Monetizing Legal Assets: Social and Economic Benefits of Third-Party Dispute Finance in Asia

This article explains third-party dispute finance, including practical issues relating to the funding process and how to choose a funder. It examines some of the social benefits of funding and its importance in an economic downturn, and looks at some of the risks of dispute finance. It also considers the regulation of dispute finance in various Asian jurisdictions, as well as recent industry trends, including the use of dispute funding by well-resourced corporates and dispute-finance products for companies. It explains funding for insolvency-related claims and funding for the enforcement of awards and judgments. Finally, it provides two case-studies in which funding provided access to justice and enabled the funded party to recover a non-performing loan in multiple jurisdictions.

Framing the use of cannabis as a medicine in New Zealand: Regulatory, Clinician and Patient contexts

<p><b>A medicine is a substance developed for administration to humans for therapeutic purposes that achieves its action by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means. Pharmaceutical medications undergo years of pre-clinical and clinical trials to establish their safety, tolerability and efficacy. Cannabis, whether in raw or processed form, sits predominantly outside this remit. Its use falls broadly into four categories; recreational, plant used for medicinal purposes, cannabis-based products marketed for medical purposes and pharmaceutical grade cannabinoid medications. The use of cannabis as a medicine involves complex interactions across social, health and political domains, at both a global and national level. New Zealand has attempted to address this with the implementation of the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme in April 2020. </b></p><p>This research was undertaken to develop an understanding of what effect cannabis regulations have had on multiple jurisdictions enacting them and applying this to the New Zealand context, and to understand specific groups of patient-doctor interactions regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine. </p><p>First, I undertook a meta-narrative qualitative review synthesising themes relating to the outcomes of cannabis regulatory change across multiple jurisdictions. Five super-ordinate themes were identified in the meta-narrative review; Normalisation, Gatekeeping, Economics, Community and Health, which were applied in framing the conclusion of this thesis. </p><p>I then completed a systematic review / meta-analysis examining label accuracy and contaminants in cannabis-based products in regulated markets. Labelling accuracy ranged from 17 to ~86%. Contaminants included microbes, solvents, pesticides and adulterants. Meta-analysis of pesticide contamination showed that the overall proportion of contaminated samples was 0.25 (95% CI: 0.10 to 0.40, Heterogeneity: I2=79%, X12=4.74, p=0.03). </p><p>Finally, I completed six observational studies within New Zealand to determine knowledge, beliefs and reported interactions of doctors and patients regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in three medical disciplines; general practice (GP), oncology and neurology. </p><p>Doctors reported that patients were requesting medical cannabis prescriptions (GP: 55%, Neurology: 63%. Oncology: 84% respectively), and informing them of using illicit cannabis for medical symptoms. All doctors were concerned about prescribing cannabis as a medicine due to lack of evidence and lack of understanding of the prescription processes. Despite this, the majority were willing to prescribe a funded cannabis-based product backed by evidence of efficacy in traditional clinical trials. </p><p>Patients in all three disciplines indicated comfort discussing cannabis with GPs and specialists (GP patients: 91.7%, 92.1%, neurology patients: 88.2%, 90.6%, oncology patients: 85.8%, 88.2% respectively). All groups reported low levels of prescriptions received (<20%). Patients reported illicit use of cannabis for medical reasons (11.2%, 34.6% and 35.5% in GP, neurology and oncology patients respectively), with reported effectiveness of illicit cannabis for their condition ranging from 86.7 to 94.0%. Patients in all three fields wished to know the benefits, side effects and availability of cannabis-based products and had concerns regarding access and cost. </p><p>The use of cannabis as a medicine remains a complex situation within the NZ context. Significant implementation issues remain for the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme to ensure the safety and wellbeing of patients in New Zealand. </p>

Framing the use of cannabis as a medicine in New Zealand: Regulatory, Clinician and Patient contexts

