Navigating Labour’s Energy Transition

Labour's landslide victory in July 2024 has ushered in a new era for UK energy policy, which is centred around the creation of Great British Energy (GB Energy) - a publicly owned clean energy generation company. This move aims to reshape the UK’s energy landscape, inspired by successful models like Sweden’s Vattenfall AB. But is this a stroke of genius from the government or a potential quagmire?

The Promise of Green Growth

One of the most interesting aspects of Labour’s plan is its potential to drive economic growth through the green energy sector. The party’s commitment to doubling onshore wind, tripling solar power, and quadrupling offshore wind by 2030 presents enormous opportunities for job creation and investment. Future commercial lawyers should be prepared for a surge in demand for legal expertise in areas such as renewable energy contracts, regulatory compliance, and public-private partnerships. The proposed British Jobs Plus scheme, offering up to £500 million annually to energy companies investing in domestic skills and supply chains, could be a game-changer for the sector.

Labour’s focus on national energy production through GB Energy could also significantly enhance the UK’s energy security, reducing reliance on volatile international markets. This approach may lead to more stable energy prices for consumers, addressing the cost-of-living crisis.

Winners and Losers: A Zero-Sum Game?

However, let's not ignore the elephant in the room. Labour’s increased windfall taxes on oil and gas companies presents a significant challenge to traditional energy firms. As stocks in companies like Harbour Energy took a hit following Labour’s victory, it’s clear that the sector is bracing for turbulent times. This raises the question of how we balance the transition to green energy with the need to maintain a stable energy supply in the short term. Labour’s policies create a clear divide in the energy sector:

• Renewable Energy Companies: Poised for growth with government backing and increased investment.

• Oil and Gas Companies: May face headwinds due to higher taxes and shifting focus away from fossil fuels.

• Innovative Green Tech Firms: Could thrive through collaboration with GB Energy and access to government funding.

Labour’s new policies present a mixed bag for different segments of the energy sector. While renewable energy companies stand to benefit from increased government support and investment, traditional fossil fuel companies face potential challenges due to higher windfall taxes and a shift away from their core business.

The International Perspective: A Global Game-Changer?

As an international relations student, I can’t help but wonder about the global implication of Labour’s policies. Could the creation of Great British Energy and push for 100% clean power by 2030 serve as a model for other nations seeking to accelerate their own energy transition? Labour’s policies may inspire similar initiatives in other countries, potentially leading to a domino effect of increased investment in renewable energy worldwide, or it could put the UK at a competitive disadvantage in the global energy market.

The decision to end new oil and gas exploration licences in the North Sea may impact international energy supply chains and potentially affect global oil prices. This could lead to diplomatic tensions with oil-producing nations and reshape international energy trade relationships. Furthermore, Labour’s plans to introduce a carbon border adjustment mechanism could have significant implications for international trade. This policy aims to protect British industries as they decarbonise and prevent carbohydrates leakage, but it may also lead to trade disputes or retaliation from other countries.

If the UK can demonstrate that rapid decarbonisation is achievable without compromising economic growth or energy security, it could bolster international efforts to combat climate change and potentially influence future global climate negotiations.

Legal Labyrinth: Navigating the New Energy Landscape

The Great British Energy Bill, along with the National Wealth Fund Bill and the Crown Estate Bill, will form the legal backbone of Labour’s energy revolution. I’m fascinated by the potential complexities these new laws will introduce, particularly the Sustainable Aviation Fuel (Revenue Support Mechanism) Bill. With the UK’s only SAF producer, Philips 66, operating at limited capacity, this bill aims to jumpstart a domestic SAF industry. The bill represents an exciting opportunity for the UK to lead in decarbonising air travel. Commercial lawyers should anticipate increased demand for expertise in structuring deals and navigating regulations in this emerging market.

For aspiring commercial lawyers, Labour’s energy policies present both challenges and opportunities. We may expect to see:

• An increase in demand for regulatory expertise in the renewable energy sector, specifically emerging fields like SAF and offshore wind regulations.

• A rise in public-private partnerships as GB Energy collaborates with the private sector, requiring specialised knowledge.

• Complex restructuring work as traditional energy companies will require advice on diversification strategies to pivot towards greener alternatives.

Conclusion: A Brave New World or a Political Mirage?

Labour’s energy policies represent a bold attempt to align economic growth, energy security, affordability, and climate action. While the vision is commendable, the execution will be key. There are several questions that have yet to be answered:

• Can GB Energy truly deliver on its promises without stifling private sector innovation?

• How will the UK balance its ambitious green goals with short-term energy security needs?

• Will the legal framework being developed be robust enough to support this massive transition?

It is clear that the role of commercial lawyers will be more crucial than ever in shaping a sustainable and prosperous future for the UK energy sector.

---

If you are interested in this topic, and wish to research further, here are some links to get you started:

Labour Party – Manifesto 2024
https://labour.org.uk/change/

Ashfords – What does the new Labour government mean for the energy sector
https://www.ashfords.co.uk/insights/articles/what-does-the-new-labour-government-mean-for -the-energy-sector

Linklaters – King’s Speech 2024: Bills most relevant to the Green and Net Zero agenda.
https://sustainablefutures.linklaters.com/post/102jdp6/uk-kings-speech-2024-bills-most-relev ant-to-the-green-and-net-zero-agenda

PolicyMogul – King’s Speech 2024: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Revenue Support Mechanism Bill
https://policymogul.com/key-updates/37734/king-s-speech-2024-sustainable-aviation-fuel-re venue-support-mechanism-bill?search=null

By Henna Grewal

Green(Money) ≠ Green(Washing)

We live in a world where we cannot pass a single day without hearing about climate change and the need for change around us, and rightfully so this trend has finally caught up with the financial world.

Investors have been particularly interested in acquiring companies with successful environmental strategies to invest in the booming “green bonds” and “sustainability-linked bonds” (SLB) market. Green bonds are use-of-proceeds bonds (UOP). As consumers are demanding more ethical companies, these bonds are revolutionary in enabling corporations to follow and implement environmental guidelines. In fact, the recent UOP and SLB market is around $1 trillion and $250 billion respectively.

These bonds raise debt capital for the issuing company, usually at a lower yield price than traditional bonds making raising capital much cheaper. Furthermore, these bonds help alleviate the issuer's reputation in the general public as they claim to hold green credentials, furthering their financial growth in the long run. But what makes them so unique and how are these bonds utilised? Whilst SLBs and green bonds can be quite similar in the sense that they are linked to environmental goals, some major differences determine how the money is used and who can raise it.

