Corporate Migration and its Implications for the Protection of Creditors - Recent Developments in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice
This thesis addresses the correlation between creditor protection and thecross-border seat transfer of companies in the light of the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning the freedom of establishment of undertakings. 
After the restrictive outcome of Daily Mail, the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Centros took the legal community by surprise. The following cases of Uberseering and Inspire Art intensified the ensuing debate 
even further. The issues brought up as possible consequences of the free choice of applicable company law included, in particular, concerns regarding the circumvention of national provisions for protecting creditors as well as a potential "race to the bottom". 
 
The central theme of this thesis is to which extent the state of creditor protection resulting from these cases was modified by the subsequent cases of SEVIC Systems, Cartesio and VALE. 
In order to answer this question, the abovementioned cases are analysed with respect to their relevance for the protection of creditors. Subsequently, the current situation of creditor protection based on the case law is assessed, focussing on certain issues, which arose during the previous analysis. 
 
Regarding a minimum capital requirement, the result is reached that it may help to increase the degree of protection, but does not provide a cure-all solution. Furthermore, a distinction is drawn between the legislation for creditor protection and the area of responsibility of the creditor. 
The disclosure obligation imposed on the company in Inspire Art is found to miss the point. In this area, the Eleventh Council Directive provides a certain degree of harmonisation. 
Concerning the issue of "vanishing" companies as caused by Cartesio, the judgment in VALE could provide a solution, if the Court decides to follow the Advocate General’s opinion. 
 
Furthermore, the occurrence of a "race to the bottom" with respect to creditor protection is found to be unlikely. 
 
Accordingly, this thesis establishes that the case law of the European Court of Justice regarding corporate migration has various implications for the protection of creditors. Yet, some of them are found to have a lesser effect than anticipated. 
A higher degree of harmonisation would be desirable, so that consumers and other small creditors are enabled to comprehend the system and to take their decisions consciously.
“Pseudo — Foreign Companies” in Germany — The Centros, Überseering and Inspire Art Decisions of the European Court of Justice
Barriers to doing business across borders erode in the European Union. The decisions of the European Court of Justice (thereafter “ECJ”) illustrate the tenuous place which the idea of regulatory competition currently occupies in the EU legal order. The ECJ in Centros, Uberseering and in Inspire Art have changed the business landscape by opening up Europe to legislatory competition in corporate law. The Court held that a company’s legal personality and its capacity to be a party to legal proceedings must be respected all over Europe. Companies can now be found in a Member State without having later any further relations to it, this having been a central obstacle to legislative competition in the past. As a consequence of the Court’s judgments, an English Limited Company operating entirely in Germany must now be recognized as such, and only the laws of the state of incorporation, i.e. British law, will govern its corporate existence and administration. As a result, some think that an English company in an acquisition and financing of a German business may prove an attractive option for foreign investors. The Court’s rulings may pave the way to avoid certain issues that may arise out of mandatory provisions of some European continental company laws which may not be desirable.
Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime
In A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi propose that low self-control, in interaction with criminal opportunity, is the major cause of crime. The research reported in this article attempts to test this argument while closely following the nominal definitions presented by Gottfredson and Hirschi. A factor analysis of items designed to measure low self-control is consistent with their contention that the trait is unidimensional. Further, the proposed interaction effect is found for self-reported acts of both fraud and force (their definition of crime). Inconsistent with the theory are (a) the finding that criminal opportunity has a significant main effect, beyond its interaction with low self-control, on self-reported crime and (b) the substantial proportion of variance in crime left unexplained by the theoretical variables. Suggestions are offered for modifying and expanding the theory.