In this Article, I analyze the expanding common law doctrine of shareholder ratification, whereby shareholder approval can, for all practical purposes, absolve directors of fiduciary liability for their conflicted business decisions. Delaware law now allows a shareholder vote to perform substantially more work than ever before. Under prevailing doctrine, in transactions between a company and any party other than a controlling shareholder, shareholder ratification reinstates the business judgment rule and makes it irrebuttable, other than for waste. Substantive judicial review is effectively avoided for such transactions. Despite its extraordinary importance in corporate governance, the shareholder ratification doctrine’s foundations are feeble and its limits uncertain. Theoretically, there is no well-established basis for equating shareholder approval with either the informed, disinterested, and good-faith decision of a board or judicial review. Doctrinally, shareholder ratification’s expansion beyond its traditional context of self-dealing has been a judicial innovation, rather than an elaboration of precedent. And historically, the shareholder ratification doctrine, which originated in early 20th-century state interesteddirector statutes, was motivated by fairness principles that were lost in translation into the common law. This Article recovers the fairness genealogy of the shareholder ratification doctrine and, in doing so, provides useful guidance for the doctrine’s development, limits, and future application.

Read PDF