SLBs can be issued by any company that sets out an environmental strategy with some key performance indicators (KPI), that they must meet. If an organisation does not meet its KPIs, there is a step-up price on the bonds that increases the money that it must pay to the debtholders. Furthermore, the money raised can be used for any purpose by the issuers including business expansion, if they wish to.

However, there are major concerns about companies greenwashing their strategies when issuing these bonds as almost any firm can raise them. As mentioned above, there is a step-up price on the bonds that increases its return price. However, the step-ups are often too small to incentivize issuers to clean up their environmentally hazardous practices. Furthermore, the call-up option allows investors to recall back bonds before the step-up, cheating the public by advertising their so-called green credentials.

Some of SLB’s drawbacks can be mitigated by issuing green bonds instead as they can be issued by majorly green companies, who wish to raise capital to further their green projects or assets. Thus, the money raised by green bonds must be used to invest in the company’s future green projects. These bonds act as a major incentive for companies who wish to become more environmentally sustainable but lack the funds to do so with the currently existing debt instruments.

This might seem like the better alternative, however, there are some practical considerations for investors. Firstly, as noted by many analysts, finding organisations that have major green projects or assets that can also provide sizable returns is quite difficult. Furthermore, there is a requirement to disclose any risks associated with the environmental practices, such as any transitory risks such as government policy changes or any harmful emissions from your sustainable practices. Conducting such extensive research adds to the cost of acquiring the company or prevents the issuers from raising capital through these bonds.

In navigating the evolving landscape of green and sustainability-linked bonds, investors must weigh the financial benefits against the challenges associated with ensuring genuine environmental commitments. Striking a balance between financial returns and environmental responsibility is crucial for shaping a sustainable and ethical financial future for companies and the general public.

By Priyal Barbariya

Changing Wills in the UAE

Could there be any doubt that the United Arab Emirates stands as the central hub, attracting companies from around the world seeking entry into the flourishing Middle Eastern market? A significant contributing factor is undeniably the relentless efforts and contributions of expatriates who came in search of jobs to support their families back home.

UAE’s massive expatriate population includes people from all over the world, predominantly South-East and Asian countries. Despite their various backgrounds, there is a similarity between these expatriates: UAE was not only a country that offered them job opportunities so they could support their families back home but has also become a home for their children. You will find many first-generation expatriates, especially in Dubai, as their parents eventually settled and decided to start their families in a once-foreign land. And starting a family in an unknown land without citizenship is a daunting task. One of the major concerns for parents was the uncertain future of their children and family in case they passed away, especially if they were non-Muslims as Dubai’s legal system draws inspiration heavily from Islamic values and codes of conducts.

In the UAE, Sharia law is the primary legislation for inheritance and succession laws. Previously, these laws would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims in the absence of a will. This would include laws wherein a son of the deceased could receive twice the inheritance of his sister, which can be uncommon in other countries. Also, there were practical considerations to be made as at the event of death the deceased’s bank accounts would be frozen until a judgement is passed. This can leave the remaining family in a tight position if the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and passed away in an accident.

From 1st February 2023, there has been a major change to Dubai Civil Codes: any inheritance of Non-Muslims will be divided according to the “laws applicable in the Deceased country of nationality at the time of his death.” This allows for expatriates to divide their property as per their home laws if they do not practise Islam and thus, would not wish to split their inheritance according to Sharia law. It has allowed for changes such as the division of property without differentiation of gender for the deceased's children and arguably a larger share for the spouse. This is welcomed as a positive change that has benefitted one of UAE’s vital populations, including some new regulations interconnected with inheritance law such as real estate and ownership law in the past few years.

As it has been applied recently, it is still left to see whether the practical considerations remain the same, including cases wherein the deceased expatriates own properties in the UAE. One would argue that the best way to avoid these issues would be to make a legal will and the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) also provides wills which can be made to suit the client’s needs. However, they can be quite expensive and inaccessible for people, especially for expatriates who can sometimes fall in the lower bracket of income earners in UAE.

In conclusion, this amendment to the Dubai Civil Code is an extremely important step in a series of many that the government has taken to provide for its expatriate population, and one must wait to see the overall impact. Given the UAE’s growing importance in the Middle East and the global landscape, such legal measures can prove to be quite useful when catering to a wider and more diverse population.

By Priyal Barbariya

Was Max Verstappen’s Formula 1 Abu Dhabi 2021 victory legal?

The Federation Internationale de l’Automobile is the top governing body regarding motor cars and is the highest authority in Formula 1. They work together with the marshals and stewards to ensure safe and lawful racing; they do this through FIA statutes and the FIA International Sporting Code. The organisation was founded in 1904, but a new system was put in place in 2010 by the FIA General Assembly. This changed rules and established an International Court of Appeal and International Tribunal.

In 2021 in the last race of the season, Max Verstappen won in Abu Dhabi, leading him to win the world championship with Red Bull, beating Lewis Hamilton. The win was the subject of worldwide controversy in regards to whether or not it was a valid and legal victory. Hamilton, who races for Mercedes, protested to stewards that FIA regulations had been breached; therefore, he should have won. However, in the final lap, the race director decided only the drivers who had been lapped between Verstappen in p2 and Hamilton in p1 had to unlap themselves.

This allowed Verstappen room to overtake and win the race. A second point of controversy was the decision that Verstappen could overtake in the same lap that cars were told to unlap themselves. Therefore, the big question is: was it illegal as Mercedes have claimed? Art.48 2021 Formula One Sporting Regulations dictates the ‘safety car’ procedures. 48.12 requires the safety car to complete an additional lap, which did not happen in Abu Dhabi. The director, Michael Masi, called the safety car to the pit lane before this could happen. However, this was completely legal as Art.15.3 explains that the race director has ‘overriding authority’ on the ‘use of the safety car’. It is also overridden by Art.48.13, which states, ‘when the clerk of the course decides it is safe to call in the safety car’, the message will be sent to all competitors.

The FIA came out with a statement explaining the decision and defending the race directors’ actions; this is important in retaining the critical ‘field of play doctrine’. This is an important overriding principle that allows the race director to officiate without legal interference. Mercedes did not decide to appeal after the decision was made.

