Inversions have been discussed in the U.S. media extensively over the past 15 years. These discussions have led to several new regulatory measures and changes in laws aimed at discouraging new occurrences of inversions. Recent developments, however, show that inversions have not lost their allure despite these anti-inversion measures. U.S. firms use this strategic tool to change their corporate residences and thus escape worldwide taxation of foreign profits. Nonetheless, I find that these recent regulatory actions have influenced the cost-benefit-rationale of companies as well as the structuring of inversions. In addition, these regulatory actions have, in particular, increased the attractiveness of European firms as M&A partners, which has resulted in a significant increase in inbound transactions. I expect the U.S. Congress to take comprehensive steps in order to effectively solve the “inversion problem”, for example, by tightening earnings-stripping rules. These measures would not only affect U.S. firms but also European firms, since the latter would face more restrictions on debt financing of subsidiaries.