Arcam AB fka AMAVF

[aceofbase]

Nice logic, you're not an expert on Swedish law so therefore we should proceed under the assumption that Swedish law doesn't matter, and if someone like Charlie actually post the pertinent Swedish law (or as you put it "reciting generic legal language") that shows that it does matter, then we should assume that some court made some obscure ruling that invalidates that law. Why? Why don't we operate under the more likely scenario that the Swedish law stands as written and GE reporting their 14% was to comply with that law and therefore they will also have to report when they pass 15% and every 5% increments after that in order to stay in compliance.

If you don't agree then why don't you do some research and find that court ruling to substantiate your claim?