduciary duty of
corporate directors across jurisdictions, namely the tension between the uniformity of
directors? duties and the heterogeneity of directors themselves.
American scholars tend to think of the board as a group of individuals elected by shareholders, even though it is widely acknowledged (and criticized) that the board is often a largely self-perpetuating body whose inside members dominate the selection of their future colleagues and eventual successors. However, this characterization is far from universally true internationally, and it tends to be increasingly less true even in the United States. Directors are often formally or informally selected by specific shareholders (such as a venture capitalist or an important shareholder) or other stakeholders of the corporation (such as creditors or employees), or they are elected to represent specific types of shareholders (e.g. minority investors). The law thus sometimes facilitates the nomination of what has been called ?constituency? directors. Once in office, legal rules tend nevertheless to treat directors as a homogeneous group that is expected to pursue a uniform goal. We explore this tension and suggest that it almost seems to rise to the level of hypocrisy: Why do some jurisdictions require employee representatives that are then seemingly not allowed to strongly advocate employee interests? Why can a director representing a specific shareholder not advance this shareholder?s interests on the board? Behavioral research indicates that directors are likely beholden to those who appointed them and will seek to pursue their interests in order to maintain their position in office. We argue that for many decision-making processes, it does not matter all that much what specific interest directors are expected to pursue by the law, given that across jurisdictions, enforcement of the corporate purpose is highly curtailed.
Is there a correlation between the composition of the board of directors and the quantity and quality of information disclosed to the market, and in particular with respect to the disclosure of privileged, price-sensitive information? Our work...Read more
We analyze the relation between insider trading and the networks of executive and non-executive directors in UK listed companies. While most existing studies focus on firm-specific private information, we find that non-firm-specific information...Read more
Using corporate social responsibility (CSR) ratings of 34,117 corporate customer-supplier relationships from 50 countries worldwide, we find that customers' CSR ratings are associated with suppliers' subsequent CSR performance, but not vice versa...Read more
This paper analyzes the labor market (turnover and appointments) of executive and non-executive directors by means of social network methodology. We find that directors with strong networks are able to obtain labor market information that enables...Read more