For the 2022 F1 season, the FIA decided to update and clarify the wording in Art.55.13, which should now be unambiguous so that there is no room for interpretation and controversy in future races. The wording has been changed from ‘any’ cars to ‘all’ cars, so now it reads, ‘all cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the Safety Car’. Therefore, the race director’s decision was legal, and not all lapped cars had to receive the order. The other point of controversy, which was allowing Verstappen to overtake on the same lap as the unlapping on the cars between him and Hamilton, was not changed prior to the 2022 season.

To conclude, as explained, the law surrounding safety cars and unlapping in 2021 was ambiguous, meaning the race director could interpret the code as he wished in the high-pressure moments of the last lap of the season. Therefore, Verstappen’s victory was legal and thoroughly deserved. Although some of the law has now been changed for the 2022 season, it is not retroactive so it cannot apply to races that have passed.

By Emily Rummey

The impact of Russia's invasion on the everyday person

Lawyers have a reputation of being “blood-sucking parasites (with) a briefcase” (Bee Movie, 2007) for fair reasons. One of those is that the role of a lawyer requires removing any emotive or controversial aspect to consider an issue in a seemingly cold and rational manner. It is important to consider every angle of any situation, which requires the removal of social views.

In this article, I will be discussing the potential developments that commercial law may see in relation to the sanctions placed on Russia. There is no doubt that the crisis occurring between Ukraine and Russia is a travesty, and it is highly sensitive to discuss. However, my focus is not on the political or humanitarian aspects. Instead, I will consider the impact of the invasion on Russia’s economy in the long-term and the impact on everyday life in both the long and short term.

Putin has struck at a time when some of the world’s former leading powers are weak and fragmented. America is facing an internal war over ideology and American values. The UK’s government is weak, its place in Europe is questionable, and there are still the effects of the pandemic on global economies. As Peter Watson says on his podcast (shout out to Watson’s Daily), he has played his cards at the right time. However, these global powers may have surprised him by acting so quickly.

There is a lot of hesitancy in the reactions of global powers, anxious about escalating threats. In an ideal world, all these powers could join against Putin, like the MCU in Endgame. Unfortunately, that is impractical in the real world and therefore, they have had to be more creative with their sanctions.

We have seen an increase in gas prices – suppliers have already been suffering and energy sources are struggling, but Russia’s actions have forced a surge in prices. Russia is Europe’s largest supplier of natural gasses, though the UK’s reliance is at 3%. The continent’s reliance on its gasses also makes it one of its most significant exports. Hence, it makes sense that we should reduce our reliance on this to harm their economy. The EU has plans to cut Russian gas imports by two-thirds, and the UK aims to reduce its imports by the end of the year. This is especially detrimental to Russia’s economy in the long term, but quite damaging to other global economies in the short term. President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, expressed her fears of high inflation paired with high unemployment. Here fears are not entirely misplaced, as we have already seen Russia’s impact on the everyday person, especially those from lower-income backgrounds – the material difference in these gas prices has already been detrimental. There has (again) been a panic buying spree, which will inevitably see an increase in prices, as we have seen throughout the pandemic.

Furthermore, supply chains have proven their fragility. Exports of grain and wheat, of which Russia is the world’s largest producer (holding a 17% share of the global market), have halted. Ukraine exports about 10%, making it the fifth largest exporter. This means that about 30% of wheat exports have been damaged. As a result, prices of wheat-based products have increased. Those from lower economic backgrounds, who are still suffering the consequences of the pandemic, are likely to see an exasperation in food insecurity. One Russia’s invasion results has been an increase in self-sufficiency – detrimental for the short term but beneficial for the long term. While in the long term we are likely to see a greater reliance on green sources of energy (about time!), there is the consequence of higher taxes and an increase in prices. The lack of certainty has contributed to the unsteady market and will continue to harm consumers until producers can increase their supply and please supply inefficiency.

There is still hope; however – the government proved it was willing and had the capacity to help businesses during the pandemic, so they are clearly capable of doing the same if they treat this crisis seriously and respond quickly. One benefit of the embarrassing scandals the government has seen itself gain the spotlight for means that they are likely more desperate to regain the public’s support. Therefore, if we can continue to pressure them to support our economy, perhaps by inviting Ukrainians in to work the currently understaffed jobs and subsequently allowing our economy to continue, we may be okay.

If we have learned anything from the past few years, it’s that we should stop calling things unprecedented and start acting on things we know need to be done, rather than procrastinating and playing the blame-game.

Now, nothing is impossible, so we need to prepare on an individual and on a wider scale for the expected, such as the consequences of global warming, and the unexpected. After all, if this has not pressured governments and businesses to be more prepared and independent, then what will?

 By Amy Dugwell

The Rise in Drink Spiking Cases in Manchester: How the Legal System Can Help

Having your drink spiked is when a substance such as drugs (illegal and prescription) or alcohol have been unknowingly added to your drink. This carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence, but spiking is often done in order to make the victim more vulnerable and subject to other crimes such as rape and robbery, which have added sentences. Many spikings occur using ‘Date Rape’ drugs that take effect quickly and are often hard to identify because they have no colour, smell, or taste. The symptoms of being spiked are very similar to those of excessive alcohol or drug use, making it harder to recognise if someone has been spiked or if they’ve just had ‘one too many’ to drink. Symptoms range from vomiting to unconsciousness and even death in severe cases. Unfortunately, most of the symptoms are similar to alcohol and drug use, meaning victims are often not taken seriously or helped at all. The effects of being spiked leave not only short-term physical injury, but also long-lasting psychological effects such as PTSD and anxiety. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 concluded in a recent survey that up to 25 people in England and Wales have their drink spiked each week, primarily young women. However, even this shocking statistic is likely underestimated as a lot of victims do not report being spiked.

Since university students have come back in September and clubs have re-opened after restrictions eased, there has been a significant rise in spiking in Manchester. According to the BBC, eight women in Manchester have reported being spiked over the recent weeks, and three were hospitalised after being spiked at a bar in Deansgate on the 4th of October. Also, in just 25 days, there were five reports of spiking at one bar in Fallowfield (where the majority of Manchester University students live). Women are already advised to use preventative measures and be cautious about getting drinks spiked, but now there are reports of spiking by injection. Police patrols have increased in the areas with the largest increase in cases, these being Fallowfield and the city centre. The Manchester Students’ Union has organised a club boycott called ‘Girls Night In’ on October 27th, in order to force clubs to increase their safety measures. Bars and clubs should not have to be forced into safety measures by students; they should be forced by the government. It is a travesty that the only law surrounding the issue is that it’s a criminal offence. Clubs need to be legally obliged to implement safety measures in order to keep women safe.

