Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Awareness Update: May 2019
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sara Moon" data-source="post: 11168" data-attributes="member: 525"><p>Hi everyone,</p><p></p><p>The topics covered this week are:</p><p></p><p>1. Singapore’s anti-fake news legislation (by [USER=260]@Abstruser[/USER]);</p><p>2. Fixing lawsuit against pharma companies in the US (by [USER=1643]@Moni[/USER]);</p><p>3. US-China Trade War Update (by [USER=1160]@Alice G[/USER]); and</p><p>4. UK Coal Free Week (by [USER=525]@Sara Moon[/USER]).</p><p></p><p>Hope you enjoy!</p><p></p><p><strong>1. <u>Singapore’s anti-fake news legislation (by [USER=260]@Abstruser[/USER])</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The story:</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>Last Wednesday, Singapore’s parliament passed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (‘POFMA’), a highly controversial bill aimed at tackling fake news in the city state.</p><p></p><p>The new legislation grants the Singaporean government wide powers to monitor the veracity of online media posted on platforms such as Facebook. Last year, Facebook and Singapore butted heads when Facebook refused to remove a “false and malicious” online article linking Singaporean banks to the Malaysian 1MDB scandal.</p><p></p><p>POFMA also extends to private encrypted chats such as those exchanged through Whatsapp and Telegram. Speaking on the policing of private chats, Singapore’s Senior Minister of State for Law, Mr Edwin Tong stated that “Closed platforms, chat groups, social media groups, can serve as a public megaphone as much as an open platform.”</p><p></p><p>There are three main offences under POFMA, namely (a) knowingly communicating false statements of fact that are likely to prejudice the public interest, (b) creating or altering online bots or inauthentic accounts to spread false statements of fact, and (c) providing or soliciting services to spread false statements of fact in Singapore. Offenders can face up to SGD $1 million in fines, and up to 10 years imprisonment.</p><p></p><p>Aside from targeting offenders, POFMA also grants Singaporean ministers broad powers to order (or ‘issue directions’ to) online platforms to issue public notices stating that certain statements are false or incorrect. Ministers can also order platforms to disable internet users from accessing material that has been deemed factually incorrect.</p><p></p><p><strong>Impact on businesses and law firms:</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>Several tech companies have expressed concern with Singapore’s new bill, as government intervention on online platforms could affect user growth and activity, and therefore impact the profitability and success of these platforms. Last Thursday, a Google spokesperson stated that they were “concerned that this law will hurt innovation and the growth of the digital information ecosystem.” In a public statement, Facebook’s Asia-Pacific public policy vice-president said that “We remain concerned with aspects of the new law which grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to remove content they deem to be false”. Both spokespersons for Google and Facebook expressed hope that POFMA would be enforced with a “proportionate and measured approach”.</p><p></p><p>It is also unclear how POFMA will affect encrypted messaging services such as Whatsapp and Telegram. Authorities in other countries have had difficulty in policing private encrypted messages. For example, in February, India proposed new rules that would allow authorities to trace the origins of encrypted messages. Whatsapp firmly stated that this was “not possible” as it would lead to a complete redesign of their Whatsapp product, and result in an app that was not “fundamentally private”. However, Mr Edwin Tong stated that ministers may order companies such as Whatsapp to send mass information notices to all its users notifying them of false information that may have been circulated privately.</p><p></p><p>With POFMA, Singapore joins the ranks of countries such as Germany, France, Russia and Malaysia, all of whom possess their own anti-fake news legislation. For law firms, this trend towards regulating online information is likely to generate more regulatory and compliance work from clients with an online presence, and not only online media companies.</p><p></p><p>The anti-fake news regulatory trend also raises an interesting legal tension between policing misinformation, and the protection of fundamental rights in liberal democracies such as the US and the EU. For instance, under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, there is “no such thing as a false idea”. Similarly, some critics note that EU-wide efforts to tackle fake news have been hamstrung by the bloc’s strong commitment to protecting freedom of speech.