Germany: Incorporations in Nevada - Legal advantages over incorporations in Germany

Last Updated: 1 February 2000



Comparing the corporate law between the Federal Republic of Germany and the state of Nevada is only possible if we are aware of the legal framework around it;

Commercial law in Germany falls within the scope of federal lawmakers, whereas in the United States, it is a matter of the individual U.S. states. Consequently the "Aktiengesetz" is a federal law and the limits are set by the federal German constitution (Grundgesetz). In Nevada, we have to review the background both on the level of the U.S. Constitution and on the level of the Constitution of the state of Nevada. Of course we all know that a law concerning corporations can be subject to change by the lawmakers.

Nevertheless, for long-term planning, it is important for a businessman to know what limits are set by the constitutions that cannot be transgressed by the lawmakers. The most important question in this context is to what extent property is protected by the constitution.


The history of German constitutions is a history of one endurance test after the other;

In 1849, the first constitution was promulgated, known as the Frankfurt Constitution. The Frankfurt Constitutional Assembly did excellent legal work; however, they failed for practical political reasons.

In 1866, the North German Federation was founded, leaving out the states in the southern part of Germany, and in Austria.

In 1871, the first constitution was proclaimed and included the south German states.

After World War I, the so-called Weimar Constitution came into effect in 1919. This constitution recognized basic rights and protected property. It can be characterized as a liberal constitution, comparable to many elements of the U.S. Constitution.

Nevertheless, due to lack of both economic and political stability, the Weimar Constitution could only survive for a period of 14 years, until 1933. It is less than a coincidence that corporate law underwent a major change four years later in 1937.

After World War II, a new constitution was proclaimed on May 8. 1949, as the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany. This constitution declares itself to be provisional--a unique statement for a constitutional assembly. This reservation was not made out of the intention to change the constitutional rights. It took into consideration the situation of two German states emerging as a consequence of events after World War II. With the constant changes of the territories of Germany in the past, it was fully justified to assume in 1949 that the duration of this new constitution would be limited.

The protection of property is regulated in the constitution in Article 14 as follows:

Article 14 Section 1:

"The rights of ownership and of inheritance are guaranteed. Their content and limits shall be determined by law."Article 14 Section 2:

"Property imposes duties. Its use should also serve the public weal."

Article 14 Section 3:

"Expropriation shall be permitted only in the public weal. It may take place only pursuant to a law which provides for the nature and extent of the compensation. The compensation shall be determined upon just consideration of the public interest and of the interests of the persons affected. In case of dispute regarding the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts."

Shareholders have tested the constitution to find out how much protection the shareholder has. The Supreme Constitutional Court ruled in 1979 that the shareholders have to accept certain restrictions imposed by the Go-determination Act (BVerfG 50/290 = NJW 1979, 699). The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the constitution does not give a particular guarantee for certain economic order. Within the framework of the basic rights of each individual, the German federal lawmaker is not prevented from issuing laws restricting economic freedom. It has to be said, however, that not every question of dispute arising out of the Go-determination Act has been tried in court. A substantial number of questions on the constitutionality of the Act still remains open today.


Even before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that states laws may not restrict corporations, the state of Nevada had already, in its constitution of 1864. devoted a whole article with ten sections to covering the protection of corporations. The legislature can pass only general laws for the formation of corporations. The constitution prohibits, in Article 8, Section 1, Nevada Constitution, explicitly passing special acts to limit corporate powers. The exception is that corporations created for municipal purposes may be subject to state legislation. This exception in the constitution, however, leaves no room for interpretations to broaden the scope of this constitutional rule. Should the state legislature originate new laws curbing the rights of corporations, it is justified to assume that such laws would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Nevada. The Supreme Court proved that to be the case as early a. in 1935, in a matter concerning the liability of shareholders, which will be discussed later.

Article 8 only laid down specific rights of a corporation. The general protection of property is guaranteed by Article 1. Section 1 ("acquiring. possessing and protecting property").

Just one year after the state constitution of Nevada was approved, the Nevada courts, stated clearly that the term "company" includes corporations (Gillig, Mott and Co. vs. Independent Gold and Silver Mining Co., 1 Nev 247, 1865).

The term "corporation" was defined more clearly in 1893. The corporation was considered to be an artificial person created by statute and is vested with the power and capacity to make contracts within the scope of the powers conferred upon it by the act of incorporation and by-laws which govern the corporation (Edwards vs. Carson Water Company, 21 Nev. 459, 31 Pac 381, 1893).

Again in 1918 the courts ruled that the legislature could not pass any special act in any manner to restrict corporate powers (City of Reno v. Reno Tracteon Company, 41 Nev. 405, 171 Pac 375).

The constitution of the state of Nevada not only provides for the utmost protection of the corporation, but also for very strong protection of property rights. This is equally important for a shareholder, for then and only then can he enjoy the rights of his shares in an unrestricted way. Property rights were considered so important that Article 1. Section 16 declares that foreigners who are residents of the state enjoy the same rights of property as native-born citizens. This clause ha. only been tested once in the courts, when a Chinese citizen tried to buy land. It was ruled that his citizenship did not disqualify him from purchasing land (Foot Ling vs. Preble. 18 Nev. 251, 2 Pac 754, 1884). Today, this decision of 1884 no longer has any practical importance, as it is uncontested that foreigners may buy property; consequently it is of no practical importance that Article 1. Section 16 was repealed in 1924 by a referendum. Nevertheless, the existence of this clause indicates the determination of the Nevada Constitutional Assembly to respect property rights by all means.

There are two more indications of a strong protection of private property:

1. Shares of stock are defined expressly in the Nevada Corporation Code as personal property (78.240 NRS). This leads directly to the protection under the constitution of Nevada.

