The competition by states for incorporations has long been the subject of extensive
scholarship. This article tries to deconstruct the state competition debates by showing that scholars are engaged in three separate debates that are only loosely connected to each other. The first, ?directional?
debate concerns whether firms, if given a choice, will chose corporate law rules that maximize shareholder value or managerial benefits. Resolution of this question is relevant regardless of whether states ?compete.? All it takes to make this question important is for firms to have a meaningful choice among legal rules. The second, ?competition? debate concerns whether, how, and which states compete for incorporations. Depending on what is meant by ?competition?, competition can exist even in a regime where firms have no choice over where they incorporate and may not exist in a regime where firms have free choice. The third, ?federalism? debate concerns the shape a mandatory corporate law would take if such a law were enacted. Separating these three conceptually distinct questions, and the evidence relevant to each, yields a better understanding of the arguments made by the partisans in the state competition debate and of the issues that remain unresolved.
In this essay, I discuss the rise and fall of regulatory competition in corporate insolvency law in the European Union. The rise is closely associated with the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR, 2002), and it is well-documented. The UK has...Read more
Regulatory arbitrage refers to structuring activity to take advantage of gaps or differences in regulations or laws. Examples include Facebook modifying its terms and conditions to reduce the exposure of its user data to strict European privacy...Read more
Shocks that hit part of the financial system, such as the subprime mortgage market in 2007, can propagate through a complex network of interconnections among financial and non-financial institutions. As the financial crisis of 2007-2009 has...Read more
We examine the Centros decision through the lens of SB 826 – the California statute mandating a minimum number of women on boards. SB 826, like the Centros decision, raises questions about the scope of the internal affairs doctrine and its role...Read more