Promoting entrepreneurship is high on the agenda at both European and national level. This is, e.g., reflected in a number of company law initiatives, which have mainly focused on creating easier and cheaper access to limited liability, for example, by introducing sub-types of the private limited company. The main questions addressed here are whether it is possible to promote entrepreneurship through company law reforms and what the content of such frameworks should be in order to meet the needs of entrepreneurs. The analysis takes its point of departure in a new Danish survey of what the content of company legislation should be in order to meet the needs of entrepreneurs. In line with existing empirical studies, the importance of the capital requirement and formation procedures and costs is analysed, and further insight is given into, for example, what level of minimum capital and cost is regarded as acceptable. Besides this insight, the Danish survey adds to the existing studies and literature by also shedding light on whether company laws can be further optimised, for instance, by introducing more flexible rules for company management, etc. The results of the survey are compared with the reforms which, in recent years, have been adopted in several EU Member States, with the aim of evaluating whether these have met the needs indicated in the survey. The overall conclusion is that this is not the case on all points and that there is thus room for improvement. It is also briefly discussed whether the different reform methods used in the recent national reforms are well-suited for further optimising the legislation and it is shown that the method of introducing sub-types of private limited companies has its limitations.

Even though the GmbH is an established legal entity that has remained (largely) unchanged for over a century, recent abuses and the pressure of foreign competition has caused the German government to propose significant changes. While not opting for a fundamental and groundbreaking reform, it has put forward a number of smaller modifications that will change the face of the GmbH.

On 30 September 2003, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter: the ECJ), in full court, handed down a judgment in the Inspire Art case in which it found certain provisions of the Dutch Law on Formally Foreign Companies of 17 December 1997 (Wet op de Formeel Buitenlandse Vennootschappen. Hereinafter: the WFBV) to be contrary to Article 2 of the Eleventh Company Law Directive and others to form a restriction to the exercise of the right of secondary establishment incapable of justification under Article 46 of the EC Treaty or the case law on overriding reasons relating to the public interest, also referred to as the ‘:rule of reason’ case law. Ten days later, a leading Dutch legal periodical stated that this judgment would lead to the Netherlands being inundated by private limited liability companies incorporated in England under English company law. Does the ruling in Inspire Art mean that the dikes erected in the Netherlands to prevent an influx of so-called formally foreign or pseudo-foreign companies have collapsed? In this paper I will deal with the following issues. Firstly in order to answer the question whether the judgment in Inspire Art can indeed be regarded as a break-through with regard to the freedom of establishment of companies, I will place this ruling against the background of two other judgments in this field, namely the judgments in the Centros and Überseering cases. I will then discuss the importance of the Inspire Art ruling for both the exercise of the right of primary and that of secondary establishment by companies. This will be followed by a discussion of the so-called abuse or improper use of the right of establishment. I will then briefly touch on the issues of the concept of legal capital and forum shopping before drawing some conclusions.