Some clubs such as 256 in Fallowfield offer safety caps and lids for drinks making it harder for substances to be dropped in. If there was a law in place for these to be free of charge and available in all clubs, women would feel a lot safer. Unfortunately, sometimes it’s the bartenders that spike the drinks; for this to be prevented, laws should be passed making a thorough screening mandatory when recruiting new bartenders.

Furthermore, there is a safety initiative called ‘Ask for Angela’, which makes it easy for women on a night out to indicate that they need help to escape a current situation promptly, by ‘Asking for Angela’, (e.g. to the bartender). It was rolled out by the Met Police to bars, clubs, and businesses in London but not nationwide. This initiative or something similar should be taught to all club and bar staff and students should be informed.; This would make getting help a lot quicker and easier.

To conclude, there are many things the legal system could implement in order to counter this issue, and these are only a few. With spiking cases rising and methods becoming more discreet and malicious, it is time for the government to step up and prevent the situation from worsening.

The ownership of Taylor Swift’s masters - and how it’s a common issue amongst others in the music industry.

In honour of Taylor Swift re-recording her old albums, I thought that a brief overview of the messy legal situation that ensued when her masters were first bought by Scooter Braun would be very fitting.  

There is a common misconception that she made the decision to re-release her old albums out of ‘greed’ and hunger for more money. But that’s not the case at all. In fact, the ownership of masters is a huge issue for the majority of artists out there because not all of them own it, including other big artists like Ariana Grande! If the term ‘masters’ sounds unfamiliar to you, it basically refers to the official recording of a song and most record labels will have control of them.

This all began when Taylor was a mere 15 years old. She signed a contract with her old label, Big Machine Records, which meant that all the rights to her music will be given to BMR, and they have the right to control the use of any of her work under this contractual agreement. Now you might be thinking, this is pretty much her own fault for allowing all of her work to be signed over. So, what’s the issue? The problem is that since the music industry is highly competitive, any young teen in her position would have done the same thing. In fact, they still do. At the end of the day, she wanted a record deal. At that age, she didn’t realise the implications of it and how valuable that would be. It was an investment into her singing career, and it clearly helped. How many talented contestants do you see on TV shows like the Voice or XFactor and they just... disappear? In this industry, having good vocals and songwriting skills isn’t enough. Unfortunately for Taylor, it meant that she had to sacrifice the ownership of her first six albums.

So, this takes us to 2018. Taylor refused to sign a new contract at BMR and instead made a huge move to Universal Music Groups. This was great news as she has since owned all of her albums released under UMG! But then, in 2019 BMR was purchased. This meant all her hard work was handed over when it was acquired by Scooter and his company, Ithaca Holdings. This outraged Taylor. Not just because these were songs she had actually written herself, but because her former manager at BMR, Scott Borchetta, had betrayed her trust. She noted that she knew Scott would be selling the label and also handing over her work. She just didn’t know who it was going to be sold to. This whole ordeal was only known to her when the news went public. To quickly sum up the personal beef, so I don’t stray away from the legal issues, Scooter Braun is a huge name in the industry. He has always been after Taylor. He manages big names like Justin Bieber, Kanye West and Ariana Grande. Imagine being the manager of the artist of the decade too? According to Swift, her “music legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it. Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter”

It is devastating for any artist not to own their work, but for someone who has repeatedly bullied her throughout her career (according to Swift) to own it? Not cool.

So, what’s the deal now? Well, in Taylor’s contract with BMR, it stated she was allowed to start her re-recordings from November 2020. And nearly a year later, she has done exactly that. As of April, this year, she released Fearless. This is Taylor’s version of her previous album that had won four Grammys, including Album of the Year and the first of her six albums she owns! Meaning, her iconic tracks like ‘Love Story’ and ‘You Belong With Me’ are now owned by her! And, as of November 12th this year, she is set to release Red (Taylor’s version). It’s been an emotional moment for fans and Taylor herself, as she has full rights over songs she has spent time writing in her bedroom since she was a teenager. This is only the beginning.

What does this mean for the music industry as a whole? This controversy has definitely raised awareness for future and current artists to not fall into contracts out of desperation, because it will cost them in the future. Another similar situation occurred to a popular soul singer, Anita Baker, where she had previously requested fans not to stream her music as she was not making any money. But fortunately for Baker, earlier this year she took to Twitter to announce she now owns her masters, and her fans were given the green light to stream! Rapper 21 Savage also stated that owning his masters earned him more money than touring. He stated in a podcast that he had learnt from other rappers “who f***** up” and “ain't do it the right way.”.

The fact that a big artist like Swift isn’t in control of all her music is quite a shock, but unfortunately, a common occurrence in the industry. For the law students who are interested in contract law, this may be of interest to you and something you may want to research further. It’s very likely the artist you listen to also does not own their masters. Here’s to hoping Swift’s decisions will be making a long-term impact on upcoming artists landing themselves a record deal, just as she has always impacted the music industry.

By Amena Khan

The Need for Change in the UK Legal System Regarding the Fashion Industry and Its Ever-Increasing Environmental Impact

What is Fast-Fashion?

Over the last 20 years, there has been a significant drop in clothing prices, accompanied by a decrease in quality. This has made the ‘trend-cycle’ quicker as everyone can afford to purchase every new trend. Because everyone is wearing the same style items, it means trends becomes ‘unfashionable’ faster. The low prices, and societal pressure to keep up with the cycle have led to over-consumption and the vastly growing ‘fast-fashion’ industry has emerged. The purchase of clothing rose by 20% between 2012 and 2016, and is expected to rise 63% by 2030.

The Environmental Issues caused by the Fast-Fashion Industry

Due to the trend-cycle becoming quicker, the amount of textiles disposed of in household waste has risen to 921,000 tonnes. This is a major issue as the vast majority of fibres used are not biodegradable; instead of being recycled, 87% are incinerated or disposed of in landfill. Experts have estimated that the fashion industry is the cause of around 10% of all carbon emissions. The increase in production of garments to keep up with the trend-cycle has led to a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The fashion industry’s textile production has caused emissions equivalent to whole countries, such as France and the UK. As well as atmospheric pollution, the ocean is also being affected; The Ellen MacArthur Foundation recently published in a report that the amount of non-biodegradable microfibers found in the ocean each year was equivalent to over 50 billion plastic bottles.

