There will always be offshore entities with strong rule of law (Cayman) because multinational companies need a neutral ground to settle disputes with competent judges without the whims of each company’s home base screwing it up.
That’s the most generous and ethical explanation for the continued support and existence of offshore judication. The unpopular reason is that offshore countries offer lower taxes and favorable regulation. As someone who believes in the smallest possible state and enjoys the benefits of offshore countries (as do Facebook, Google, and Apple which use a combination of the Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda, and Cayman in complex corporate structures) I am sympathetic to this argument. Although my friends say I am a corporate stooge!
"multinational companies need a neutral ground to settle disputes with competent judges without the whims of each company’s home base screwing it up."
This is definitely not it. The largest entities with the most IP at stake don't duke it out in the Cayman islands.
Moreover, Cayman - and any other offshore - does not have nearly the sophistication to handle complicated disputes.
'Sound rule of law' is one thing, but when laws are not very clear or complex, without a lot of historical rulings, without a sophisticated judicial + participants ... then it's not going to be part of the value add.
If you're really concerned about 'rule of law' then you want to be in EU/US/UK, possibly Canada, Australia, Switzerland and you don't even want it to touch other jurisdictions.
I don’t think you understand how offshore works. You seem like someone who saw a bunch of YouTube videos. For example all re-insurance companies that back the US insurance markets are Bermuda companies, and this is explicitly OK in the tax code.
I worked at a company that payed out $700M in an IP dispute involving offshore entities (and worked for a while in an offshore entity, Monaco, though it's a different kind of 'offshore').
Edit: FYI your 'Bermuda' argument doesn't help make your point re: 'neutral ground IP law'. The reason companies exist 'offshore' is to avoid taxation and scrutiny, which is why they are there.
And I’ve worked for companies with extensive offshore arrangements, primarily for tax minimization and regulatory clarity. It sounds like a judge disputed your prior company’s issues!
That’s the most generous and ethical explanation for the continued support and existence of offshore judication. The unpopular reason is that offshore countries offer lower taxes and favorable regulation. As someone who believes in the smallest possible state and enjoys the benefits of offshore countries (as do Facebook, Google, and Apple which use a combination of the Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda, and Cayman in complex corporate structures) I am sympathetic to this argument. Although my friends say I am a corporate stooge!