Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 96, June 2010, Issue 4
Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty
by Amanda Frost and Stefanie A. Lindquist
Race, Sex, and Rulemaking: Administrative Constitutionalism and the Workplace, 1960 to the Present
by Sophia Z. Lee
Prospects for Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Under State Law
by Stephen Murphy
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Good Intentions Matter
Reply by Katharine T. Bartlett

State Judicial Elections and the Limits of Calibrating Access to the Federal Courts
Response by Michael E. Solimine

The Immortality of Equitable Balancing
Response by David Schoenbrod

Does the Structure of the Franchise Tax Matter?
Reply by Michal Barzuza

The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act
Essay by David Horton

Placebo Statutes?: Sarbanes-Oxley and Ethics Code Disclosures
Response by Donald C. Langevoort

[More]
Announcements
September Notes Pool Announcement

The Virginia Law Review Welcomes New Members from the Class of 2012

Notes Accepted from May 2010 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.