The question that faces Australian securities regulators is what to do about two or more Chinese state owned enterprises together owing substantial shareholdings in an Australian company?

At first blush it would appear that this is a case of China take over fear, however there is much more to the story than this. Indeed, there is a legal/regulatory story here as well. Now I am not trying to say there is or isn’t a China phobia here, it is a given that all nations have their own xenophobic tendency, however I cannot speak on this as I know very little about Australia and what I do know comes from watching Rugby, Crocodile Dundee and Steve Irwin (may he rest in peace). Moreover, while I am not versed in Australian law, I believe that my legal training and experience thus far permits me an insightful comment or two.

This question has come to the fore because of the increased interest of Chinese companies in Australia´s mineral wealth – this is in fact a global trend and not one peculiar to Australia – just take a look at the recent attempt by Chinalco to increase its stake in Rio Tinto to see my point.

In Australia it isn’t that two or more state entities is per say barred from investing in the same company, as the law currently is, not at all. Then what is the problem, you might ask? The issues here are the concepts of associated entities and substantial shareholdings.

You see in Australia, under their securities regime, two or more entities that are associated – related in some way, namely through ownership and control – that combined own more than 5% of a listed company must declare a substantial shareholding. However, due to a lack of clarity in the law and the absence of a clear policy position the question remains open if two or more Chinese state owned companies would be considered associated and required to declare a substantial shareholding?

The securities regulators face several related sub-problems and they must approach this issue with some degree of sensitively to the political nature of dealing with entities belong to another state. With that in mind regulators have to be cognizant of the fact that they are not dealing with subsidiaries here but foreign state owed companies; state ownership is not equal in all these enterprises; state control is not equal in all these enterprises; and these enterprises while having the same state owner might indeed be fierce competitors with opposing interests.

I do not envy the regulators their task but it will be interesting to watch what if any policy position is developed or if the law is changed to address this issue.

He is currently a JD/MBA student at Chapman University in Orange, CA and President of the Jewish Law Students Association and founder of Chabad at Chapman.

He spent his time here putting together a documentary, In the Mind of Israel, a non-partisan compilation of first-hand accounts about why Israelis, both Jews and Arabs, live in their country.

The video presents a vast diversity of perspectives and positions, representing a diversity of opinions that we rarely see outside of Israel. He interviews ordinary Israelis, members of parliament, soldiers, law professors, and students.

There are some political implications of the film, including options towards a peace process.   Those interviewed express controversial views from across the political spectrum, and helps highlights some of the enormous challenges Israel has within itself in determining what course of action to take for the future.  It includes some pretty strong statements, including,

The Arabic (sic) needs to die.

Others claim that Israeli politicians use the Palestinian issue for their own ends, and are not really interested in resolving the problem at all.  One Arab truck driver emphasizes that they already live together, and collective cooperation towards a solution is certainly possible.

Israel is not a monolithic country, but this film does help give a glimpse into the very complicated minds of those who live there.  Perhaps even more important than an international audience seeing this would be for Israelis themselves to talk to each other and resolve their differences, educate one another about misunderstandings, and move beyond the historical obstacles that have hindered progress thus far.

You can purchase a copy of the film here.

If you come to the Net armed with the idea that the old system of copyright is going to work just fine here, this more than anything is going to get you to recognize: you need some new ideas.

To illustrate this point, he uses the following remix by Ophir Kutiel of Israel, where I’m currently studying law.

Here is the text of the ruling.

The world economic down turn has had many knock on effects, many of which unexpected. It seems that bad times has the uncanny effect of making the once unthinkable, unsayable and undoable all very much possible.

The Swiss banking model can be best characterized with one word: Secrecy.

This don’t ask, don’t tell attitude is more than just a business model - it is enshrined in Swiss law. The high protection that client confidentiality receives in Switzerland has made it a favorable destination for the money of my high net worth individuals wishing to shield their money. Also it doesn’t hurt that it also has a very favorable tax policy as well.

This Swiss shield unfortunately is not very discriminating – it basically protects all comers. It makes no distinction between those who wish to shield their money for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. Moreover, it doesn’t even a make a distinction between rightfully and ill gotten gains. This hands off approach while very profitable has lead to some very tragic and embarrassing incidents for Switzerland. Specifically, I am mainly speaking of Nazi accounts filled with plunder during their rise and fall but generally I am also referring to Swiss banks being the preferred destination for the money of certain criminal elements and many a dictator.

Please don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say that the Swiss actively seek out ill gotten gains – to my knowledge they do not – nor am I saying that they have done nothing to try and rectify ill gotten gains ending up in their banks, I am not trying to say that at all. Then what am I trying to say?

What I am trying to say is simply this: any system predicated on secrecy will have its limits on how well it can tackle the twin issues of legitimacy and source of funds.

However, times they are a changing.

This change is evidenced by four things. The first is a long and as yet to be resolved battle between UBS and US authorities over the names and identities of some of the banks US clients and with it opposing interpretations of the US-Swiss Tax Treaty. The second is the OECD´s tax haven black list, talk of G20 nations developing a sanctions regime aimed at tax heavens and the drive by OECD countries and in particular the US to conclude double taxation agreements. The third is the revised US-Swiss double taxation treaty. And lastly is the current economic climate.

All of this has forced the Swiss into re-think mode. As reported in the Financial Times: leading members of the Swiss Private Bankers Association have recognized they may have to raise tax compliance with clients and, if necessary encourage them to declare previously hidden assets.

Does this mean an end to secrecy as the cornerstone of the Swiss banking model?

Highly unlikely. However, it does mean a few rays of light into the otherwise dark room of secrecy called the Swiss banking model.

This woman is dead, and her husband is in critical condition in a hospital. A man accused of screaming “terrorist” and “Islamist whore” at her on a children’s playground, stabbed the woman, who was pregnant, 18 times during his own trial. When her husband ran to protect her, a police officer shot him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/german-trial-hijab-murder-egypt

I am currently conducting an internship program with the Pan-African Parliament (PAP), an organ of the African Union (AU), in Johannesburg, South Africa from June 22nd 2009-Augut 26th 2009.

Pursuant to Article 17 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, The PAP is an institution informed by a vision to provide a common platform for African peoples and their grass-roots organizations to be more involved in discussions and decision-making on the problems and challenges facing the continent and also ensure the full participation of the African people in the development and economic integration of the continent. Currently, the PAP has 46 Member States, of which there are 5 MP’s per Member State and exercises consultative and advisory powers only.

While I am here I have been keeping a journal which highlights all of my personal and professional experiences during my internship. I have uploaded this journal into a blog that will better allow me to share these experiences with the general public and in particular with anyone who may be interested in interning with the PAP or a similar African institution in the future.

The blog can be accessed at: http://greetingsfromjoburg.blogspot.com/

Also for more information on the PAP and their mandate please visit: http://www.pan-african-parliament.org/