Foreign Corporations. Jurisdiction. Federal Court's Determination of What Is "Doing Business" Held Not Controlled by Due-Process Standard

1947 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 654

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-252
Author(s):  
Yulia A. Konovalova ◽  
Verity-Alexia Liongo Monkisheme ◽  
Stepan A. Ushanov

Article is dedicated to the determination of key features of the United States participation in the international capital movement on the example of FDI outflows and inflows, and confirmation of its heterogeneous nature. Tax reform that has been implemented in the end of 2017 led to the result when USA was deleted of the list of TOP-20 world investors of 2018 (by UNCTAD). The scientific opinion and fears were connected with the forecasts that the tax reform could change the movement of FDI flows back to the USA from foreign countries, especially, and the countries with the low taxes and the most favorable investment regimes. At the same time, it needs to underline that the analysis of U.S. FDI inflows and outflows showed that the negative indicator of U.S. FDI outflow (export) in 2018-2019 was connected with the repatriation of U.S. holding companies profits, that were doing business in countries with the most favorable tax and investment regimes. The authors tried to investigate the nature of the American holdings role and the integration of U.S. in to the global system of FDI and capital movement.





2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Stanislav Borodkin

Russian companies doing business outside of the Russian Federation require special protection of their rights and lawful interests. Several methods of protecting foreign investor rights are available under the international law, including national courts and tribunals and commercial arbitrations (both institutionary and ad-hoc). International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes is a special institution established to resolve the controversies related to foreign investments. It was created under an international treaty and its decisions are not subject to sovereign immunity. The article considers ICSID practice regarding the definition of an investment, since disputes are related to an investment activity, which is a topical question when dealing with the determination of the Center competence. While the analyzed cases do not have the power of binding precedents, when the arbiters elaborate on the definition of a foreign investment they use specific criteria that could be relevant for the national law. Since international practice has a more specific definition of foreign investments than the Russian law, the author suggests that the former be taken into consideration when a foreign investment is defined in Russian legal texts. It could ensure better protection of the rights of Russian legal entities abroad.





Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document