This means that four companies could be established in half a month, each with potentially large profits. All of this, of course, is based on elementary principles for those who are knowledgeable. However, the benefit of this explanation is for those who have no experience with the methods some sometimes use to establish joint-stock companies. The government saw fit to put a stop to these practices. The Council of Ministers decided on June 3, 1906, that no companies would be licensed in the future if their system involved the creation of founder's shares, unless the purpose of these shares was to reward someone who provided the companies with an invention or a concession from the government that was of immeasurable value. The government was unable to bring these repeated actions under the purview of the law. It extended the licensing of Egyptian companies to avoid liability, especially if the purpose was to profit from the funds of subscribers who believed everything they were told. It is known that this precaution did not affect companies established in foreign countries according to their laws, and what the government feared happened and it could not prevent it. This is because some company owners, whose resolve was not weakened by such restrictions, resorted to avoiding the strictness of Egyptian laws by establishing their companies in foreign countries, especially in England, where they found the ease of its laws regarding joint-stock companies to be helpful in achieving their goals. Thus, we began to see companies, many of which were solely for the purpose of buying and selling land in this cotton-producing country, established under the English joint-stock company system. This was despite the rulings of the English judiciary in their own country, which stipulated that a company could not be registered under the law unless, from the day of its establishment, it relied on managing its business and affairs in some way in England. (See Buckley on Company Law, 7th edition, page 9, and the cases cited therein). Since the company's operations were in Egypt, it was natural for most, if not all, of its management to be there. Often, the company's board of directors would meet in Egypt, not in England, and the general assembly of shareholders would convene here, not there. Thus, England was only a phantom (an office and a name), while the reality was here. Undoubtedly, the situation of such companies was unusual, but they continued to prosper as long as prosperity reigned during the speculative periods and as long as most of the upward trend persisted. When the truth was revealed and the reaction came, it was called