It depends on your legal jurisdiction but it means COs need to act in the corporation's best interest and not their own. In some places, that requires them to take shareholders' interests into account (especially for mergers or takeovers) but also the employees, consumers or creditors. In the US and notably Delaware, courts generally value shareholder value over anything else.
Considering the vast majority of US corporations are incorporated in Delaware, I think it's accurate to say most US companies only aim to maximize shareholder value.
No, Delaware does not in fact require corporations to "maximize shareholder value". That simply isn't a real thing.
"Fiduciary duty" is a duty to operate in good faith, without self-dealing, in whatever (1) you believe to be (2) the best interests of the company. Both (1) and (2) are totally subjective. You can believe the best interests of your company reside with employee welfare, or with customer satisfaction. You will not find a Delaware case that says otherwise.
So far as I know, the only time the actual value of a company's equity comes into the picture is if there are multiple competing offers to acquire the company.
It definitely is a thing in the eyes of Delaware courts:
In eBay vs Newmark:
>Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are
bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those
standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of
its stockholders. The “Inc.” after the company name has to mean at least that.
Thus, I cannot accept as valid for the purposes of implementing the Rights Plan a
corporate policy that specifically, clearly, and admittedly seeks not to maximize
the economic value of a for-profit Delaware corporation for the benefit of its
stockholders—no matter whether those stockholders are individuals of modest
means or a corporate titan of online commerce.
In the Trados case:
>It is, of course, accepted that a corporation may take steps, such as giving charitable contributions or paying higher wages, that do not maximize profits currently.
They may do so, however, because such activities are rationalized as producing greater
profits over the long-term. Decisions of this nature benefit the corporation as
a whole, and by increasing the value of the corporation, the directors increase the share of
value available for the residual claimants. Judicial opinions therefore often refer to
directors owing fiduciary duties ―to the corporation and its shareholders. This formulation captures the foundational
relationship in which directors owe duties to the corporation for the ultimate benefit of
the entity‘s residual claimants. Nevertheless, ―stockholders‘ best interest must always,
within legal limits, be the end. Other constituencies may be considered only
instrumentally to advance that end.
That’s not how they work. They emit structured light in the form of an array of infrared dots and they measure the time of flight to where the dots strike something.
Maybe new ones are different but that’s how they used to be. Little Kinect devices, really, for sensing faces instead of whole people.
I actually think it is fitting to read about a government agency weaponized by an unscrupulous billionaire going after journalists working for an unscrupulous billionaire on an unscrupulous trillionaire owned platform.
The tariffs are claimed to be a national security emergency and without the approval or Congress, therefore the composition of Congress won't matter unless the Supreme court judges otherwise.
But the Supreme Court is going to judge, sooner rather than later. I sincerely hope they will rule against Trump (that seems to me the way that the merits of the case demand).
I believe the president has the right to impose tariffs if it is for national security reasons. National security can be widely applied towards many products like food and major inputs like tech, metals, drugs, etc.
Therefore, the administration can simply re-classify any existing tariffs that are not justified for national security reasons and fall within this product mix.
2024 was the most recent data in the statscan (official government source) page I took that from - though that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't 2025 data somewhere.
Considering the vast majority of US corporations are incorporated in Delaware, I think it's accurate to say most US companies only aim to maximize shareholder value.
reply