What Needs to be Done?

In 2019, the Environmental Agency issued a report with 18 recommendations to the UK government of ideas that should be implemented into the legal system, in order to counter the fashion industry’s environmental footprint. One recommendation was a ban on incinerating or disposing of clothes in landfill if they can be recycled. This would stop so many clothes from being incinerated and stop the mass production of textiles because clothing would be re-worked into new items instead. Another recommendation was that fashion retailers should be required to have a Sustainable Clothing Action Plan membership, run by the organisation WRAP. The plan’s goal is to reduce the environmental damage done by the fashion industry, but is currently only a voluntary membership, with 11 retailers taking part. If the government were to make this mandatory, it would force fashion brands into taking accountability and action to help save the environment. The government rejected all of the report’s recommendations.

In Sweden, they recently introduced a chemical tax on clothes, in France they recently passed an anti-waste law and, in the USA, if you donate clothing to charity organisations you can be eligible for tax deductions. Many countries seem to be acknowledging that change is a necessity; however, the UK government is not taking action. Legal repercussions need to be implemented for companies that do not produce and sell sustainably. Nonetheless, due to the financial pressure on retailers already following multiple lockdowns, it is unlikely the government will follow any recommendations or take inspiration from the countries mentioned.

The Environmental Agency report and the recent changes from Sweden, France and the USA demonstrate that a lot more could be implemented to promote sustainability in the fashion industry. It is essential the UK government takes the issue more seriously before it is too late to save the environment.

by Emily Rummey 

The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence in Law

The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence in Law

As advancements within legal technology continue to evolve, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has forced legal industries to adapt their way of conducting business in line with the ever-changing online platform. The concept of a world led by artificial intelligence continues to edge closer within the realms of reality, as the prevalence of technology in the legal sector has seen a dramatic shift in the way the industry functions. Whilst this has accelerated already existing trends within the legal community, such innovative forms of online legal conducts are not only permanently changing the way different types of business are conducted, but is also making the overall process more efficient.

Machines as Inventors and AI Judges

Historically, there has been an intrinsic focus on human inventorship regarding new patents for inventions. Under patent law, human ingenuity has been recognised as a cornerstone feature of novel inventions. In the recent case of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2020] the DABUS intelligence system was ruled to qualify under the definition of an inventor. This was a transformative decision, perceiving an AI machine as capable of inventing in the same capacity as human inventors, where the possibilities of future creations become limitless with the acceptance of AI inventors within patent law. Following such a ruling, it will be interesting to see which countries follow and consider the possibilities of machine system inventors.

The continuation of artificial intelligence developments in the legal sector continue to expand further, with countries such as China trialling the first non-human judges in the Hangzhou Internet Court, being tested first in small groups. Whilst still in its developmental stages, the possibilities of this advancing into a valid alternative to human legal counsel continue to grow, as online legal action becomes more accepted and widely used in society following the pandemic.

This creates room for the possibilities of artificial intelligence judges, mediators, and even perhaps lawyers, where the online sphere and machines can be used to undertake the more menial jobs in these roles that extend to lawyer-client interactions. Could this potentially diminish the need for human judges and lawyers in the long run? Whilst this does offer a viable alternative, enabling lawyers to conduct client meetings from anywhere in the world, AI will struggle to replace the more unique aspects of human interactions such as the ability to recognise body language and differing tones in language.

Where Does This Leave Us?

Such pioneering advancements in the field of legal technology should still be approached with caution. The rate of technological progression, currently expanding rapidly, must not be rushed as such online legal developments still need quality control which only becomes more complex in the online sphere. It must be recognised though, that such advancements contribute positively to the socio-technological sector and improve the way that businesses operate. Increasing numbers of leading commercial law firms are also adopting the use of AI and automated technology to provide efficient strategies and offer their clients more innovative legal solutions. It would seem that implementing artificial intelligence systems into a business’s approach is the way forward. The extent of this unique interaction in the legal tech industry is likely to continue to progress at an expansive rate and whilst the capabilities of future inventions is yet unknown, it will likely surpass our expectations.

by Foziah Syed

What Has Caused The Energy Crisis?

What Has Caused The Energy Crisis?

For those of you who don’t pay for household bills separately from rent, or you’ve simply been living under a rock, you probably won’t know that a big story recently is energy. Over the past week or so, big energy companies like Avro Energy and Green have ended up going bust. This has caused a massive outrage amongst around 830,000 customers who have had to automatically switch provider to a far more expensive option. But why is this happening? Well, to be honest the list is quite exhaustive and long.

One of the reasons seems to be from China hogging quite a bit of gas importation. As economies progressively recover from the impact of the pandemic, countries across the Northern Hemisphere, which tend to experience long and cold winters, have been left with very little gas supplies. Gas prices in the UK have more than quadrupled over the last year, and market experts believe this was due to China’s demand for gas being raised to nearly 10% of its 2020 demand. Consequently, China’s imports of gas have surged by almost 20%, meaning that there have been fewer shipments to Western European countries from Eastern countries like Qatar.

Thisnews is really bad for the UK in particular. The UK’s model for generating electricity typically utilises gas-fired powerplants, at least 50% of them anyway. Just to add to this mess, though, it seems nature doesn’t like us that much either: wind turbines are going through really slow revolutions during some of the least windy months since 1961. The UK is partly to blame,  however. Although we are so reliant on gas for cooking, heating, and electricity, the UK has some of the lowest gas storage statistics in Europe. We, in all of our intellect and wisdom, keep a solid 1% of Europe’s stored gas. Yes, I thought the same don’t worry. In turn, Britain has been forced to fire up its coal power stations again, paying millions of pounds to companies to keep making ends meet in the power department.

So, simply following the laws of supply and demand, gas prices have hit a record high. And yes, the supply chain disruptions are certainly not helping. So, of course this costs energy providers more to buy the energy, but due to government caps on energy price increases, providers cannot transfer full price make-ups onto customers. Ofgem is the company that checks energy tariffs twice per year and also set a price cap on how much energy providers can charge users for gas. Now, the price cap is supposed to rise more than 12% from 1 October onwards and will probably rise again next April. But, with winter coming and energy prices still hitting record highs, these price hikes will not come fast enough for smaller energy suppliers to survive through the winter.

