Comments on: Shareholder vs. Stockholder http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/ Academic commentary on law, business, economics and more Thu, 24 May 2012 02:37:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Marcia Shuman http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5897 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:54:17 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5897 Why would a private company change its designation from shareholder to stockholder? In Indiana.

]]> By: Maggie Richardson http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5896 Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:15:43 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5896 I’m still confused. Does one have to be a lawyer to understand the difference?

]]> By: karla http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5895 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:23:35 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5895 so, in consequence there isnt any difference between the 2 terms, is it??

]]> By: Conglomerate http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5894 Tue, 23 May 2006 06:59:06 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5894 Shareholder v. Stockholder: The Delaware Canard…

Bill Sjostrom is one of my favorite bloggers, but I have to call him out for endorsing one of the…

]]> By: TRUTH ON THE MARKET » Defining Words http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5893 Tue, 23 May 2006 04:01:29 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5893 [...] Yesterday, Bill raised the issue of using the term “stockholdersâ€? instead of “shareholdersâ€? and vice versa.  His post met some interesting comments (read here).  A couple of days before that, I had posted about defining “good faithâ€? and “not in good faith.â€?  See “Nowicki on Good Faithâ€? here and, in its first iteration, here.  In Bill’s post, he was ruminating about how careful he needed to be (or did not need to be) when using the words “stockholderâ€? and “shareholderâ€? in his academic writing.  In my post, I was ranting about the bastardization of the phrase “not in good faith.â€?  [...]

]]> By: Dave Hoffman http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5892 Mon, 22 May 2006 18:33:11 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5892 I’m with Kate, and not just because securities *litigators* are taught to elide the distinction, for judges’ sakes.

]]> By: Kate Litvak http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5891 Mon, 22 May 2006 17:37:09 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5891 Precision in scholarship is caring about details that matter for the research question. The distinction between “shareholders” and “stockholders” is as relevant for scholarly precision as remembering to italicize the comma after “e.g.”

]]> By: Bill Sjostrom http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5890 Mon, 22 May 2006 17:18:38 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5890 Kate:  I agree that the distinction likely adds nothing to the academic study of corporate law. I look at though from the perspective of both a corporate law scholar and teacher. For the practice of corporate law, the distinction can be important, so I teach my students this and other seemingly trivial distinctions. Hence, I feel inclined to use the same degree of precision in my scholarship, i.e., to practice what I preach.

]]> By: Kate Litvak http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5889 Mon, 22 May 2006 17:05:32 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5889 Just use whichever word you like without apologies, footnotes, and substitutions. Nobody cares.

These sorts of word plays make cute practitioner trivia, but I see no reason why they should enlighten academic study of corporate law. You can use “hippopotamus� for all I care, so long as you define it upfront.

]]> By: Elizabeth Nowicki http://truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5888 Mon, 22 May 2006 16:02:30 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/05/21/shareholder-vs-stockholder/#comment-5888 No – strong no.
No – strong no.
No.
I made the same mistake years ago. Reason number 459 why I think it is important for academics in our field to actually have practiced at some point.

]]>