Mostly because international litigation is, let's say, fraught issues (as in "good luck!")
> Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators.
What is the thought process of someone writing this? Does this article have any meaningful or critical thought behind it?
Many people do not, which is why it is noteworthy, even if it is standard.
Maybe let's make it not normal?
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 very easy to be confident that you are compliant as a Delaware corp.
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".
I don't understand the rest of the article, tho... It complains that company that (officially) left the US market and already blocks US ips from participating... isn't doing enough? Officially there's no ground to demand more
If you really want to solve the problem - start hunting down unofficial means. Investigate influencers that started mentioning Polymarket out of the blue. Look into news outlets that decided to start mentioning polymarket as supposed proxy of popular opinion. Start advertizing campaigns against gambling addiction the same way as against smoking
Now the opposite is happening. Businesses have no incentive being located in the same physical area they do business in. In fact, they have opposite incentives. The closer they are to their customers and workers, the less they can do things with impunity.
The only purpose I could see for this intro is to prime the reader negatively before any argument.
It would help a lot actually for protecting people's money instead of driving it offshore.
But it doesn't look like making USA compete in this $15B market is NPR's goal with this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Illegal_activiti...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/the-panama-pape...
(Wow. It's only been 10 years since the leak occurred? How time flies.)
ChrisMarshallNY•1h ago
jcgrillo•1h ago
If the shoe fits..
londons_explore•48m ago