Delaware's Dominance: A Peculiar Illustration of American Federalism

R. Thompson
{"title":"Delaware's Dominance: A Peculiar Illustration of American Federalism","authors":"R. Thompson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2978773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Delaware rose to preeminence in the incorporation market after a key point of inflection for corporate law. Around the turn of the 20th century, “laissez faire” statutes signaled a shift from state regulation of corporations to private ordering and markets at a time when the decline of ultra vires, quo waranto, and regulation of foreign corporations first made it possible for a state to attract substantial incorporation business from its neighbors. The regulatory impulse of the earlier corporations statutes, however, did not disappear. It simply moved to federal law — in antitrust, securities, or labor — setting up a strong federalism dimension for the “who makes corporate law” debate. In many ways this federalism discussion is still framed by the key question of corporate law from the 1960s and 1970s: Is Delaware’s dominance explained by a “race to the bottom” skewing corporate law in favor of management interests who influence state lawmaking at the expense of shareholders (and suggesting a greater role for federal law) or by a “race to the top” with state law incorporating rules that reflect preferences made through markets? The key legal concepts of federalism appearing in this debate date from the New Deal and focus on whether the federal government will preempt state corporate law, usually by adding regulation to a space that state law has left to private ordering. Corporate law federalism is in need of an update. An “on-off” view of allocating law-making power between state or federal government has given way in other fields to a more nuanced view of interactive federalism. This chapter, part of a book, “Can Delaware Be Dethroned? Evaluating Delaware’s Dominance of Corporate Law”, presents the richer and more nuanced space of 21st century corporate law federalism that has some points in common with federalism discussion in other subject areas and some that reflect the particular history of the development of corporate law. The last section suggests how this federalism dimension influences the race between the states in a way that essentially has locked Delaware’s dominance in place.","PeriodicalId":171263,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance: Arrangements & Laws eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2978773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Delaware rose to preeminence in the incorporation market after a key point of inflection for corporate law. Around the turn of the 20th century, “laissez faire” statutes signaled a shift from state regulation of corporations to private ordering and markets at a time when the decline of ultra vires, quo waranto, and regulation of foreign corporations first made it possible for a state to attract substantial incorporation business from its neighbors. The regulatory impulse of the earlier corporations statutes, however, did not disappear. It simply moved to federal law — in antitrust, securities, or labor — setting up a strong federalism dimension for the “who makes corporate law” debate. In many ways this federalism discussion is still framed by the key question of corporate law from the 1960s and 1970s: Is Delaware’s dominance explained by a “race to the bottom” skewing corporate law in favor of management interests who influence state lawmaking at the expense of shareholders (and suggesting a greater role for federal law) or by a “race to the top” with state law incorporating rules that reflect preferences made through markets? The key legal concepts of federalism appearing in this debate date from the New Deal and focus on whether the federal government will preempt state corporate law, usually by adding regulation to a space that state law has left to private ordering. Corporate law federalism is in need of an update. An “on-off” view of allocating law-making power between state or federal government has given way in other fields to a more nuanced view of interactive federalism. This chapter, part of a book, “Can Delaware Be Dethroned? Evaluating Delaware’s Dominance of Corporate Law”, presents the richer and more nuanced space of 21st century corporate law federalism that has some points in common with federalism discussion in other subject areas and some that reflect the particular history of the development of corporate law. The last section suggests how this federalism dimension influences the race between the states in a way that essentially has locked Delaware’s dominance in place.
特拉华州的统治地位:美国联邦制的独特例证
特拉华州在公司法的一个关键拐点之后,在公司注册市场上崛起。大约在20世纪之交,“自由放任”法规标志着从国家对公司的监管向私人秩序和市场的转变,当时,越权、保证和对外国公司的监管的衰落首次使一个州有可能从邻国吸引大量的公司业务。然而,早期公司法规的监管冲动并没有消失。它只是转移到联邦法律——在反托拉斯、证券或劳工方面——为“谁制定公司法”的辩论建立了一个强有力的联邦制维度。在许多方面,关于联邦制的讨论仍然被20世纪60年代和70年代公司法的关键问题所框定:特拉华州的主导地位是由扭曲的公司法的“向下竞争”来解释的,这有利于管理层的利益,后者以牺牲股东的利益为代价影响州立法(这意味着联邦法律的作用更大),还是由州法律纳入反映市场偏好的规则的“向上竞争”来解释?这场辩论中出现的联邦制的关键法律概念可以追溯到罗斯福新政,重点是联邦政府是否会优先于州公司法,通常是通过在州法留给私人秩序的空间中增加监管。公司法的联邦制需要更新。在州政府和联邦政府之间分配立法权的“时断时续”观点在其他领域已经让位于一种更微妙的互动联邦制观点。这一章是《特拉华能被废黜吗?》《评估特拉华州公司法的主导地位》呈现了21世纪公司法联邦制更丰富、更细致的空间,它与其他主题领域的联邦制讨论有一些共同点,有些反映了公司法发展的特定历史。最后一节说明了联邦制是如何影响州际竞争的,这种影响从本质上锁定了特拉华州的统治地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信