Corporate law has traditionally assumed that men organize business, men profit from it, and men bring cases in front of male judges when disputes arise. It overlooks or forgets that women are dealmakers, shareholders, stakeholders, and businesspeople too. This lack of inclusivity in corporate law has profound effects on all of society, not only on women's lives and livelihoods. This volume takes up the challenge to imagine how corporate law might look if we valued not only women and other marginalized groups, but also a feminist perspective emphasizing the importance of power dynamics, equity, community, and diversity in corporate law. Prominent lawyers and legal scholars rewrite foundational corporate law cases, and also provide accompanying commentary that situates each opinion in context, explains the feminist theories applied, and explores the impact the rewritten opinion might have had on the development of corporate law, business, and society.
Part I. Introduction and overview: 1. Introduction to the Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Corporate Law Project Anne Choike, Usha R. Rodrigues and Kelli Alces Williams; Part II. Legal Personality, Identity, and Limited Liability of Corporate Entities: 2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); Commentary: Amy Sepinwall; Judgment: Carliss Chatman; 3. Walkovzsky v. Carlton, 223 N.E.2d 6 (N.Y. 1966); Commentary: Janis Sarra and Cheryl Wade; Judgment: Poonam Puri and Ankita Gupta; Part III. Role and Purpose of the Corporation and Corporate Combinations in Society: 4. Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919); Commentary: Jena Martin; Judgment: Barnali Choudury; 5. Merriam v. Demoulas Super Mkts., 985 N.E.2d 388 (Mass. 2013); Commentary: Sunitha Malepati; Judgment: Alicia Plerhoples; 6. Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986); Commentary: Afra Afsharipour; Judgment: Christina Sautter; 7. Agreement between Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, as of October 20, 2015; Commentary: Alexandra Andhov; Contract: Susan Chesler; Part IV: Fiduciary Duties in Corporate Governance: 8. Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 N.E. 545 (N.Y. 1928); Commentary: Christina Hurt; Judgment: Dalia Tsuk Mitchell; 9. Smith v. Van Gorkom, 488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985); Commentary: Virginia Harper Ho; Judgment: Lua Yuille; 10. White v. Panic, 783 A.2d 543 (Del. 2001); Commentary: Kellye Testy; Judgment: Sarah Haan; 11. Francis v. United Jersey Bank, 432 A.2d 814 (N.J. 1981); Commentary: Faith Stevelman; Judgment: Jonathan W. Smith; 12. In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litigation, 906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006); Commentary: Laura Rosenbury; Judgment: Hilary Sale; Part V. Closely Held Businesses and Other Considerations Regarding the Composition of Boards, Management, and Owners: 13. Ringling Bros-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Ringling, 53 A.2d 441 (Del. 1947); Commentary: Gabriel Rauterberg; Judgment: Benjamin Means; 14. Donohue v. Rodd Electrotype, 328 N.E.2d 505 (Mass. 1975); Commentary: Jessica Kiser; Judgment: Cindy Schipani; Part VI: Protecting Investors and Potential Investors in Corporations: 15. SEC v. W. J. Howey Co. et al., 328 U.S. 293 (1946); Commentary: Kristin Johnson and Carla Reyes; Judgment: Theresa Gabaldon; 16. U.S. v. Chestman, 947 F.2d 551 (2d Cir., 1991); Commentary: Donna Nagy; Judgment: Karen Woody; Part VII: From Foundations to Future Directions: 17. The Importance of Incorporating Feminist Perspectives in Corporate Law Anne Choike, Martha Albertson Fineman and Cheryl Wade.
Anne Choike is Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Equitable Entrepreneurship & Innovation Law Clinic at Michigan State University College of Law. Usha R. Rodrigues is M.E. Kilpatrick Professor of Corporate and Securities Law and University Professor at the University of Georgia School of Law. Kelli Alces Williams is Matthews & Hawkins Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research at Florida State University College of Law.
