The charitable take is that most corporations want to comply with a state's regulations because unintentional compliance violations are painful and expensive, and it is relatively easy to be confident that you are compliant as a Delaware corp.
* it's easy and well-documented - the main thing you have to remember is to check the boxes that say this is an actual company, and not a holding company for a boat (where the real tax dodging is)
* it was reported to make acquisitions easier (as the company acquiring you would either also be a Delaware corp or it would be more straightforward even if they weren't.)
If you run into some legal question somewhere down the line, investors and their lawyers will be much more comfortable with Delaware law than some other state who may not have clear language on the books and/or have never tested that particular situation in court before.
Given that, would you rather have a case tried in a court that has only tried a handful of other cases, or would you rather be in a court that has handled a mountain of cases, with lots of information as to what the law really means, as it has played out in real-life scenarios?
Being tried under a legal regime where there is a ton of past history seems a lot easier to reason about than one where there isn't much.
> It's as if one is joining a club that has rules of business conduct clearly documented.
Well, yes. The law is the law, sure, but the "documentation" is much more than just the law, as written.
Many people in this thread cite most court systems are the same yet some people choose to incorporate in Delaware. I happen to be incorporated in Massachusetts because that is where I live.
However, we were strongly told that for early stage startups, some (CA) VCs would only bother looking at CA or DE companies.
(It also doesn't hurt that most businesses also find Delaware's business law to be reasonably fair and advantageous. Musk notwithstanding, of course.)
This is somewhat confused. Most common law jurisdictions merged their courts of law and courts of equity into a single unified court system long-ago; Delaware is unusual in not having done so
But if you bring an equitable cause of action, courts in other jurisdictions will apply equity to decide it. And Delaware’s Court of Chancery applies common law as well.
There are real advantages to Delaware’s judicial system from a corporate perspective-a specialised court system can be more responsive because it isn’t weighed down with other types of cases, doesn’t have juries, offers judges with deep experience in that specific area of law, etc. But it isn’t purely due to keeping separate equity courts; other jurisdictions could get similar results by establishing specialised courts for particular types of cases, without necessarily having to rely on the old law-vs-equity jurisdiction to draw the line.
(Obligatory disclaimer that these are ~30-year-old memories of some dumb 20-something’s understanding of the law at the time.)
Needless to say, this is categorically different from a company "moving" to Panama, without even maintaining a physical presence there, for the express purpose of avoiding American regulators. It's a false equivalence.
---
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Court_of_Chancery
Additionally, the claim "most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations" strikes me as dubious. Every company seeks to lower its regulatory burden. If they're not finding loopholes, then often they're the ones writing the regulations and funding congressional campaigns. I'm not sure the claim Polymarket is unique re its relationship to the government in this respect is credible. They seem to be working quite intimately with the current administration on returning from their Biden era "ban".
"operating illegally in full view" vs "legal gray area" is not a determination that can be made based on your subjective view of what "makes a thing OK". The fact that you pair the accusation that they are "operating illegally in full view" with the notion that you can condemn a thing that is not "currently being prosecuted" only further undermines your argument. Your moral objection is your judgement to make, the question of what is illegal cannot be. The latter is exclusively the domain of the courts, not any individual (or collective) moral outrage. Your seeming desire to conflate the two to satisfy your personal feelings unfortunately undermines whatever cogent points you may have re their legality on the merits.
The fact is they are currently working with the government on a return to the US markets. engaging in a government process such as they are seems to not resemble anything akin to "operating illegally in full view of everybody". You would be more convincing if you would levy your criticism in more reasonable terms. I personally suspect there is a lot more "gray area" here than you seem to contemplate.
This is a seriously tiresome argument. How about this? Feel free to cite how their recent moves will enable them to
1. satisfy regulators that they are not violating the Commodity Exchange Act; 2. satisfy other parts of the government that they are not simply illegal gambling; 3. satisfy the states that are actively suing them RIGHT NOW.
It does not matter that there are friendly people in the administration. The fact is that they were told to wind down their markets and leave. They did not do this. Even if their behavior may become legal in the future, it is currently illegal.
My personal objection is IN ADDITION to the legal problems. My personal opinion is that this business and the people who run it SUCK. There’s no conflating: both things are true. Why do you insist on sticking up for douchebags?
Why would it? Choosing the state to incorporate in has very little to do with US federal regulations. If the US wants to come after your company for some reason, they file in federal court, and the state you're incorporated in is irrelevant.
When incorporating, you choose the state based on its business-related laws and how they might apply to your company. You choose based on the experience of their judicial system in handling business matters. You might choose because there are a ton of other businesses incorporated in that state, and that's created a lot of court cases and a lot of precedent that can give your own legal team more confidence in how different sorts of legal challenge might play out.
If you were trying to avoid US federal regulations, you might incorporate in Delaware for the simple reason that Delaware is a safe default, given how common it is for companies to incorporate there. Incorporating in an unusual state could raise an eyebrow here or there. But ultimately it's not going to matter all that much. And even if it's true that a federal-regulations-skirting company would have a measurable benefit to incorporating in Delaware, there's no reason to believe that lots of companies incorporated in Delaware are trying to skirt federal regulations. That's just an unfounded assertion.
As an aside, it's not true that every company wants to decrease its regulatory burden. Once a company gets large enough, lobbying for extra regulation can be a barrier to entry for possible competitors. Also consider that "reducing regulatory burden" doesn't necessarily mean doing something illegal. In the case of Polymarket, they probably are, but plenty of other companies find ways to reduce their regulatory compliance needs in perfectly legal ways.
> I don't get it. Most companies registered in the state I live in, for example, are not actually located here. They simply receive mail through their registered agent there. Why would this be news?
>> On the other hand, most of the companies registered in Delaware are not trying to dodge US federal regulations.
What I found dubious was predicated on this "on the other hand" - that is the notion that Polymarket is really doing anything unique re its dealings with US federal regulators.
As per your last paragraph that touches on this, I already addressed this in another thread, but I'm simply not convinced that Polymarket is very unique here. It is common for new enterprises creating new industries to come into conflict with the law, and for both to evolve. Obviously Polymarket is not some large incumbent. The point was I find the notion that they are doing something singularly illegal or out of step with how most businesses operate dubious.
I detect that in comments around this chain you and some others seem to want to create a hard barrier between the law and enterprise. That's not how reality works. Regulations change. Policies are modified. New laws are passed. Governments and businesses often collaborate in this process. To get back to what I was trying to respond to, I am simply asserting that indeed this should really not be "big news".
huh? you aren't making a coherent argument. registering in any US state you are still subject to the same federal regulations, Delaware is not different, it offers no shelter from federal regulations.
in fact, if it is not your primary state of operation, then it subjects you to federal regulations for interstate commerce where you might not otherwise be.