the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Yale University Press

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Securities
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Recent Comments

Steve Bainbridge on Does it Matter if Dodge v. Ford is Good Law?

Steve Bainbridge on Does it Matter if Dodge v. Ford is Good Law?

Jeff Lipshaw on Does it Matter if Dodge v. Ford is Good Law?

A.J. Sutter on Does it Matter if Dodge v. Ford is Good Law?

Archives

June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005

 

« Sleepless in Science Fiction | Main | Do We Need an Internet Ed. Class? »

June 18, 2008

Does it Matter if Dodge v. Ford is Good Law?

posted by Dave Hoffman

crazyhorse.GIFRecently, I've read several articles and book chapters asserting that corporate law places undue emphasis on Dodge v. Ford. Dodge is traditionally understood to hold that corporations have a exclusive duty to maximize shareholder welfare. The basic argument runs as follows. Courts (Delaware and others) often defer to management's decisions despite weak claims of shareholder benefit, and permit the consideration of other constituencies. This is true in part because shareholder welfare is a malleable concept, and there are almost no short term considered decisions a Board can make that can't be justified in the long-term. And, of course, courts are institutionally ill-placed to second guess this kind of nuanced long-term calculus. To the extent that Dodge is the antipode of how courts ordinarily treat claims of waste, the Dodge rule either shouldn't be taught to students or should be highlighted as, at best, a piece of exceptional dicta.

I am pretty sure I disagree with this critique of teaching Dodge.

Fundamentally, it is a mistake to think of any one opinion, or set of opinions, as representative of how trial and appellate courts resolve the real-world fact patterns presented by complaints. There is certainly some relationship between the law that courts write in reasoned decisions and the decisions they don't explain, but I don't know why we would assume that relationship is a parallel one. I'm thus as unconvinced that Dodge represents the law-in-action as the cases often cited on the broader-constituency side of the argument. To know how courts actually treat a claim that officers have not maximized shareholder wealth, we would have to look at a representative sample of complaints, and grind out some statistics. Tedious? Sure! Absent such a study, the best we can say about any particular case or set of cases is that it is a way that a particular court has approached a problem at a particular time. Maybe students find the reasoning the court provides persuasive, and maybe it fits well with other cases (on like and unlike legal issues) they've read during the semester, thus helping them to develop a situation sense on what kinds of arguments resonate with legally-trained minds. But that's it. Saying that Dodge is unrepresentative of how court opinions treat waste and care claims doesn't tell us all that much, in the end, about how such cases are resolved.

But this isn't exactly charitable to the anti-Dodge position. Critics know that the Dodge rule's expressive function is more significant than its limited holding. Corporate directors might believe that Dodge is the rule governing their conduct, and thus be guided by its concept of how corporations should be run, even if their actual liability risk for contrary behavior is small. Or they might not: we have almost no information on what corporate directors understand about corporate law. Thus, the debate about Dodge is really, I think, best understood as a normative contest about what we should teach the next generation of gatekeeping intermediaries, in the hope that they will relay their (new) learnings to their clients.

A way to make this problem concrete is Google CEO Eric Schmidt's (in)famous statement that "The company isn't run for the long-term value of our shareholders but for the long-term value of our end users." Clearly, he hasn't internalized the Dodge rule, perhaps because his GC, David Drummond, didn't relay the gospel to him.

The question now being batted around in the law reviews thus seems to me like the old CSR problem re-dressed in a debate about what the doctrine looks like. Should we teach Dodge? Certainly, because it provides one view of how courts think about directors' duties. Not teaching Dodge would expose students to only one side of the contest going on every day in boardrooms and partners' suites.

And Bainbridge thought that there was nothing new under the CSR-sun.

[Photo Credit: Crazy Horse Monument, in South Dakota, taken during a recent trip. It seemed relevant, at least when I began drafting this post. I can't for the life of me remember why.]

Posted by Dave Hoffman at June 18, 2008 01:28 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3771.

Comments

Having been in industry, may I provide a reality check:

1. On a day-to-day basis, even more important than what corporate directors believe to be the rules of the game is what corporate managers believe.

2. In my experience, your average American corporate manager, and possibly director too, is likely to believe that his or her company has a legal duty to maximize profits. And they are amazed when you tell them that this is not actually the law. But see 4 below.

3. The businesspeople who believe this sure don't attribute it to Dodge. Most corporate managers wouldn't know any court case from a hole in the wall. I would guess that most directors wouldn't either, aside from a couple of Delaware ones like Revlon and maybe, maybe Van Gorkom.

Actually, after many years of practice in NYC, L.A. and Silicon Valley, even I hadn't heard of Dodge until I started reading stuff by law professors as research for articles I was writing. The fact that Dodge is an old Michigan case is a rather potent element of any critique of the case, IMHO, unless you're going to practice in that state. (I leave aside the question of whether a duty to maximize profits is the actual hodling of Dodge.)

4. For many managers, more salient than any legal duty to maximize profits is their belief that it's their duty as a practical matter. They believe that otherwise the company's share price will get hammered, or it won't be "globally competitive", or some other awful thing will result (like losing their job or missing out on a promotion). So if much corporate behavior follows the "norm," it's almost certainly not because of the "Dodge rule's expressive function," but rather managers' fear of some adverse business result.

Posted by: A.J. Sutter at June 18, 2008 06:15 AM


I agree with Andy Sutter's analysis. I would also point out that part of the problem in Dodge was the completely un-"woodshedable" Henry Ford. The fact is that you can always come up with a rationale for what seems to beyond the corporate purpose in language that suggests it inures to the long-term benefit of the shareholders. For example, spending corporate funds on civic improvement makes the city a more attractive place, easier to recruit top employees, etc., etc.

Dodge isn't the only business association case that makes me scratch my head. I've always thought Judge Andrews dissent in Meinhard v. Salmon was far more sensible (and in accord with common understandings) than Cardozo's overwrought opinion.

Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw at June 18, 2008 06:05 PM


Um, Dave, if it’s “the old CSR problem re-dressed,” it ain’t new. Or perhaps you’re being ironic? More at my blog.

Posted by: Steve Bainbridge at June 19, 2008 02:36 PM


BTW, Jeff: You might be interested in some thoughts on meinhard over at my blog.

Posted by: Steve Bainbridge at June 19, 2008 02:54 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Anita S. Krishnakumar
Michael O'Shea
Jessica Silbey
Steph Tai
Sarah Waldeck






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member