Seattle University Law Review








This paper, published in a symposium on the work of Adolf Berle, approaches the Berle-Dodd debate from the perspective that corporate managers have responsibilities beyond pursuing the interests of shareholders. Stock based executive compensation, designed to align managers’ interests with those of shareholders, has, in the investment banking industry in particular, failed to avert, and may have caused, managers to take excessive risks that in the 2008 financial crisis inflicted great damage on creditors and on society as a whole. We describe here the broad outlines of a proposal that we will discuss in future publications in more detail to impose some measure of personal liability for a bank’s debts on the most highly paid bankers. The proposal would revive two mechanisms that imposed such personal liability in an earlier era: general partnership, which was common for investment banks prior to the 1980s, and assessable stock, which was relatively common in corporations including some commercial banks through the 1930s. One proposal is that bankers earning over $3 million per year be required to enter into a partnership/joint venture agreement with the employing bank that would make them personally liable for some of the bank’s debts. The other proposal is that compensation in excess of $1 million per year be paid to bankers only in stock that is assessable in the event of the bank’s insolvency in an amount equal to the book value of the stock on the date of issue. In either case, the bankers’ liability would not be unlimited: they would be allowed to shield $1 million from creditors. Imposing genuine downside risk through these or other vehicles for personal liability may be the best way to make bankers approach risk in a manner that reflects the potential for externalities of the sort the crisis has so dramatically demonstrated.


Included in

Law Commons