Law Commons^™

Seven Points To Explain Why The Law Ought Not Allow The Elimination Of Fiduciary Duty Within Closely Held Businesses: Cardozo Is Dead; We Have Killed Him., Daniel S. Kleinberger

Faculty Scholarship

Prepared as part of the author's work as co-reporter for the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, this essay argues against legislation that empowers private agreements to eliminate fiduciary duty within a business organization. The essay considers: (i) the venerable role of fiduciary duty within business organizations and the limited predictive powers of those urging radical reform; (ii) the absence of prescience in contract drafters; (iii) the strict construction function of fiduciary law; (iv) the inevitable and inappropriate pressure that elimination would put on the obligation of good faith and fair dealing; (v) the differences in remedy available for fiduciary …

Kentucky Corporate Fiduciary Duties, Rutheford B. Campbell Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article I offer an interpretation of Kentucky's corporate fiduciary law. The article is positive, in that it attempts to explain our law by reference to certain principles. The article is also normative, however, in that it offers constructive criticism regarding parts of Kentucky fiduciary law and suggests changes, refinements, and clarifications intended to promote fairness and economic efficiency in Kentucky corporations.

Both the positive and the normative aspects of this piece recognize the importance of the common law developments in Delaware (and other states) and the importance of the law and economics movement. I suggest, however, that Kentucky …

The Corporation As Insider Trader, Mark J. Loewenstein, William K.S. Wang

Publications

With regard to issuer purchases, some of the traditional policy rationales against insider trading do not apply or apply with less force. Nevertheless, courts, commentators, and the SEC have all stated or assumed that a public corporation violates rule 10b-5 by buying its own shares in the market based on material, nonpublic information. In rule 10b-5 cases involving face-to-face transactions, several circuit courts have ruled that the company may not purchase its own stock based on material information not known to the seller. No good reason exists not to apply these precedents to stock market trades by issuers, especially because …