For-profit companies jurisdiction shopping without any physical presence is so clearly sketchy that it's wild anyone could see it otherwise. I can't imagine a normal person not being shocked in disbelief when they first learn about the concept of tax havens.

Maybe when it’s Panama. But there is not a single sketchy reason why companies choose to incorporate in Delaware, for instance.

There are very legitimate reasons to incorporate in another location. Some are not only not sketchy, but even altruistic, e.g. incorporating in another state for the purpose of incorporating as a PBC.

What are the altruistic aspects of operating a corporate entity that effectively operates as a casino where you can bet on literally anything?

Did they incorporate as a PBC?

Is there actual case law of people using a company's status as a PBC to effectively hold it to account for detrimental corporate conduct?

I think you might be misreading my comment as if I was defending Polymarket. I'm disputing the claim that "jurisdiction shopping is always sketchy".

Delaware is quite literally a tax haven set up to assist in evading as many local laws as possible. Do we just excuse it because it's a US state and speaks English?

No it isn’t. There are states with zero corporate taxes, and Delaware isn’t one of them.

Businesses choose Delaware because their corporate law and court system are are both well developed and streamlined which makes investors comfortable.

There are plenty of other states that are better choices for tax reasons.

Why is it shocking to suggest that multi-national companies deliberately arrange to have their headquarters in a legal jurisdiction that has favorable tax laws for them? This makes perfect sense and it's something I would consider doing myself if I was starting a company.

its one thing to actually put your headquarters somewhere. Quite another to use tricks to put your "headquarters" somewhere, and the office where you and most of your employees go to work halfway across the world.

And what of incorporating somewhere, having your headquaters somewhere else, having your main office in a third place, and this all owned by a shell company in a fourth place, with all your assets owned by a fifth company, which rents it back to you for extortionate rates, your EU subsidiary in a sixth place, the actual EU offices in a seventh place, etc etc etc.

Thats not even approaching the trickery and deceit that is accepted as completely normal - let alone the ones that actually get in trouble

Do these sorts of things have legal benefits for the companies involved? (yes)

If I had a company over a certain size, I'd probably do it too. But it has sharply negative consequences for the rest of society, and for trust in the system in general.

You haven't heard their definition yet.