The Fiduciary Duties of Majority Shareholders in Joint-Stock Companies: A Critical Comparative Study Between U.S. Law (State of Delaware) and French Law
Abstract
This research examines the extent to which majority shareholders in public joint-stock companies are subject to fiduciary duties under the U.S. legal system of the State of Delaware, with particular emphasis on the case law of Delaware courts, given their status as a leading reference in corporate governance. The study seeks to clarify the limits of the controlling majority’s liability when influencing corporate decisions and to highlight the potential legal risks arising from the expansion of such duties. The topic was selected because of the practical issues it raises: U.S. courts have imposed fiduciary duties on majority shareholders where they effectively control the board of directors of a public joint-stock company and direct its decisions in a manner that serves their own interests, a position that departs from traditional conceptions that limit such duties to board members.
Accordingly, the study proceeds from the hypothesis that expanding fiduciary duties to majority shareholders may weaken the shareholder’s role and diminish the responsibility of the board of directors, which already enjoys special protection under the doctrine of board primacy and the Business Judgment Rule.
The study adopts an analytical and inductive methodology, starting with a detailed reading of Delaware case law and its historical evolution, and drawing upon American legal scholarship to clarify the theoretical foundations of fiduciary duties. It then employs a comparative approach to highlight the contrast with the French experience, which does not recognize this concept, relying instead on the abuse of rights doctrine to regulate majority behavior without imposing fiduciary-like obligations on them.
The research concludes that Delaware courts blur the distinction between the roles of the majority shareholders and the board, creating legal uncertainty for the stability of the corporate law framework. The originality of the study lies in its critique of the American model, arguing that imposing fiduciary duties on majority shareholders disrupts the balance of power within the corporation.
Metrics
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Controlling shareholdersBoard of directorsFiduciary DutiesAbuse of rightsCorporate governance
ʻAbd al-Riḍā, ʻA. wa Alnkās, F. Al-Wajīz fī al-naẓarīyah al-ʻĀmmah lil-iltizāmāt (in Arabic). Kuwait, Muʼassasat Dār al-Kutub, 2015.
Bahri, M. La responsabilité Civile des Dirigeants Sociaux. Paris, Éditions IRJS, 2009.
Berle, A & Means, G. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. Transactions Publisher, 1932.
Buchberger, M. Le Contrat d’apport: Essai sur la Relation entre la Société et son Associé. Paris, Éditions Panthéon-Assas, 2011.
Chivers, D. et al. The Law of Majority Shareholder Power: Use and Abuse. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017.
Cozian, M. et al. Droit des sociétés. Paris, Dalloz, 2023.
Davies, P. & Worthington, S. Principles of Modern Company Law. Sweet & Maxwell, 2012.
Dubois, A. Droit des sociétés. Paris, Ellipses, 2020.
Germain, M et Mangier, V. Traité d droit des affaires, Les sociétés commerciales, tome 2, Paris, LGDJ, 23e ed., 2022.
Le Cannu, P. & Dondero, B. Droit des sociétés. Paris, LGDJ, 9e Édition, 2022.
Mackay, Ejan et al. Analyse Économique du Droit. Paris, Dalloz, 3e Édition, 2021.
Paillusseau, J. La Société Anonyme: Technique d’Organisation de l’Entreprise. Paris, Sirey, 1967.
Ripert, G. La Règle Morale dans les Obligations Civiles. Paris, LGDJ, 1949.
Schmidt, D. Les Conflits d’intérêts dans la Société Anonyme. Paris, Joly Éditions, 2e Édition, 2004.
II. Journal Articles
Al-Anzi, A. E. "Theory of Independent Commercial Decision: A Comparative Critical Study between French and Kuwaiti Legislation" (in Arabic). Journal of Law, Bahrein, Vol. 20, No. 2 (2023): 298-336. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14536/6195
–––. The theory of common interest in the capital company: a comparative study between Kuwaiti and French legislators" (in Arabic). KILAW Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3 (2023): 153-201. https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1639773
Anidjar, L. "A Macro-Level Investigation of Transatlantic Controlling Shareholder’s Fiduciary Duty." Legal Studies, Vol 42, N. 2, pp.185.
Bainbridge, S. “Director Primacy and Shareholder Disempowerment." Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, No. 1, 2006.
Branson, D. “The Rule That Isn’t a Rule: The Business Judgment Rule." Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2002.
Capitant, H. "Sur l’abus des droits." Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil, No. 27, avril 1928.