<p><b>A medicine is a substance developed for administration to humans for therapeutic purposes that achieves its action by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means. Pharmaceutical medications undergo years of pre-clinical and clinical trials to establish their safety, tolerability and efficacy. Cannabis, whether in raw or processed form, sits predominantly outside this remit. Its use falls broadly into four categories; recreational, plant used for medicinal purposes, cannabis-based products marketed for medical purposes and pharmaceutical grade cannabinoid medications. The use of cannabis as a medicine involves complex interactions across social, health and political domains, at both a global and national level. New Zealand has attempted to address this with the implementation of the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme in April 2020. </b></p><p>This research was undertaken to develop an understanding of what effect cannabis regulations have had on multiple jurisdictions enacting them and applying this to the New Zealand context, and to understand specific groups of patient-doctor interactions regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine. </p><p>First, I undertook a meta-narrative qualitative review synthesising themes relating to the outcomes of cannabis regulatory change across multiple jurisdictions. Five super-ordinate themes were identified in the meta-narrative review; Normalisation, Gatekeeping, Economics, Community and Health, which were applied in framing the conclusion of this thesis. </p><p>I then completed a systematic review / meta-analysis examining label accuracy and contaminants in cannabis-based products in regulated markets. Labelling accuracy ranged from 17 to ~86%. Contaminants included microbes, solvents, pesticides and adulterants. Meta-analysis of pesticide contamination showed that the overall proportion of contaminated samples was 0.25 (95% CI: 0.10 to 0.40, Heterogeneity: I2=79%, X12=4.74, p=0.03). </p><p>Finally, I completed six observational studies within New Zealand to determine knowledge, beliefs and reported interactions of doctors and patients regarding the use of cannabis as a medicine in three medical disciplines; general practice (GP), oncology and neurology. </p><p>Doctors reported that patients were requesting medical cannabis prescriptions (GP: 55%, Neurology: 63%. Oncology: 84% respectively), and informing them of using illicit cannabis for medical symptoms. All doctors were concerned about prescribing cannabis as a medicine due to lack of evidence and lack of understanding of the prescription processes. Despite this, the majority were willing to prescribe a funded cannabis-based product backed by evidence of efficacy in traditional clinical trials. </p><p>Patients in all three disciplines indicated comfort discussing cannabis with GPs and specialists (GP patients: 91.7%, 92.1%, neurology patients: 88.2%, 90.6%, oncology patients: 85.8%, 88.2% respectively). All groups reported low levels of prescriptions received (<20%). Patients reported illicit use of cannabis for medical reasons (11.2%, 34.6% and 35.5% in GP, neurology and oncology patients respectively), with reported effectiveness of illicit cannabis for their condition ranging from 86.7 to 94.0%. Patients in all three fields wished to know the benefits, side effects and availability of cannabis-based products and had concerns regarding access and cost. </p><p>The use of cannabis as a medicine remains a complex situation within the NZ context. Significant implementation issues remain for the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme to ensure the safety and wellbeing of patients in New Zealand. </p>

CROSS-BORDER GROUP INSOLVENCY, A STUDY OF NORTEL CASE

Introduction. This Article is a detailed analysis of one of the most complex and landmark judgments in the area of cross border group insolvency. It traces the timeline of the insolvency of Nortel Plc. and the simultaneous proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. Introduction followed by Literature Review. Research methods are exploratory in nature, since the study has to explore a case of the simultaneous proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. Results and discussions. The Article discusses that there are two major methods for dealing with corporate groups undergoing insolvency, which are: Procedural Coordination and Substantive Consolidation. Under such mechanisms which little to no precedence in any jurisdiction, this case carved out its own path to arrive at the outcome of Pro-Rata Allocation. The case is significant for being heard at the same time in two courtrooms, one in Delaware and one in Ontario, that were linked in order to receive live evidence together. This Article discusses the importance and significance of having a cross border group insolvency regime in place. In the era of Globalisation, the integration of national economies into a global economic system has been one of the most important developments of the last century

AOTA–NBCOT® Joint Initiative: Developing the Occupational Therapy Licensure Compact

This article explains the need for a licensure compact in the occupational therapy profession and describes the joint American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) and National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy (NBCOT®) initiative to develop and implement the compact. Despite uniformity in occupational therapy licensure laws across the states, the ability to obtain and maintain licenses in multiple jurisdictions remains complicated and time consuming. Occupational therapy practitioners will benefit from an improvement to the existing state licensure system that would allow them to obtain a privilege to practice in multiple states through an interstate licensure compact. The licensure compact will be implemented by a commission composed of state regulators from each participating state. In September 2019, AOTA and NBCOT issued a joint statement announcing that the two organizations would be collaborating to support the development of an interstate licensure compact for occupational therapy. This article highlights the need for the Occupational Therapy Licensure Compact, the process used to develop the compact’s language, and the state legislative progress made to date. It also outlines the next steps needed to advance Occupational Therapy Licensure Compact legislation as well as efforts needed to operationalize the Occupational Therapy Compact Commission.