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>2. <u>Fixing lawsuit against pharma companies in the US (by [USER=1643]@Moni[/USER])</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The story:</strong></p><p></p><p>On Friday May 10th, 44 US States filed a lawsuit against 20 drug companies, including Teva, Pfizer, Novartis and Mylan, alleging that they engaged in price-fixing to inflate the prices of more than 100 generic drugs by as much as 1000%. The lawsuit, which is a more expansive version of a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/business/generic-drug-price-lawsuit-teva-mylan.html?module=inline" target="_blank">similar suit,</a> filed in December 2016, alleges that the price-fixing activity took place largely between January 2013 and June 2015, during which time the competitors agreed to cooperate so that their companies maintained a “fair share” of generic drug markets, while simultaneously colluding to raise prices. According to the suit, the drug companies and their executives were aware that their actions were illegal and as such avoided written records.</p><p></p><p>Several companies have come out to deny any wrongdoing, including Teva. The Israeli drugmaker is one of the world’s largest manufactures of generic medicine and is painted as the ring-leader in the states’ lawsuit. The company has since denied any wrongdoing and says it has not engaged in any actions that would lead to civil or criminal liability. In addition to the accused companies, the lawsuit also names 15 individuals, who the suit claims were responsible for carrying out the price-fixing plans on a day-to-day basis. The lawsuits seek damages, civil penalties, and actions by the court to restore competition to generic drug markets.</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Impact on businesses and law firms:</strong></p><p></p><p>The lawsuit comes at a time when drug companies are facing widespread scrutiny from US lawmakers across the political spectrum, over drug prices. Federal filings from January 2019 show that the pharmaceutical industry spent a record high $27.5m on lobbying in 2018, amid pressure to lower drug prices. The outcomes of this particular suit will likely have wide- reaching effects for the US pharmaceutical industry, either in terms of maintaining the status quo if it is quashed or forcing drug companies to change their behavior. The lawsuit suggests that there had been widespread misconduct in the industry over several years. Moreover, state prosecutors are arguing that the conspiracy has negatively affected the US economy and damaged state and federal health care plans.</p><p></p><p>In addition to having potential impacts on these companies and consumers, the suit will also likely result in a discussion around current US competition laws, which could have an impact on other industries as well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sara Moon, post: 11168, member: 525"] Hi everyone, The topics covered this week are: 1. Singapore’s anti-fake news legislation (by [USER=260]@Abstruser[/USER]); 2. Fixing lawsuit against pharma companies in the US (by [USER=1643]@Moni[/USER]); 3. US-China Trade War Update (by [USER=1160]@Alice G[/USER]); and 4. UK Coal Free Week (by [USER=525]@Sara Moon[/USER]). Hope you enjoy! [B]1. [U]Singapore’s anti-fake news legislation (by [USER=260]@Abstruser[/USER])[/U][/B] [B]The story: [/B] Last Wednesday, Singapore’s parliament passed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (‘POFMA’), a highly controversial bill aimed at tackling fake news in the city state. The new legislation grants the Singaporean government wide powers to monitor the veracity of online media posted on platforms such as Facebook. Last year, Facebook and Singapore butted heads when Facebook refused to remove a “false and malicious” online article linking Singaporean banks to the Malaysian 1MDB scandal. POFMA also extends to private encrypted chats such as those exchanged through Whatsapp and Telegram. Speaking on the policing of private chats, Singapore’s Senior Minister of State for Law, Mr Edwin Tong stated that “Closed platforms, chat groups, social media groups, can serve as a public megaphone as much as an open platform.” There are three main offences under POFMA, namely (a) knowingly communicating false statements of fact that are likely to prejudice the public interest, (b) creating or altering online bots or inauthentic accounts to spread false statements of fact, and (c) providing or soliciting services to spread false statements of fact in Singapore. Offenders can face up to SGD $1 million in fines, and up to 10 years imprisonment. Aside from targeting offenders, POFMA also grants Singaporean ministers broad powers to order (or ‘issue directions’ to) online platforms to issue public notices stating that certain statements are false or incorrect. Ministers can also order platforms to disable internet users from accessing material that has been deemed factually incorrect. [B]Impact on businesses and law firms: [/B] Several tech companies have expressed concern with Singapore’s new