Editing Shareholder value (section)

=== Legal criticisms ===
A common critique of shareholder value is the mystification surrounding its legal validity. It is often espoused that shareholders are the owners.<ref name=":9">{{Cite news|last=Friedman|first=Milton|date=1970-09-13|title=A Friedman doctrine – The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits (published 1970)|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html|access-date=2020-12-19|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> This status as a shareholder comes with an assumed legal claim of all profits after contractual obligations have been fulfilled and that they have the ability to decide the structure of the corporation on the board level however they want.<ref name=":9" /> Yet, none of these are rooted in any law because shareholder value is ultimately a management decision, not a legal requirement. Corporations are their own legal entity and shareholders simply hold shares, making them equal stakeholders to employees, suppliers, and more.<ref name=":10" /> They only get guaranteed full access to residual funds in the case of liquidation. Otherwise, the firm has all control of how to do things as they please like investing into the company, raising salaries, etc.<ref name=":10" /> And when it comes to the shareholder supremacy over structure, the ability is flimsy and hard to use. The few cases in which legal action can be taken is when a director is explicitly stealing.<ref name=":10" /> In spite of the reality of shareholder obligation and abilities, corporate America has convinced itself, according to legal critiques, that there is a legal duty to their shareholders.