Mobile-Based Transportation Companies, Mandatory Arbitration, and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and similar mobile-based transportation network companies (TNCs) have been involved in numerous legal battles in multiple jurisdictions. One contested issue concerns whether TNC drivers are employees or independent contractors. Uber recently lost this battle to some extent in the UK, but won it in California. Another issue concerns the TNCs’ use of mandatory (pre-dispute) arbitration clauses in their standard form service agreements with both drivers and passengers. These arbitration clauses purport to obligate such future plaintiffs to resolve any dispute with the defendant TNC outside of court and, typically, on an individual rather than a class basis. TNCs have had mixed success enforcing arbitration clauses contained in service agreements with their drivers under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). As for passengers, TNCs have been increasingly litigating disability-based discrimination claims brought against them and/or their drivers pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These claims have largely arisen in two situations.

A National Approach to The Management of Multi-Jurisdictional Linked Data Projects in Australia

IntroductionThe Population Health Research Network (PHRN) is an Australian data linkage infrastructure capable of securely and safely linking and integrating data collections from a wide range of sources. Australia, as a federated nation, has taken a national approach because: Australia’s population is mobile and there is significant cross border service use Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies collect and store their own data. The national data linkage infrastructure enables researchers to apply for access to routinely collected and linked administrative data from the Commonwealth, six states and two territories. The application and approvals has been described by researchers as a time-consuming and administratively burdensome process. Objectives and ApproachThe primary objective of this project was to improve coordination of the application and approval processes for researchers requesting linked data from multiple jurisdictions in Australia. The approach taken was to develop a single application form/online application system (OAS) and standardise the business processes for multi-jurisdictional research applications. ResultsThe PHRN OAS was launched in 2014. All jurisdictions agreed to use the system for multi-jurisdictional linked data projects and SA NT DataLink agreed to use the system for their single-jurisdictional projects. Each year since the PHRN OAS’s launch, both the total number of registered users and the number of submissions each year has increased. The majority oforganisations that lodge submissions are universities and medical research institutes. There has been a significant reduction in the time taken by data linkage units to issue quotes and the time taken to achieve all approvals for multi-jurisdictional projects since the introduction of the standardised business processes. Conclusion / ImplicationsThis paper demonstrates that despite the challenges and complexities associated with applying for linked data from multiple jurisdictions a coordinated application and approval approach can be achieved.

The over- and under-enforcement of anti-corruption law in investment disputes and international development

Since the early 2000s, anti-corruption enforcement has become increasingly entangled with international investment. This entanglement has created a paradox: the simultaneous over- and under-enforcement of anti-corruption law. Over-enforcement occurs when authorities from multiple jurisdictions subject companies to duplicative enforcement actions and disproportionate penalties for the same underlying conduct. Under-enforcement occurs when local courts and arbitral tribunals insulate the demand side of corruption from liability by failing to exercise jurisdiction over corruption-tainted disputes. Both over- and under-enforcement result in part from unilateralism, whereby States pursue their own interests at the expense of international legal objectives. The over- and under-enforcement of international anti-corruption law undermines anti-corruption law itself, makes investment riskier in developing States and inhibits developmental objectives. To correct for over-enforcement, this article proposes formal commitments from States that the State with the strongest jurisdictional ties to a corruption scandal retains investigative priority. To correct for under-enforcement, this article suggests that local courts and arbitral tribunals invoke equitable estoppel to accept jurisdiction over corruption-tainted disputes and use a contributory-fault approach to hold both the supply side and the demand side of corruption accountable. These solutions would likely prove efficacious in agreements between States and contracts between States and potential investors. Ultimately, this article frames anti-corruption enforcement trends in the context of unilateralism and discusses practicable solutions for a more proportional anti-corruption law regime.

8 Close-Out Netting and Safe Harbours

This chapter studies the early termination of collateral transactions. It is in this context that the transactions must prove their worth, i.e. must show they indeed reduce or limit the credit risk the collateral taker runs on the collateral provider. To achieve this result, contractual techniques have been developed that have subsequently been sanctioned and protected by the law. The chapter looks at the legal framework regulating those contractual techniques. However, the early termination of collateral transactions and the enforcement by the collateral taker of its rights in the assets provided as collateral involve specific legal issues. The majority of collateral transactions provide for 'close-out netting' as a way of enforcement; close-out netting thus replaces traditional enforcement of security interests, such as public auction. In addition, the termination of collateral transactions, and close-out netting in particular, in multiple jurisdictions is protected by 'safe harbours', i.e. shielded from insolvency law rules that would otherwise be applicable.