In the US’s federal system, most corporations are formed under state rather than national law. Accordingly, as the US Supreme Court has explained, “except where federal law expressly requires certain responsibilities of directors with respect to stockholders, state law will govern the internal affairs of the corporation.” As to which state’s law governs a given case, the choice of law rule known as the internal affairs doctrine mandates “that only one State should have the authority to regulate a corporation's internal affairs—matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders—because otherwise a corporation could be faced with conflicting demands.” The internal affairs doctrine further vests the state of incorporation with that sole authority and, as a result, requires that the law of the state of incorporation govern disputes arising out of a corporation’s internal affairs. Although most states follow the general corporate law choice of law rule with respect to corporate veil-piercing claims, a handful decline to apply the internal affairs doctrine to such claims. The choice of law question is further complicated because a growing number of veil-piercing cases involve underlying claims based on federal law. In such cases, courts must determine whether to apply state or federal law and, if the former, which state’s law to apply.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.