Chandler, A. “The Competitive Performance of U.S. Industrial Enterprises Since the Second World War." The Business History Review, Vol. 68, No. 1, 1994.
Cohen, Z. “Fiduciary Duties of Controlling Shareholders: A Comparative View." University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2014.
Couret, A. "Les devoirs de l’actionnaire et le droit des sociétés." Gazette du Palais, No. 2, juin 2016.
Cuzacq, N. "De l’éthique de la rémunération à la rémunération éthique du dirigeant." Bulletin Joly Sociétés, No. 10, octobre 2013.
De Mott, D. “Beyond Metaphor: An Analysis of Fiduciary Obligation." Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1988.
Frankel, T. “Fiduciary Law." California Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1983.
Gilson, R. & Gordon, J. “The Agency Costs of Agency Capitalism: Activist Investors and the Revaluation of Governance Rights." Columbia Law Review, Vol. 113, No. 1, 2013.
Giraldo, C. & Maria, P. “Modern Conception of Business Judgment Rule: A Case Study on Delaware Jurisprudence." Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005.
Gold, A. “The New Concept of Loyalty in Corporate Law." Journal of University of California Davis, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2009.
Grévain-Lemercie, K. "Le devoir de loyauté des dirigeants sociaux: le retour." Gazette du Palais, No. 2, février 2012.
Guégan, E. "Exercice d’une action en nullité pour abus de majorité: contre qui?." Bulletin Joly Sociétés, No. 11, novembre 2025.
Hamdani, A. & Kraakman, R. “Rewarding Outside Directors." Michigan Law Review, Vol. 105, No. 8, 2007.
Heinich, J. "Devoir de loyauté du dirigeant envers la société: pas de responsabilité en cas d’autorisation unanime des associés." Revue des Contrats, No. 2, décembre 2020.
Helwig, J. “The Fiduciary Duty of Controlling Shareholders." Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1956.
Hill, C. & McDonnell, B. “Essay: Stone v. Ritter and the Expanding Duty of Loyalty." Fordham Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 1, 2007.
Horton, B. “Terra Incognita: Applying The Entire Fairness Standard Of Review To Benefit Corporations." University of Pennsylvania Journal Of Business Law, Vol. 22, N. 4, 2020.
Kahan, M. & Rock, E. “When the Government Is the Controlling Shareholder." Texas Law Review, Vol. 89, No. 1, 2011.
Keay, A. “Ascertaining the Corporate Objective: An Entity Maximisation and Sustainability Model." The Modern Law Review, Vol. 71, No. 5, 2008.
Kershaw, D. “Delaware’s Fiduciary Imagination: Going-Privates and Lord Eldon’s Reprise." Washington University Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 6, 2021.
La Nabasque, H. "Les devoirs de l’actionnaire." Gazette du Palais, No. 2, juin 2016.
Le Cannu, P. "L’abus de minorité." Bulletin Joly Sociétés, No. 4, avril 1986.
Le Cannu, P. "Quand l’actionnaire majoritaire est en curatelle (nullités, prêts de consommation d’actions, exercice des droits d’actionnaire, révocations, violation d’un pacte d’actionnaires, abus de majorité)." Bulletin Joly Sociétés, No. 3, novembre 2002.
Loewenstein, M. & Geyer, J. “Shareholder Primacy and the Moral Obligations of Directors." Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2011.
Lund, D. & Pollman, E. “The Corporate Governance Machine." Columbia Law Review, Vol. 121, No. 1, 2021.
McMillan, L. “The Business Judgment Rule as an Immunity Doctrine." William and Mary Business Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2013.
Moret-Bailly, J. "Les conflits d’intérêts des experts consultés par l’administration dans le domaine sanitaire." Revue de Droit Sanitaire et Social, No. 4, 2004.
Poracchia, D. "Abus de majorité: poursuite de l’intérêt égoïste des majoritaires au détriment des minoritaires." Bulletin Joly Sociétés, No. 2, février 2024.
Riggs, J. "Le devoir de loyauté des dirigeants sociaux en droit américain." Gazette du Palais, No. 340, décembre 2000.
Rock, E. “Saints and Sinners: How Does Delaware Corporate Law Work?." UCLA Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, 1997.
Sharfman, B. “The Importance of the Business Judgment Rule." Journal of Law and Business, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2017.
Simon, V. "L’affectio societatis: étude historique sur l’élément intentionnel du contrat de société." Revue des Contrats, No. 2, juin 2016, pp. 343–346.
