 Bismillah Al Rahman Al Raheem and Asalaamu Alaykum Pakistan, welcome back to corporate governance and we were talking about convergence of corporate governance on a global level. Today we are going to talk about a specialized area and that is law and regulation. Now when we look at law and regulation then definitely every country has its own laws. There are different systems like there is the common law system or there is the American model or there is the European model or there is the Chinese model of law and justice. And therefore in all of these different systems the implementation of law and the interpretation of law is done in a different way. But today we are going to look at law and regulation in the context of corporate governance and its convergence. Now what we see is that La Porta basically focused on countries with dispersed and concentrated ownership demonstrating differences in the legal protection of shareholders. In many countries the only alternative appeared to maintain control to concentrated ownership. So what we see is through La Porta's research is that he was looking at different countries and how corporate governance was being practiced over there and the first thing that he basically saw was that there is dispersed and or concentrated ownership. Now in many countries what we see is that there was concentrated ownership and the other there was dispersed ownership. But again through the research La Porta basically was demonstrating the differences in the legal protection of shareholders in these different models. Now in many countries the only alternative appeared to be a basically control through concentrated ownership. So that again has been a focus of the large shareholders and the large investors but definitely that does compromise on the medium and small shareholders and therefore what is being done through these global corporate frameworks is to create more equitable sharing within that particular organization. So that is what we see now. Coffee also then further extended La Porta's acceptance that in common law system there is greater flexibility of response to new developments. The critical role of the decentralized collector of common law institutions was to facilitate the rise of both private and semi-private self-regulatory bodies. So again what we see in the common law system and for those who do not know what the common law system is it is basically where else wherever United Kingdom or England basically ruled or what we call the common wealth. So all of these common wealth countries or wherever there was the rule of the British they introduced their own legal system which is called the common law legal system and it is one of the largest in the world and one of the most common and Pakistan also it is the common law system in UK also it is the common law system definitely. So what we see is that in the common law system there was a greater flexibility of response to new developments. So it was more absorptive, it was more flexible, it was more accommodating, it was more flexible in the context of assimilation and of comprehension of dues and don'ts. Now another thing is that when we look at all of this then a very important thing in the decentralization of the common law institutions was that again both facilitated private and semi-private self-regulation bodies. So in that we see the emergence of the board of directors and the board of directors basically holding the audit committee and the human resource committee and through those committees basically ensuring that there was a centralization of implementation and they basically were only overseeing the policies and the strategies and they were acting as regulatory bodies because it was like a balance in check so that the different components of the organization or the different top layers of the organization would not sway and would not derude themselves would not deviate from the core objectives of the company. So that is what we see basically emerging. Now Koffee also concluded that it was market institutions that demanded legal protection rather than the other way around so what we see is that the market institutions basically wanted legal protection so that there could be lesser exploitation and lesser manipulation and strong markets require strong mandatory rules as a precondition. So again as a conclusion what Koffee came up with was that to have basically strong markets it's mandatory to have rules as a precondition and those rules which are implemented on merit and on equitable basis so that again is extremely important. Now what we see is that as liquid security markets developed and dispersed ownership became prevalent a new political constituency basically developed of the securities markets what we see. Both the federal securities law passed in the 1930s in the US and the companies agreements adopted in the late 1940s in the UK were a response to this demand. So again what we see that across the board different stock markets were gaining prominence and these liquid securities markets basically started dictating the rules and regulations of corporate governance on a national and also on a global level and we again see that the different federal security laws of the 1930s in America and of the 1940s in the UK were a response to these changing factors and also the changing environment within the corporate world leading to more acceptable best practice based corporate governance on a global and on a national level. Thank you so much.