Logo

What are the liabilities of shareholders and controlling shareholders?

Bar Exam Prep Corporations Rights of Shareholders What are the liabilities of shareholders and controlling shareholders?
🌕 Corporations • Rights of Shareholders CORP#060

Legal Definition

Generally, shareholders are not liable for obligations of the corporation, except: (1) where one pierces the corporate veil, (2) the controlling shareholder owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders not to freeze them out, (3) the controlling shareholder is liable for selling a controlling share to looters (unless he took reasonable measures to investigate the buyer's reputation and plans), and (4) the controlling shareholder cannot sell corporate offices (e.g., replacing the board of directors) for private gain.

Plain English Explanation

One of the primary benefits of forming a corporation is protecting shareholders and limiting their liability. However, there are 4 common ways that shareholders may be liable for the harm they cause:

(1) Shareholders can be held personally liable if a plaintiff is able to pierce the corporate veil. We covered this is its own card, but let's do a quick refresher. When you form a corporation, the shareholders are protected behind the shield of the corporation. It's why if Amazon sends you the wrong product, you can try to sue Amazon but you can't really try to sue Jeff Bezos or any of Amazon's other shareholders. However, there are some circumstances where courts will allow a plaintiff to directly sue shareholders, effectively piercing the veil and shield of the corporation. One example is when someone creates a corporation purely to try to avoid liability for their actions, effectively trying to defraud someone. Court's don't like this, and so they don't let the shareholder(s) hide behind their corporation.

(2) Not all shareholders are equal. Since every share a shareholder owns gives them one vote, those who own a majority of the shares will always have the majority of the votes. This can lead to some majority shareholders acting like jerks and implementing rules that deprive minority shareholders from participating in important positions within the corporation, or excluding them from other benefits, effectively leaving them out in the cold or, more technically, freezing them out of the corporation. Depending on the severity of the abuse, majority shareholders who freeze out their minority shareholder colleagues may cross a line that violates their legal duties to play nicely with minority shareholders. If this occurs, minority shareholders can sue the abusive majority shareholders. In other words, it's sort of like when an older sibling terrorizes a younger sibling, and then the younger sibling tells Mom.

(3) When corporations do well in business, they grow in value, increase in size, and accumulate "stuff" called "assets." Shareholders benefit from this growth because the portion of the company they own becomes more valuable just as the business becomes more valuable. But lurking in the shadows of the business world are looters. Looters are selfish investors who seek out companies that can be butchered and sold off in pieces for personal gain, even if it harms or destroys the corporation. Thus, if a controlling shareholder sells their controlling shares to a looter, giving the looter control over the company, the shareholder can be held liable for damage caused by the looter.

(4) As you've learned in other cards, controlling shareholders generally have the power to unilaterally elect directors and officers within a corporation (unless the corporation does something like cumulative voting, which we've covered in another card). If a controlling shareholder gets caught being paid or compensated (i.e., bribed) to elect certain individuals, then they can be sued by the minority shareholders for their abuse of power.

Hypothetical

Hypo 1: PotatoCorp sells potatoes. It costs PotatoCorp $3 to grow 100 pounds of potatoes, which it then sells for $10. One of its largest customers is a fast-food chain, McHypo's. PotatoCorp's controlling shareholder and chairman of the board is Bob, who owns 51% of the company. PotatoCorp's stock currently trades at $10 per share. One day, Sam, a representative of McHypo's, takes Bob out for a fancy dinner and drinks and talks about how they wish they could reduce their cost of potatoes. Sam says, "You know, if we controlled PotatoCorp, I bet we could save a ton of money." Sam then offered Bob $40 per share if he and the rest of the board resign and install McHypo's directors. Bob agrees. Within months, the new board of directors cancel PotatoCorp's contracts with McHypo's competitors and agree to sell McHypo's potatoes at $4 per 100 pounds. Result: Here, Bob will likely be liable to the minority shareholders of PotatoCorp because it was pretty obvious that McHypo's wasn't interested in PotatoCorp's future and, instead, was only interested in selfishly ransacking it in order to hurt its competitors and lower its food costs. Had bob taken reasonable measures to investigate McHypo's plans, he may have been able to avoid liability. But he didn't. He let a fox into the hen house. Note that if a part of your brain is thinking, "Well wait, why is this wrong? Acquisitions happen all the time when company's want to be strategic and take over other companies!" That's true, but this is not an acquisition. In an acquisition, all shareholders of a corporation would benefit. Here, only Bob benefited because only he got to sell his shares for the premium of $40 per share, while the minority shareholders were left behind to be abused by the looter.
Law School Boost Robot

Get Law School Boost for Free!

Law School Boost makes studying for law school and the Bar easier using our science-backed, A.I.-driven, adaptive flashcards with integrated hypos, plain English legal translations, and memorable illustrations. Start now for FREE!