That stockholders “own” the corporation and are its “members,” are assumptions deeply embedded in Anglo-American treatments of the business corporation. They are also principal supports of the policy of “shareholder primacy” and, in the United States, of the corporate claim to constitutional rights. This article critiques these assumptions, while also explaining why they took hold. Among several reasons for this, the primary explanation is to be found in the peculiar parentage of England's first major business corporation, the English East India Company (EIC). The EIC did not begin its life as a true business corporation, but as a cross between a guild (a form of member corporation) and a joint stock company (a form of partnership). In the transition to a unified business corporation, its stockholders inherited the monikers of “member” and “owner” from their guild and partner forebears. This mis-description set the legal mold for all subsequent Anglo-American treatments of stockholders.

A common moral argument is that shareholders have a special status because of risk when considering the duties of corporate management. The privileges of this status usually include the idea that management should adopt the goal of maximizing shareholder wealth. We argue that modern financial theory demonstrates that this argument should be modified by the recognition of a principle of desert, the shareholder desert principle (SDP). Financial theory can usefully circumscribe the duty owed to shareholders and the extent to which risk bearing justifies a claim on corporate value. When combined with the SDP, the result provides management with a guideline for what is owed to shareholders before other stakeholder non-contractual claims may be satisfied. As such, our approach provides management with some guidance through the thicket of competing stakeholder claims.

The reform of corporate governance is again on the agenda in the wake of Enron and excessive risk-taking by financial institutions. However, the search for new and better forms of governance often seems to lack guiding principles. A theory of corporate governance ought to emerge from a theory of the firm. Yet, the literature shows how this project is both difficult and far from complete. In this paper we review how existing theory provides a variety of arguments favouring either a shareholder or a stakeholder orientation. These arguments may depend on whether the prime objective for governance is improved current performance or a more long-term focus for firms. A brief review of recent US governance reforms is given as a backdrop to discussing more far-reaching proposals that have emerged in the recent literature; a greater role for institutional investors on the one hand or a return to managerial capitalism on the other.

This article examines the historical, doctrinal and theoretical bases of shareholder rights in British company law. These rights are, and always have been, essentially the product of private bargains, subjected to regulation of various explicit and implicit forms. This legal framework has significant normative advantages: it facilitates the development of innovative and efficient corporate structures. That is demonstrated through empirical evidence and examples from British corporate practice. One key example is how so-called ‘indirect investors’ in a company – the large and economically significant group of people who invest in a company through intermediaries such as nominees and depositaries – can be accommodated within the governance structure of the company, even though they are not themselves shareholders in the company and so are not directly party to its internal governance mechanisms. With this domestic legal background in mind, the article finally addresses and assesses the impact and effect of the proposed EU Shareholder Rights Directive on British company law and practice.