On April 2nd, Microsoft decided to move its European distribution center from Germany to the Netherlands. The decision was not the product of distribution logistics. Rather, Microsoft sought to avoid German patent law in advance of a pending April 17th opinion by the German patent courts. German patent law has made the country something of a patent shelter in Europe. Germany provides expedient decisions and easy-to-obtain injunctions that are hard to challenge for defendants. All that sounds fantastic until a corporation or small business is the target of those laws rather than the one benefitting. Furthermore, in these tough economic times, Germany’s patent regime has broad consequences for economic and technological development. [More]

Over the past ten years the United States has given about 24 billion dollars worth of cotton subsidies despite the fact that the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that United States cotton subsidies are illegal [More]

In the past couple of months, two Congressional bills have been the subject of a heated debate between media industry giants and some of the world’s largest technology companies: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and its Senate counterpart the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). This legislation is meant to provide the Department of Justice and copyright holders with the ability to curb access to “rogue” foreign websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods. Since the U.S. government does not have the power to take down foreign websites, this bill would grant it the ability to forbid Internet providers from allowing users to connect to those sites. While many entertainment and pharmaceutical companies are in support of these bipartisan bills, digitally oriented companies such as Google, Facebook, and Mozilla have publicly voiced their opposition. Although the problems the bill attempts to address – online piracy, copyright, and trademark infringement – are serious and present a number of enforcement challenges, this vaguely written, catch-all legislation is alarming in its reach. [More]

Earlier this fall, the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) Judge Advocate General, Juliane Kokott issued an opinion that the EU’s decision to extend its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) does not offend other nation’s sovereignty or international aviation agreements. Her opinion is a hard pill to swallow for international actors like America and China who stand to be hit by fines. International actors can then either pass the cost of the fines onto their customers or alter their operations to meet the requirements and pass that cast on. That doesn’t sound very non-threatening to sovereignty, does it? [More]

The Chinese exchange rate has been thought to be undervalued for a long time, and recently, it is facing more pressure from other countries, especially U.S., because of its “negative” impact on the world economy. As long as China is a member of the WTO, the dispute over its currency exchange rate shall be subject to the WTO Agreement and IMF rule, and the U.S. has tried to put legal pressure on China under these international agreements. However, there are several obstacles to success under such legal claims. On the other side, with the process of economic interpretation, the dispute has more impact on worldwide economic development, especially China, one of the largest markets.

In this article, I tried to analysis the issue from the following points. Firstly, the article discusses whether the Chinese currency (Renminbi) is undervalued or not based on the economic development of China in the past several years. Secondly, the article explains the possibility of pushing China to increase its exchange rate under relevant international agreements, and obstacles in doing so. Lastly, by looking at the problem from an economic aspect, the article weighs the potential positive impact and negative impact on China’s economy after increasing the exchange rate. [More]

Democrats are notorious for criticizing Republicans’ support of worldwide American companies who “outsource” (i.e., move operations and workers) to nations like India. While Democrats’ opposition to outsourcing was initially meant to incite sympathy and support from voters on “Main Street”, it has begun to alienate wealthy and influential Indian-American voters, most of whom were previously supporters of Democratic candidates. This article questions the political and legislative support of outsourcing of jobs, particularly to India. [More]

In May 2009 American President Barack Obama spoke of how an address in the Cayman Islands housed 12,000 companies. Alluding to the possibility of illegal activity, he noted that this location was either the biggest building in the world or “the largest tax scam in the world.” [1] This image of Offshore Financial Centers (OFCs) as havens for wrongdoing is generally held throughout the world.

Recent data indicates that the Cayman Islands holds over 670 billion American Dollars in banking assets from international investors[2]. Because of such statistics, these small islands are considered a global villain, a haven for illegal capital. According to the OECD Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue (1998 Tax Report) jurisdictions that (a) imposes no or only nominal taxes, (b) lacks policy of effective exchange information, (c) lacks transparency and (d) has no requirement of “substantial activity” is identified as a tax haven[3].

A Background Information Brief released by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) in March 2010 acknowledged the implementation of the Cayman’s actions towards transparency and information exchange. Despite this report’s recognition of the Caymans, it touched upon only a few of the measures that have been taken by the Cayman Islands in the last few years. These improvements in the Cayman’s internal structure and the regulatory actions taken by the Cayman Islands have enhanced the islands’ status within the international community. The Cayman’s pejorative title as a “tax haven” is, therefore, incorrect.



First, this article will examine the true atmosphere of the Cayman Islands, and how this British territory and the 5th largest banking center in the world is cooperating with the OECD and other jurisdictions by partaking in several Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs). Second, this article also aims to defend the valuable and important role of international policy distinctions among nations as a pursuit of effectiveness in the financial system worldwide [More]

Microcredit Part 2 will explore a possible application of the microcredit system in the United States as well as problems that such an application may encounter and solutions to such issues. [More]

Someone might view the economic crisis times as the best period to broaden one’s business horizons and invest into a new market. The fast growing markets such as China, Brazil, India and to some extent Russia are waiting for new investors. Russia, having more than 140 million inhabitants, i.e. potential consumers, and abundant natural resources remains mostly neglected by investors in many business fields. For decades Russian market was viewed as not a place for those faint-of-heart. Now the growth of political stability and positive developments in legislation make the investment less risky and more attractive. Nevertheless, the still existing differences between local and internationally recognized legislative frameworks and court practices make investors wonder if there is any possibility to opt out of the Russian legal rules.
This article will explore the reasons behind Russian corporate norms that explain the inflexibility of current legislation and court practice and discuss views on future development of the corporate law system of the country. Part II introduces an overview of the policy issues behind the corporate law created specifically for Russia as a developing economy. Part III analyzes the legislation and its drawbacks, provides advice for investors who for various reasons want to opt out of Russian law. Part IV discusses the reasons for the government amending the corporate law, gives a forecast of future developments and provides a general conclusion. [More]

The Lisbon Treaty is expected to be ratified by the end of 2009 and go into effect January 1, 2010. If the Treaty is ratified as expected, it is sure to affect the United States’ place on the global stage by strengthening Europe’s economic and political weight. The Obama administration is enthusiastic about this European integration effort, but many U.S. experts fear that a more unified EU could complicate efforts for European support in U.S. initiatives. This article discusses the current European Union government, how the EU government will change if the Treaty is ratified and the potential implications for the United States.

[More]