This article proposes that the current Vietnamese conflict of law rules for tort actions, which presently use the place of damages rule to determine the applicable law (meaning applying the law of the jurisdiction where the damage occurred), should be supplemented with additional conflicts of law rules in order to address the problems presented by specific tort actions such as environmental pollution, product liability, intellectual property rights, and violations of competition rules. It is proposed that for these specific torts, the place of damages rule needs to be either replaced by other connecting factors, such as the place of acting or the rule of closest connection, or it has to be made more concrete. In other types of torts, the rule has to be rebuttable by the foreseeability defense or has to give way to a ubiquity rule granting the plaintiff the choice between the laws of the place of damage and the laws of the place of acting.

This article focuses on mobility of companies in the European Union in the light of the Court of Justice’s judgment in the C-106/16 Polbud – Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o. case. The Court of Justice has once again interpreted the treaty provisions relating to the EU freedom of establishment in the context of cross-border conversion of companies. The in-depth analysis of the case from the substantive law perspective as well as from the conflict-of-law perspective has raised some doubts with regard to the background of the judgment. Therefore, the article assesses whether the cross-border transfer of a seat took place in the Polbud case or the cross-border conversion, or possibly a new company has come into existence. Most of the analysis is aimed at exposing the risks related to the companies’ mobility under the rules adopted in the Polbud judgment, in particular in the absence of respective European and national regulation.