The Lemonade Stand: Feminist and Other Reflections on the Limited Liability of Corporate Shareholders

The sultriness that was summer in D.C. blanketed the pedestrians returning to Capitol Hill. Trickling toward home through air that passively resisted, I almost overlooked a shape emerging from the haze of my own street. It might have been some atmospherically-induced apparition; rather, there, in the 1990s, in front of a well-kept urban rowhouse with door adorned by yuppie wreath, sat an immaculate child, seraphically presiding over a linen-covered table bearing a pitcher made of Tupperware. His neatly lettered sign, presumably prepared by an invisible caregiver in endorsement of his enterprise, read Lemonade - 50 Cents. The little boy with the pitcher became a fixture of late August. Each business day, he held his post from four to six p.m. Although I never patronized his stand, I watched others who did. He seemed quite pleased as each quarter clinked into his pocket, and he never failed to thank each customer and to suggest a repeat transaction. There may be some romantic explanation for the young merchant\u27s dedication. He might, after all, have been contributing to a shortfall in the family mortgage payment consequent to the recession that rippled across the Washington legal community-in this scenario, the briefcases and well-tailored suits sported by both his parents might just have been a brave front. He might have been saving for a life-preserving operation for a younger sister (who, to the best of my knowledge, did not exist)

The Story of Pinocchio: Now I\u27m a Real Boy

Corporate responsibility has become a matter of great concern after the Enron and WorldCom scandals rocked corporate culture. This Article suggests that corporate irresponsibility stems from the failure of corporations to address the concerns of non- shareholders and the failure of shareholders and regulatory watchdogs to look beneath the corporate surface. Competing schools of thought, such as neoclassical economics, progressive corporate theory, and outsider corporate theory, offer divergent analyses of the corporate responsibility dilemma. Regulatory responses to the crisis of corporate conscience remain untested. This Article suggests that our failure to foresee corporate irresponsibility partly comes from over on traditional theories of shareholder primacy. Change is unlikely to come from within the corporation, so regulators must look beyond the board of directors to ensure responsible management. This Article proposes criminal liability for corporate indifference to the health and well-being of foreseeable victims of corporate irresponsibility. Prove yourself brave, truthful, and unselfish, and someday you will be a real boy. —PINOCCHIO (Walt Disney Studios 1940