Company law, although contractual by its nature, unlike the contract law with low depreciation rate of legal institutes and, in principle, longevity, still has a high depreciation rate and, as a rule, the short duration of its institutes. The reasons for this lie in the fact that the contract law went through "teething troubles" in the previous two centuries, which were marked by major codifications of contract law, as opposed to the company law which is a newer branch of law which was affected by such troubles to a greater extent only in the second half of the twentieth century and it will thus mark to a great extent this, twenty-first century as well. In this paper, the author seeks to predict the main directions of such development of company law in the current (twenty-first) century. It is the understanding of the author that such directions are to be marked by: further strengthening of the institutionality of the company as a legal entity and profiling of legal institutes for protection of this interest and, on that basis, strengthening the so-called system of company social responsability, not only as a policy and moral imperative, but also as a legal category; strenghtening the role of the state regulatory framework in relation to the self-regulatory one with the affirmation of economic freedoms; competition of national regulations and harmonization which is based on that; strengthening civil law institutes in relation to common law institutes in the field of continental law as appropriate to the legal tradition and culture; whithin civil law the takeover of "pure" legal institutes of the Roman or German legal tradition, where they differ, but not mixing them and thus "deteriorating" their nature; seeking the new balance in the relationship between majority capital and minority capital, which prevents the abuse of the majority and the abuse of the minority and which promotes and protects the "interest of a company" as a legal entity; finally, further promoting the principle of arbitrability of intercompany disputes so that the private law will in the choice of the forum for resolving these disputes would be more dominant (prevail) in relation to the public law one.