> No. Its because has chancery court which is a court based on equity not a court based on common law.

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.

When I last did it, there were two wins for a tech startup incorporating in delaware:

* 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.)

It might also make a significant difference if you sold the company, which is one reason why many companies move to Delaware when they are looking for an acquirer.

You may feel that way, and I may sympathize. But I really think you are over-indexing on your own personal belief that they are "bad for the country". If we follow your logic then a company is doing more _dodging_ simply on the basis of one's own moral aversion. So maybe if I'm an environmentalist I think coal companies are especially dodgy. If I'm a pacifist maybe a defense contractor. If I'm an evangelical maybe a company that contracts with the government re some reproductive care.

"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.

Well, the good news for them is that the president’s children are involved in the company. It’ll be very easy to grease the appropriate hands.

What are the ‘personal opinions or subjective interpretations’ you feel it’s using? What should the content be to not be ‘editorializing’ in your opinion?

Maybe when it’s Panama. But there is not a single sketchy reason why companies choose to incorporate in Delaware, for instance.

There are very legitimate reasons to incorporate in another location. Some are not only not sketchy, but even altruistic, e.g. incorporating in another state for the purpose of incorporating as a PBC.

Are we talking drug gangs as poor? Because the foot soldiers sure are.

It is exceeding common for US companies to incorporate without a presence in Delaware for the exact opposite reason of dodging the law. It is done to make legal compliance easier and more streamlined.