1. Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. v. Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, 1999 ECR I-1459 (1999), 2 CMLR 551 (1999). See also, Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd., September 30, 2003), 2003 ECR 2 (2003) (holding that the right of establishment in Article 48 barred the Netherlands from imposing local regulations on a company that was based locally but incorporated elsewhere solely in order to avoid these regulations); Case C-208/00, Überseering BV v. Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC) 2002 ECR I-9919 (2002) (denying a Dutch corporation the right to sue in Germany pursuant to the real seat rule was contrary to the right of establishment).
2. See ibid.
3. For discussions of the implications of Centros, see W.F. Ebke, ‘Centros — Some Realities And Some Mysteries’, 48 American Journal of Comparative Law (2000) p. 623; E. Wymeersch, ‘Centros: A Landmark Decision in European Company Law’, in Festschrift für R.M. Buxbaum (Th. Baums ed., 2000); R.J. Gilson, ‘Globalizing Corporate Governance: Convergence of Form or Function’ (Stanford Law and Economics Working Paper No. 192, Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 174), available at .
4. This is the approach recommended by Ebke, supra n. 3.
5. See infra text accompanying nn. 78–82; L.E. Ribstein and B.H. Kobayashi, ‘Economic Analysis of Uniform State Laws’, 25 Journal of Legal Studies (1996) p. 131, at pp. 149–150.