It is quite unfortunate really given that smaller suppliers only joined the market after Ofgem dropped the barriers to enter the energy supply market to increase competition for the Big Six suppliers. This isn’t necessarily a bad idea; more competition makes the free market fairer, or at least the public’s perception of it fairer anyway. But, Ofgem has already backtracked on the scheme, setting strict stress tests for companies who wish to become energy suppliers. But this crisis is meant to unwind all of the hard work done by the 2014 easement in just over six months, leaving an estimated 10 companies left in the energy by Spring.

At the end of the day, the UK needs to solve this issue. The impact of the energy crisis has knock-on effects for most other industries, including farming and the food and drinks industry, although I would like to make it clear that the energy crisis is likely only to be a short-term problem. Nevertheless, the Government could start underwriting all of the debt that energy suppliers are inevitably going to fall in during the upcoming months; this would certainly allow smaller companies to get back on their feet again after the winter.

The UK may not ever run out of gas even with its counter-intuitive storage model, but running out of affordable gas would have the same catastrophic effect either way.

by Declan Larkin

The Impact of the Financial Crisis Over a Decade Later

The Impact of the Financial Crisis Over a Decade Later

The financial crisis of 2008 was the first time the world had seen the cracks in the Fiat money system established after Nixon’s abolishment of the gold-backed US dollar in 1971. I find it fascinating how a seemingly isolated issue in the sub-prime US mortgage market had far-reaching consequences in other financial systems. In response to the 2008 financial crisis, for example, the UK Government issued a bank rescue package totalling £500 billion to save banks like Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland.  But the question you probably want answering is: why?

The answer is that financial institutions are much more closely connected to each other since governments removed restrictions on being able to move money around the world. UK banks like Northern Rock had expanded rather aggressively after the unfortunate events of 9/11 and turned to international money markets to fund its rapid growth. So, when problems in the US sub-prime mortgage started to spread to Europe, UK banks were beginning to run short of money to meet their losses. Consequently, what became known as a liquidity crisis followed: banks didn’t have enough money in the form of cash – known as liquid assets – to operate as a safety in the occurrence of a bank run. Unfortunately, what was feared finally came to be as on the 14th of September 2007, the first UK bank run for over 140 years was triggered on Northern Rock.

A further issue to add to this absolute mess was that the legal framework for bankrupt banks was wholly unsatisfactory in two ways. Unlike present-day where any money in a bank up to £85,000 is protected under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), only deposits of £2,000 would be protected back then, so people were left very unhappy. Once this news got out then, it followed that what happened with Northern Rock happened to many banks across the UK. Why is that a big problem? Well, all businesses rely on some form of debt finance to function – mostly loans from banks - so when the banking sector fails, it pulls down the rest of the economy with it. Consequently, the UK ended up running through a recession which lasted for five quarters: the deepest UK recession since the Second World War.

So, another question: why should you care? Well, problems from the 2008 recession still impact us today. It probably would be useful for me to reiterate the scale of the crisis to you, readers. The crisis required a write-down of over $2 trillion from financial institutions alone, while the lost growth resulting from the crisis and ensuing recession has been estimated at over $10 trillion, which was estimated to be around one-sixth of the total GDP in 2008.

Many of the direct effects of the crisis still remain active concerns: debt levels across advanced economies, while declining, are still far above where they were before the crisis. Similarly, although unemployment in Mediterranean Europe has begun to decline, it still remains incredibly high – over 15% in Spain and 20% in Greece.

Both the framework and the administration of the economy have also changed profoundly. Both the political power and balance sheets of central banks have reached unprecedented levels as they have taken on an increased role in regulating the financial system. Consequently, control measures were put in place in the form of implementing monetary policy management and employing new tools such as quantitative easing and bank ‘stress testing. ’Perhaps less known, and less tangibly, the credibility of economists and bankers remains tarnished. As the Queen famously asked of distinguished economists at the London School of Economics during the height of the crisis, it is still unclear to many observers how so many economists so badly misjudged such a critical risk within their own profession. Additionally, the combination of recovery of financial assets, capital injections of banks, and bailouts from governments created an impression that the people above us prioritised lining their own pockets more than the needs of individuals. This combination of scepticism of both the motives and accuracy of the economics profession has had profound political effects, most notably the failures of economic analysis to be persuasive in the Brexit referendum or in response to protectionist platforms such as those of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Indeed, a year ago, there was controversy when the chief economist of the Bank of England went so far as to claim the economics profession remains in an ongoing state of crisis.

Nevertheless, it seems that the impact of the financial crisis keeps bringing new economic challenges as we enter a new decade. Technology has created new markets for data while threatening mass unemployment and an end to a manufacturing-based development model. The Bank of England is offering its lowest Bank Rate in a long time, hitting a solid 0.1%, in hopes that it will make people borrow more credit, thus making the economy grow. However, it must be noted that central banks are cautious when doing this, as inflation and bank rates are inversely correlated: as bank rates lower, inflation gets higher, and vice versa. Central banks tend to manipulate the rate of inflation by setting and adjusting bank rates, constantly increasing and decreasing them to grow and decline the economy to meet inflation targets.

To summarise, it is clear that the financial crisis still impacts us today, and although it sounds like the government has control over the situation, the lowering of the bank rate by the Federal Reserve in America is what kickstarted the financial crisis in 2008. So, with time, we will see whether governments have learnt their lesson, or whether we will fall down the same rabbit hole from over a decade ago.

 By Declan Larkin

Major Labels: Minor Artists

Major Labels: Minor Artists 

Many young aspiring musicians, with dreams of one day being successful, do not have a competent manager or legal team to help them understand the intricacies of recording contracts. So, when presented with one for the first time by a record label – perhaps being lured by the prospects of success - they sign whatever deal they have been offered. On the face of it, it is normal business – a fair transaction that could benefit both parties. But is there another view?

An inequality of bargaining power arises when one party controls or dominates the terms of a contract, leaving the ‘weaker’ party with no opportunity to renegotiate or modify the terms. The stronger party therefore insists on a ‘take it or leave it’ agreement. Although inequality of bargaining power may often create ‘unfair’ outcomes for the weaker party, such inequality is not, in itself, sufficient to render a contract legally unenforceable. In instances where there is inequality of bargaining power, for a contract to be unenforceable there must have also been some form of inequitable or unconscionable conduct on the part of one of the parties – for example, an unreasonable restraint of trade, as in A. Schroeder Music Publishing Co. Ltd. v. Macaulay [1974], or undue influence, as in O'Sullivan v. Management Agency and Music Ltd. [1985]. Though not sufficient on its own, an inequality of bargaining power in these instances would certainly make a stronger case for the weaker party seeking to be freed from the contract.