bill, as government intervention on online platforms could affect user growth and activity, and therefore impact the profitability and success of these platforms. Last Thursday, a Google spokesperson stated that they were “concerned that this law will hurt innovation and the growth of the digital information ecosystem.” In a public statement, Facebook’s Asia-Pacific public policy vice-president said that “We remain concerned with aspects of the new law which grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to remove content they deem to be false”. Both spokespersons for Google and Facebook expressed hope that POFMA would be enforced with a “proportionate and measured approach”. It is also unclear how POFMA will affect encrypted messaging services such as Whatsapp and Telegram. Authorities in other countries have had difficulty in policing private encrypted messages. For example, in February, India proposed new rules that would allow authorities to trace the origins of encrypted messages. Whatsapp firmly stated that this was “not possible” as it would lead to a complete redesign of their Whatsapp product, and result in an app that was not “fundamentally private”. However, Mr Edwin Tong stated that ministers may order companies such as Whatsapp to send mass information notices to all its users notifying them of false information that may have been circulated privately. With POFMA, Singapore joins the ranks of countries such as Germany, France, Russia and Malaysia, all of whom possess their own anti-fake news legislation. For law firms, this trend towards regulating online information is likely to generate more regulatory and compliance work from clients with an online presence, and not only online media companies. The anti-fake news regulatory trend also raises an interesting legal tension between policing misinformation, and the protection of fundamental rights in liberal democracies such as the US and the EU. For instance, under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, there is “no such thing as a false idea”. Similarly, some critics note that EU-wide efforts to tackle fake news have been hamstrung by the bloc’s strong commitment to protecting freedom of speech. [B]2. [U]Fixing lawsuit against pharma companies in the US (by [USER=1643]@Moni[/USER])[/U][/B] [B]The story:[/B] On Friday May 10th, 44 US States filed a lawsuit against 20 drug companies, including Teva, Pfizer, Novartis and Mylan, alleging that they engaged in price-fixing to inflate the prices of more than 100 generic drugs by as much as 1000%. The lawsuit, which is a more expansive version of a [URL='https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/business/generic-drug-price-lawsuit-teva-mylan.html?module=inline']similar suit,[/URL] filed in December 2016, alleges that the price-fixing activity took place largely between January 2013 and June 2015, during which time the competitors agreed to cooperate so that their companies maintained a “fair share” of generic drug markets, while simultaneously colluding to raise prices. According to the suit, the drug companies and their executives were aware that their actions were illegal and as such avoided written records. Several companies have come out to deny any wrongdoing, including Teva. The Israeli drugmaker is one of the world’s largest manufactures of generic medicine and is painted as the ring-leader in the states’ lawsuit. The company has since denied any wrongdoing and says it has not engaged in any actions that would lead to civil or criminal liability. In addition to the accused companies, the lawsuit also names 15 individuals, who the suit claims were responsible for carrying out the price-fixing plans on a day-to-day basis. The lawsuits seek damages, civil penalties, and actions by the court to restore competition to generic drug markets. [B] Impact on businesses and law firms:[/B] The lawsuit comes at a time when drug companies are facing widespread scrutiny from US lawmakers across the political spectrum, over drug prices. Federal filings from January 2019 show that the pharmaceutical industry spent a record high $27.5m on lobbying in 2018, amid pressure to lower drug prices. The outcomes of this particular suit will likely have wide- reaching effects for the US pharmaceutical industry, either in terms of maintaining the status quo if it is quashed or forcing drug companies to change their behavior. The lawsuit suggests that there had been widespread misconduct in the industry over several years. Moreover, state prosecutors are arguing that the conspiracy has negatively affected the US economy and damaged state and federal health care plans. In addition to having potential impacts on these companies and consumers, the suit will also likely result in a discussion around current US competition laws, which could have an impact on other industries as well. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Awareness Update: May 2019
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…