Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 95, December 2009, Issue 8
Making Good on Good Intentions
by Katharine T. Bartlett
The State of State Anti-takeover Law
by Michal Barzuza
Incarceration, Accommodation, and Strict Scrutiny
by James Nelson
Internet Radio: The Case for a Technology Neutral Royalty Standard
by Andrew Stockment
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
The Confrontation Clause and the High Stakes of the Court's Consideration of Briscoe v. Virginia
Essay by Stephen Wills Murphy and Darryl K. Brown

The Constitutional Foundation for Fact Deference in National Security Cases
Response by Robert F. Turner

Tiered Originality and the Dualism of Copyright Incentives
Response by Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Counterinsurgency, The War on Terror, And The Laws of War: A Response
Response by David E. Graham

[More]
Announcements
December Issue

January Notes Pool Announcement

The Virginia Law Review announces the results of its September Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact a staff member

October 2006, Volume 92, Issue 6

European Corporate Choice of Law
by Benjamin Angelette
92 Va. L. Rev. 1189 (2006)   View PDF

Between 1999 and 2003, three landmark decisions of the European Court of Justice—Centros, Überseering, and Inspire Art—struck down laws restricting the ability of corporations to exercise their right to free establishment under the EC Treaty. The most significant impact of this freedom is the ability of a corporation to choose its state of incorporation. Prior to the three landmark decisions, continental Europe had effectively prevented such choice by forcing a corporation to be incorporated in the state where its central management was located, the so-called real seat doctrine. Yet the revolution in corporate choice of law expected by many scholars after the three landmark decisions did not occur. This Note argues that this failure resulted from indirect restrictions imposed by continental countries which removed the incentives motivating corporate mobility. Three new decisions by the European Court of Justice, de Lasteyrie du Saillant, Marks & Spencer, and SEVIC Systems, have attacked these indirect restraints. The Court’s analysis in this second wave of liberalization demonstrates a willingness to overturn not only laws that directly restrict corporate freedom of establishment but also statutes that reduce corporate incentives to seek more efficient governing law. While the first wave of landmark decisions may have been more significant jurisprudentially, the second will be far more influential on the actual exercise of freedom of establishment. The effect of the second wave cases will be a European corporate landscape that looks much more like that of the United States than of Europe itself last year.

Click on an icon below to access the full text of this article*

Westlaw Westlaw   |  LexisNexis LexisNexis   |  HeinOnline HeinOnline   |  SSRN SSRN   

* These are third-party content providers; they may require a separate subscription or charge a fee for access.