Stout, L. “Bad and Not-so-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy." Cornell Law Faculty Publications, Vol. 75, No. 1, 2002.
Tchotourian, I. "La sanction des conflits d’intérêts à travers la déloyauté: approche française et nord-américaine du devoir de loyauté des dirigeants." Bulletin Joly Bourse, No. 4, octobre 2008.
Tchotourian, I. et al. "Les cinq mythes de la gouvernance d’entreprise: perspective économico-juridique nord-américaine." Revue Internationale de Droit Économique, No. 2, décembre 2017, pp. 5–39.
Terrier, G. "Les devoirs de l’actionnaire et le droit des sociétés." Gazette du Palais, No. 2, juin 2016, pp. 24–35.
Velasco, J. “The Diminishing Duty of Loyalty." Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 2, 2018.
Yosifon, D. “The Law of Corporate Purpose." Berkeley Business Law Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2014.
III. Theses
Constantin, A. Les Rapports de Pouvoir Entre Actionnaires, Thèse, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1998.
Coupet, C. L’attribution du droit de vote dans les sociétés, Thèse, Université Panthéon-Assas, 2012.
Moïse, R. L’Abus de Droit en Droit Communautaire, Thèse, Université de Toulouse 1, 2009.
IV. Book Chapter
Lacroix, C. "Délégation de pouvoirs et assurance: quelle échappatoire pour le dirigeant." dans Olympe Devant-de Baillencourt & Béatrice Lapérou-Schneider (dir.), Les responsabilités du dirigeant de société – Regards croisés de droit civil et de droit pénal, Paris, Dalloz, 2018.
V. Scientific Conference
Armour, J et al. "Foundations of Corporate Law." Law Working Paper N° 336/2017, January 2017.
VI. Magazine Article
Friedman, M, The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, New York Times, 13/9/1970.
VII. Laws
Code civil, Code 2020.
Delaware general corporations act, Act 2025.
VIII. Judicial decisions
Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984).
Bogert, Southern Pacific Co. v., 250 U.S. 483 (1919).
Brincat, Malone v., 722 A.2d 5, 9 (Del. 1998).
Cass. com., 5 mai 1998, n° 96-15.383, Bulletin IV, n° 149.
Cass. com., 15 juin 2017, n° 16-20.513.
Cass. com., 17 juin 2008, n° 06-15045.
Cass. com., 18 févr. 2014, n° 12-297752 : Dalloz actualité, 28 févr. 2014, obs. Xavier Delpech.
Cass. com., 21 oct. 2014, n° 13-14921.
Cass. com., 24 févr. 1998, n° 96-12638.
Cass. com., 26 sept. 2018, n° 16-21825, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2018:CO00738.
Cass. com., 27 févr. 1996, n° 94-11241.
Cass. com., 5 mai 2021, n° 19-23.575, Cour de cassation, chambre commerciale, 5 mai 2021.
Cass., Com., 6 juin 1990 : BJS 1990, p. 782, note Paul Le Cannu.
Cour de cassation (chambre commerciale), 31 mai 2011, n° 09-13.975, 09-14.026, 09-16.522 et 09-67.661, publié au Bulletin 2011, IV, n° 87.
Cour de cassation, chambre commerciale, 29 mai 2024, n° 22-13.158 (Association Mecen’coop c/ SAS Intérim Provence Méditerranée), publié.
Del. Ch., Ebay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark, 16 A.3d 1 (2010).
Desimone v. Barrows, 924 A.2d at 933 (Del. 2007).
Guttman v. Huang, 823 A.2d 492, 506 (Del. Ch. 2003).
***********************************************************************
العربية
عبد الرضا، عبد الرسول والنكاس، فاخر. الوجيز في النظرية العامة للالتزامات، الكويت، مؤسسة دار الكتب، 2015.
العنزي، عذبي. «نظرية القرار التجاري المستقل: دراسة نقدية مقارنة بين التشريعين الفرنسي والكويتي». مجلة الحقوق بجامعة البحرين، مج20، ع2 (أكتوبر 2023)، ص298-336. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14536/6195
___. «نظرية المصلحة المشتركة في شركة الأموال: دراسة تأصيلية مقارنة بين المشرعين الكويتي والفرنسي». مجلة كلية القانون الكويتية العالمية، مج11، ع3 (يونيو 2023)، ص153-201. https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1639773

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0481-8799