In this discussion, we will focus specifically on the concept of inequality of bargaining power in the music industry, and the unfair consequences it has for artists. It is no secret that many large record companies use their wealth, influence, and investment power to exploit artists who are vulnerable, and who are either misadvised or not advised at all about the legal ramifications of signing recording contracts. This has caused many gifted artists to sign unfavourable contracts, including those featuring long-term arrangements, the granting of exclusive rights, and exploitative royalty reductions.

Before the digital revolution in the music industry (marked by Spotify’s global success), artists were typically offered what was then the ‘standard contract’. These contracts were often long-term agreements, because they required the artist to complete a certain number of albums for the contract to be fulfilled (one album can take several years to produce and release). If deemed profitable, the duration of the agreement could be extended at the record company’s discretion – and without the permission of the artist – by way of a unilateral extension clause. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, these types of contracts were detrimental because they frequently trapped young, talented artists for a number of years. Such artists, lacking negotiating power and adequate professional advice, might later realize that they had not understood or appreciated the full extent and nature of the agreement. For some artists, these long-term relationships with their labels caused further distress: (i) where it was felt that the label subjected the artist to abusive treatment (as in Gottwald v Sebert [2016] the infamous Kesha and Dr. Luke case); (ii) where the label stifled the creativity of the artist; and (iii) where the label was neglectful and oppressive in its management of the artist’s career (as in Rita Ora v Roc Nation LLC [2015]).  

Recently, however, because of the rise of streaming services, shorter-term contracts such as single, licensing, and extended play deals have become popular. Thus, issues concerning long-term agreements may be gradually diminishing. The current willingness of labels to implement shorter contracts allows greater flexibility for both newly emerging artists and labels, so both parties can test the business waters, as it were, whilst avoiding many of the detrimental consequences of long-term commitments.

At the same time, inequality of bargaining power might still rear its head when artists sign deals that assign copyrights to the label, as well as deals that contain hidden royalty reductions and disadvantageous royalty splits. First, remember that the copyright in a musical recording exists in two forms: (i) the composition copyright; and (ii) the sound recording copyright. The composition copyright concerns the protection of the actual lyrics and melodies of the song (the ‘musical works’) and is held by the songwriter. The sound recording copyright, on the other hand, protects a particular recorded performance of the song (the ‘master’). Interestingly, it is standard industry practice for the copyright in masters to be collectively assigned to the record label in advance, at the time when the artist signs the first record deal. Contentious issues may arise, however, where an artist fails to secure a reversion of copyright clause - the effect being that the artist would have just signed away the rights to all masters made with that label (both released and unreleased) for the entirety of his or her career (copyright lasts for the life of the author, plus another seventy years). This of course is bad news for the artist, for it means that he or she cannot freely exercise any of the exclusive rights in the assigned masters (for instance, rights of distribution and public performance) without the permission of the label. This state of affairs will continue even after the artist has left the label and signed with a new one, and we can see this illustrated in the infamous Taylor Swift/Scooter Braun saga – the result of a deal which Swift signed at the age of 14. The inequality of bargaining power is frequently an issue here, because it is not often that an artist can demand a reversion of copyright clause - a clause which returns the masters to the artist at a future date - unless he or she has exceptional power and status in the industry.

Next, many of us might know how to scream the lyrics of TLC’s ‘No Scrubs’ in a 90s music throwback marathon. What some might not know, however, is that the iconic R&B/hip-hop girl group was at the height of its fame when it experienced serious financial difficulties that eventually led to its filing for bankruptcy in 1995: this was not long after the group had grossed around 14 million album sales. In a highly publicised dispute with their former manager, Perri Reid, it was revealed that not only did TLC sign a management deal (with Pebbitone) that was riddled with unfair and exorbitant royalty deductions, but that they were also persuaded by Reid to sign a deal with LaFace Records which gave TLC a 7% royalty split on the total income from their records, leaving the group members with only 56 cents per album sold, to be divided among the three of them! Reid, who later filed a suit for defamation, said in respect of the royalty rate that this was ‘just the type of deal that new artists get’. Though this is true, it seems highly exploitative that artists should enter into contracts where the label and management are perpetually cashing in, while the artists are being left to hang dry, even in the face of astronomical global success. TLC, in an interview, reflected on the fact that the band members were too immature to understand the full extent of such a contractual arrangement. Again, in Rita Ora v Roc Nation, Ora’s record label was accused of subjecting her – at the age of 18 - to a financially oppressive agreement whereby the label took a large portion of the income from all her live shows, record sales, merchandise, and sponsorships. Meanwhile, in return, Ora was provided with poor marketing and investment services.

All in all, with little or no opportunity to negotiate the terms of contracts, artists today often find themselves trapped in exploitative long-term agreements, having no rights over their own masters, or receiving miniscule royalty payments, despite their great success as creative artists. To help combat the effects of an inequality of bargaining power, an artist, especially if inexperienced, should obtain professional advice, so he or she may fully understand the legal ramifications of his or her contracts, and avoid signing agreements that could prove to be deceptive, costly, and distressing for many years into the future.

By Jessica Kodilinye

Is Technology Actually Harming Law Firms?

Is Technology Actually Harming Law Firms?

In our ever-changing, always evolving world, one of the challenges facing law firms is technology. The implementation of technology into the legal profession has had an obvious positive impact on firms – for example, speeding up international networking and allowing law firms to form stronger and more stable relationships with clients. However, it is important to take a step back and remember that law firms are first and foremost businesses.

Today’s companies need lawyers not only to resolve any legal issues it may face, but also to support any business endeavours they wish to embark on. In big city law firms, you are not only legal advisors, but also business advisors. It is no wonder why law firms care so much about their employees possessing commercial awareness. Nevertheless, the modern world requires lawyers to stay current and, along with a standard deep level of legal knowledge, have additional skills in the area of technology. Without such efforts, a law firm risks falling behind in many ways.

