“State law governs a company`s relationship with its shareholders, directors and senior executives in internal corporate governance. Alternatives have almost unbearable consequences for the company and its executives. With the existence of multinational and multinational organizations, directors and officers have a significant right. to know what law applies to their actions. Shareholders also have the right to know what standards of responsibility they can manage the company`s managers. McDermott, supra, 531 A.2d at S. 216-217; agreement, Newell Co. v. Petersen (2001) 325 Ill.App.3d 661, 687-688 [758 N.E.2d 903, 923, 259 Ill.Dec. 495], app dis. (2002) 199 Ill.2d 558 [775 N.E.2d 3, 266 III Dec.
441].) The McDermott court continued: “The policy underlying domestic doctrine is an important policy. . . . In prevailing conflict practices, neither the courts nor legislators have maximized the imposition of local corporate policies on foreign firms, but have consistently applied the law of integration to all internal business affairs. In many cases, this is a wise, practical and fair choice. It serves the vital need for a single, constant and equal right, in order to avoid the continued fragmentation of interdependent internal relations. .
. . It facilitates planning and improves predictability. . . . [A] for local domestic affairs to be subject to a foreign company simply because it can be judged in the forum or because it has certain local shareholders or other local contacts, it is likely to produce unbearable inequality, confusion and insecurity and to penetrate the domain of other states that have the higher right to regulate the same purpose. . . .
In defiance of the previous law, State Farm argues that any legal action challenging its dividend decisions must be filed in Illinois to avoid inconsistent jury judgments that would arise if complaints were filed in other states. Not like that. According to the internal affairs of the doctrine, the Illinois law would regulate the determination of liability, regardless of where a lawsuit might be brought. State Farm therefore presents the same risk of inconsistent judgments, whether actions are filed in different states or in Illinois. In their opposition to the letter-of-mandate petition, the policyholders state that they do not wish to receive an unauthorized discharge.