Renting Judges for Secret Rulings in Delaware

Back in 1974 William Cary wrote a widely cited article about Delaware in the Yale Law Review, where he stated:

“a pygmy among the 50 states prescribes, interprets, and indeed denigrates national corporate policy as an incentive to encourage incorporation within its borders, thereby increasing its revenue.”

Today, the problem is larger, as Delaware continues what a more recent observer calls “a political tradition of self-serving venality.” Delaware is an offshore centre inside the United States: offering a range of lures to get out-of-state and international companies to incorporate themselves there, to take advantage of lax corporate governance regulation, secrecy, state-level tax rules and others. In the race to the bottom between U.S. states, Delaware is a clear ‘winner’ in many fields, not least in the area of financial secrecy.

For a short primer on how Delaware has done this, see Rogue State: the Case Against Delaware, exploring the rather anti-patriotic attitude of the (self-declared) “First State,” which is also one of America’s smallest. In small jurisdictions, of course, it’s far easier for large corporate or criminal interests to get the legislation changed in their favour, without interference from pesky things such as stakeholders and democracy.

Now, a very important opinion article this past week in the New York Times, entitled “Renting Judges for Secret Rulings,” explores the latest battle in Delaware’s fight to get a few locals rich, at the expense of everyone else.

To compete, Delaware passed a law in 2009 offering new privileges to well-heeled businesses. If litigants had at least $1 million at stake and were willing to pay $12,000 in filing fees and $6,000 a day thereafter, they could use Delaware’s chancery judges and courtrooms for what was called an “arbitration” that produced enforceable legal judgments.

Instead of open proceedings, filings would not be docketed, the courtroom would be closed to the public and the outcome would be secret. The Delaware Supreme Court could review judgments, but that court has not indicated whether appeals would also be confidential.”

Our emphasis added: that weasel word ‘compete’. As a reminder: this process has nothing whatsoever to do with competition between firms in a market. This is the race to the bottom.

In 2012 a Federal judge overturned the law, but Delaware is once again campaigning to get it reinstated. And there are well-oiled voices, of course, calling for this. As the article continues:

“To defend their rent-a-court system’s “conciliatory atmosphere,” conducive to “business relations,” Delaware’s chancery judges invoked the history of privacy in arbitration. This translates into giving control to litigants to make their own rules, use state judges and prevent the public from knowing anything.”

This is a version of the ‘efficiency’ arguments so beloved of tax havens around the world. Get those pesky stakeholders and that troublesome democratic scrutiny out of the way, and things will happen just so much more smoothly.

All of which not only raises big questions about growth-sapping inequality, but also raises the question of what all that democratic scrutiny and accountability is for. Most people would, once they thought about it, describe them not as mere irritants in the money-making machine, but essential trappings of a democracy.

At the end of the day, this is the same old problem of anti-democratic forces free-riding off the benefits provided by others – which we TJN exists to oppose:

“The Delaware legislation is a dramatic example of rich litigants using their resources to close court systems that taxpayers support and constitutions require.”


Related Posts

Launch of international research collaboration, #AltAusterity

alt austerityToday is the launch of #AltAusterity, a new, international research collaboration of which Tax Justice Network is a partner.  The project aims to stimulate public debate on the subject of austerity though high quality research. It is a response to the lack of evidence which has underpinned the current policy agenda on austerity. The project […]

READ MORE →

RB tax avoidance – company calls for public country by country reporting after Oxfam report reveals profit shifting

pictureOxfam has today released a report on tax dodging by RB, the company formerly known as Reckitt Benckiser and the maker of thousands of well known household products. The report looks at the 2012 restructuring of the company which saw it set up ‘hubs’ in the Netherlands, Dubai and Singapore, all well known corporate tax […]

READ MORE →

Half measures mean Mauritius will continue to be a tax haven for the developing world

MauritiusThere was news this week that Mauritius has signed the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI). This is an initiative from the OECD to allow countries to take measures designed to stop tax avoidance by multinational companies and put them into their existing network of […]

READ MORE →

G20: Pressure rising on tax haven USA

HamburgWhilst the eyes of the world focused on the isolation of the US from the ‘G19’ position on climate change, something remarkable played out elsewhere in the process. Following closely the common EU position that we highlighted a few days ago, the G20 communique devotes important space to tax justice. It’s so good we quote […]

READ MORE →

Will the G20 ever end the global problem of tax avoidance and tax evasion?

HamburgAhead of the G20 Summit in Hamburg this week our own George Turner has published this op-ed in the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung today. The article discusses why, despite sustained political engagement from world leaders, we are still some way from solving the problem of tax avoidance and tax evasion. Here’s an English translation of the article:

READ MORE →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top