Can my company have co-presidents?

Your company may legally be permitted to have co-presidents, although that is not clear in every state. For example, California law provides that a corporation “shall” have as officers, at a minimum, a secretary, a chief financial officer, and a chairperson of the board or “a president” or both. Cal. Corp. Code § 312(a). Words in statutes are generally construed in accordance with their plain and commonsense meaning, so this provision can be read to mean that a California corporation may only have “a”—that is, one—president. The law seems even clearer in that regard in New York, where a corporation’s board may elect “a president, one or more vice-presidents, a secretary and a treasurer,” among other officers. N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 715(a). That seems like a pretty clear distinction between the number of presidents and vice-presidents a corporation can have. But even if you are not prohibited in your state from having co-presidents, it is not a good idea. As California law provides, the president is supposed to be “the general manager and chief executive officer of the corporation.” Cal. Corp. Code § 312(a). Having co-presidents creates both internal confusion and legal issues as to who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company, including who has authority to deal with third parties for purposes of making contracts and entering into other business transactions. What if one co-president authorizes a deal, but the other co-president objects? Where does that leave the third party in going forward with the transaction? If you are contemplating having co-presidents because the business has two co-founders, why not use California’s approach and have one be president and the other be chairperson of the board, two important positions but with legally distinct roles?