2. The decisive test, however, is the question regarding the conditions under which a person can be deprived of his property. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. Basically. the Nevada constitution has this same regulation, with the following addendum;

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without compensation having been first made or secured, except in cases of war, riot, fire or great public peril, in which case compensation shall be afterward made."

The Constitutional Assembly got into a heavy legal battle over the question of whether the state constitution of Nevada was entitled to go beyond the wording of the U.S. Constitution. and if so, to what extent. Assembly Delegate Johnson took the view that Nevada had no right to go further and that merely giving a different wording of the U.S. Constitution was unnecessary (Official report of the debates and proceedings of the state of Nevada by Andrew J. Marsch, p. 60). Delegate DeLong was in favor of the proposed wording, although he admitted if there were a conflict between the two constitutions, then the U.S. Constitution would take precedence. Nevertheless, DeLong argued that the state constitution looks to legislation to give the proper scope of the laws. Then it should be ultimately a matter of the ruling of the Nevada Supreme Court as to whether a law were within the scope of the state constitution or not.


The constitutional protection of a corporation and its shareholders has never been a primary concern of German constitutions. No specific ruling can be found on the protection of corporations, not to mention the rights of shareholders. Property rights are accepted in principle; their scope, however. is not clear-cut.

Historically, the shareholders' position was weakened in 1937 because the position of the directors was strengthened. After World War II, the constitution was quick to stress the constant tension between possession of property and social responsibilities resulting from property possession. This tension, however, is not a new insight. It had been described in 1905 by John P. Davis throughout hundreds of pages in his book, Corporations, A Study of the Origin and Development of Great Business Combinations and of their Relation to the Authority of the State. This analysis of 1905 still has validity today. The task of a constitution is not to point out that there is a problem, but rather to show how the problem can be solved. The West German constitution undoubtedly gave guidelines by accepting the protection of private property. Due to historical and political experiences in the past, it prefers to leave the delimitations to the lawmakers and to the Federal Constitutional Court. There is nothing wrong with this principle, but it has the consequential impact on the question of private property that it leaves more room for interpretation than the Nevada constitution.

It is only logical that the position of shareholders underwent a rather dramatic change after the Go-determination Act was passed. The Federal Constitutional Court had ruled that this new law is within the scope of the constitution, which has been correct.

However, the top court only confirmed that the constitution has a flexible wording. So the German shareholder has to live with the following situation;

  • Directors have had a relatively strong position since 1937.
  • Shareholders have no right to vote in the election of directors. This is done by a supervisory board.
  • In principal, the supervisory board is elected on equal terms by shareholders and employees of a company.

The legality of all those laws is not contested;

Within the framework of the German constitution, they are constitutional, and the complex procedure guarantees a number of safeguards.

Whether it is for good or bad, it has to be noted that the legal position of corporations and shareholders is more restricted than under U.S. law, and in particular to Nevada law. The possibility cannot be excluded that these rights will be subject to further restrictions.


The corporation in the state of Nevada can look back on an undisturbed existence, backed by an unchanged constitution, over a period of not less than 12O years. The Nevada constitution intentionally left out the "buts" and "ifs" in its treatment of the protection of private property. The only real problem for the State Assembly of Nevada was whether they could increase the protection of property in comparison with the U.S. constitution. When studying the wording of the Nevada constitution, it cannot be doubted that the protection of private property goes even beyond the protection of the U.S. constitution. This intent can be easily substantiated when reading about the motivations of the Assembly delegates and checking the final vote on this question. This still leaves open the question of whether Nevada was entitled to go beyond the protection of the U.S. Constitution.

One could argue that the definition of property could not differ on the federal level from that of the state level, if regulations on property were exclusively federal.

Such an assumption would be inconsistent at least when considering corporations: corporate law is a matter of state law. Before the Nevada constitution was passed, the U.S. had already ruled in 1833 that the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricted only the federal government, not the states (Baron v. Baltimore, 32 us 243 (1833)).

From that one has to conclude that the states have the constitutional right to limit or broaden basic rights at least in the case when they have the right of exclusive legislation.

A final interpretation may have still been in doubt when the Nevada Constitution was passed in 1864. However, since the 14th Amendment, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution was passed and ratified by the state of Nevada, such doubts have ceased to exist. The 14th Amendment provided that no state shall deprive any person of property without due process of law. This amendment was passed by the U.S. Congress on June 13, 1866. The state of Nevada ratified this amendment on January 22, 1867. This amendment clearly defined the relationship between the federal level and the state level; in cases regarding property. the states were obliged to give utmost care to procedure if somebody were deprived of property. The amendment gives no indication of the scope of property; consequently this falls within the scope of the states. The state of Nevada had the choice to maintain the scope of the definition of property at the level of the Constitution, or below it. As the state of Nevada has made the decision to protect property more carefully than the Federal Constitution, the utmost legal protection of private property has become established law.

it goes without saying that the 14th Amendment applies to the states once adopted by them; consequently, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this legal view in 1897 (Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago, 166 US 776, 258 (1897)).

The courts are entitled as a general rule to review the question of whether the purpose of expropriation lies in the public domain or not. The courts are only prevented from reviewing the question of whether a purpose is a valid public one (Sidney H. Ash, Civil Rights and Responsibilities under the Constitution, p. 125).

Final conclusions;

1. Property rights of shareholders and corporations are better protected under the U.S. Constitution than under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.

2. Property rights are more safeguarded under the Nevada Constitution than under the U.S. Constitution.

3. Nevada lawmakers are more restricted than German lawmakers in regard to the possibility of subjecting corporation law to substantial changes in the future.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions