More Evidence that Kentucky Law Does Not
Recognize
Fiduciary Duties
Among Shareholders
I have argued at length, and I
think pretty well demonstrated, that the shareholders in a Kentucky corporation
do not, qua shareholders, owe fiduciary
obligations to one another. This premise
is the topic of a forthcoming article: Shareholders Are Not Fiduciaries – A
Positive and Normative Analysis of Kentucky Law, 51 Louisville Law Review ___ (2012-13). The galley draft of this article is available
on SSRN. It is difficult to prove a
negative, and that article could have easily been longer than it is (the
journal said I could have 25 pages; I think I came in at 26).
One point not addressed therein
was a clear rejection of a statutory provision recognizing fiduciary duties
among and between shareholders.
The 1928 Model Business
Corporation Act, at § 28(II), provided:
If, by the articles of
incorporation, voting power is granted to the holders of shares of a certain
class or classes and denied to the holders of shares of different classes, then
the person or persons exercising such power shall stand in a fiduciary relation
to the entire body of shareholders and shall be responsible to the corporation,
for the benefit of all shareholders, for any violation of the obligations of
such relationship.
Under this provision, fiduciary
duties would flow from those shareholders controlling the corporation to all of
the shareholders and the corporation.
Kentucky, in 1946, adopted the 1928
Model Business Corporation Act, codifying it at KRS ch. 271. See
1946 Ky. Acts, ch. 141. That adoption
was near complete and without modification.
There was, however, at least one telling change between the Model Act
and the Kentucky adoption thereof. While
Kentucky otherwise adopted § 28 thereof without alternation, subsection (II) of
§ 28 was not adopted. Compare
1928 Model Business Corporation Act § 28 with
KRS § 271.315 as enacted in 1946 Ky. Acts, ch. 141, § 1.
In 1946, Kentucky could have
adopted a model act expressly creating fiduciary duties among
shareholders. Instead, the only
provision of the Model Act providing for fiduciary duties among shareholders
was excised from the Model Act before its adoption in Kentucky.
No comments:
Post a Comment