From the first day of your degree or the first day studying law at A-level, you would have been taught that lawyers embrace the idea of stare decisis, the arguably rigid doctrine that makes our laws so inflexible. Given that, it should come as no surprise when I tell you that the legal profession is struggling to adopt technology. One thing you will find is that lawyers and time get along very well, because, well,… time is money. Although the industry has and will continue to become more enjoyable and inclusive for young prospective lawyers due to more mundane tasks like due diligence and contract reading being completed by new legal tech, it is not making law firms any money when working on it. A widespread view in the industry is that any time spent on non-billable work is a waste of time, subsequently making law firms still reluctant to develop tech into their business models. Time spent on developing technology needed to keep up with clients and employees’ expectations will take time and manpower, all of which does not bring any money in for the firm. Even more food for thought are the looming questions that derive from such an interpretation of legal tech: can lawyers really bill clients for work they themselves have not done? Now I am sure that could become a legal issue that the Supreme Court of England and Wales will hear someday. However, let’s say they could bill this type of work for the sake of my point; surely tasks being done by tech and lawyers simultaneously is inevitably going to resolve client issues quicker, meaning less income. Now I know that is quite a money-grabbing, cynical way to look at it, but a business has to stay afloat somehow.

Additionally, tech also brings an issue of cost. Investing in new technology is always unpopular due to the investment’s return not being immediately apparent. Some forms of technology are expensive, and it doesn’t help that legal tech is, according to experts anyway, fifteen years behind that of other forms of technology we currently use. It is clear that the issue with legal tech is that it is a marathon and not a sprint, and it consequently is enough to deter law firms from developing or continuing to develop any. I think this is perhaps slightly overplayed as an excuse though. Renting office space, for example, doesn’t result in an immediate injection of capital for a business, but is still seen as a necessary cost of doing business. Technology should be viewed in the same way.

At the same time, however, it is understandable that law firms may be concerned with client satisfaction. If we take the analogy of the second paragraph and agree that law firms can charge clients for tech doing some of the firm’s work, in an industry where clients are billed a certain figure every six-minute increment, technology needs to be reliable. Suppose the tech used creates a time lag for any work done by the firm. In that case, this could amount to massive losses for a client and might result in tarnished reputations and clients even leaving the firm. Law firms additionally must be careful with the increasing threat of cybersecurity, which they have to be sensitive to, given the notorious reputation of legal privilege.

To conclude, it is becoming easier to come to terms with the fact that firms are being forced into adopting this new tech-savvy world. No prospective client wants to employ a firm that does not know how to use tech, nor do a prospective employee want to work for a firm which appears to be outdated and obsolete. Now, is the development of technology a good thing? Of course. But firms are being too heavily targeted for their current standard of legal tech without people taking a moment to take in the entire challenge they are choosing to take on. Technology does, at least more so in the short term, definitely harm the legal world.

 By Declan Larkin

2008 to 2021- What’s Going on with Retail?

Lasting effects of the 2008 financial crisis

Since the last financial crisis, businesses generally struggled to reconcile their post-recession successes. Even where businesses were becoming more profitable mid-decade, they soon felt the crunch from weaker exchange rates forcing up costs and prices, ultimately impacting profit and consequently R&D and innovation. Notably, Marks & Spencer’s 19% decrease in profit saw them fall out of the FTSE 100- for a name that most associate with the UK’s high-street, this story led to questions as to how viable traditional business models relying on walk-in consumers are going to continue to be.

Non-monetary factors were also responsible. Where Links of London’s owners were embroiled in an accounting scandal thus causing reputational damage, Marks & Spencer had long been struggling with a top-heavy business culture criticised for being out of touch with the true requirements of the business.

Pre-Pandemic

Where 2018 was the ‘year of the CVA’ as credited by Lexology, 2019 was the year of insolvency filings- 44 large retailers entered administration in the first half of the year with notable names including Mamas & Papas, LK Bennett and Links of London. Between then and now the economic landscape has changed dramatically, leading to greater strength for the argument that the UK’s high-street is seeing its demise. As regards insolvency, it is quite clear that corporate rescue is now no longer the going priority for insolvency practitioners with creditors keen to get back their debts. 

Adapting post-pandemic

Ignoring the impact of Brexit, fast forward to 2021 and the pandemic, and it is quite clear that consumer behaviour in driving the success/failure of companies has been beyond influential, with Deloitte analysts predicting that the rapid shift to online channels in 2020 is a change here to stay with real propensity to impact traditional UK companies’ brand/market power. In order to ensure that more companies do not fall down the slippery slope of insolvency or being bought out by Boohoo (a whole topic in itself), companies must invest in developing their digital presences with emphasis on efficiency through new distribution and logistics capacity.

Although one can remark 'ah that was inevitable’ when it comes to discussing the UK high-street, whether companies learn from their failings a decade ago and adapt accordingly to digital business and consumers’ new preferences now (which involve greater care for sustainability) is a matter yet to be seen.

By Hafsah Nawaz

A Different Look at the GameStop Saga

A Different Look at the GameStop Saga

The GameStop saga has illuminated a controversy behind Robinhood’s relative success. As retail traders hop onto the bandwagon, this article seeks to explain and evaluate Robinhood’s business operations as a brokerage firm within the equity market craze.
 
Robinhood’s Business Model
Admit it- you would first think of ‘commission’ when it comes to brokerage firms’ profits. Unlike old school models, however, Robinhood’s success does not predicate on collecting trading fees from its consumers when a stock is bought/ sold. Instead, its ‘payment for order flow’ model sees Robinhood bridging retail investors and larger brokerage firms. In effect, the zero-commission platform acts as a middleman in selling client orders to bigger market makers for a profit. To further lubricate the process, Robinhood offers its traders cash flow by way of ‘margin accounts’, allowing investors to buy stocks using borrowed funds provided by itself. Therefore, its easy access and trading flexibility swiftly crowns the E-trading platform as the most downloaded App amidst the short squeeze frenzy.
 
Financial and legal thinking points
Whilst Robinhood’s business model does sound surreal, its commitments are amplified in the form of financial and legal risks. Traders’ high investment volumes and concentrations on specific stocks would require heavy financing to insulate its trading partners from potential losses. As a venture-backed company, Robinhood is already expecting future governance issues as emergency funding were infused in the form of convertible debt. A discounted valuation will be tied to its share princes when the company floats, prompting further share dilution in the future. Separately, regulators’ scrutiny on Robinhood in the past had informed us of its legal issues. Its incentives from market-makers had not always aligned with its customers’ interests, as seen in its failure to fully disclose its client order selling to market makers. Especially as a company that profits from client information, its track record of information-handling related litigations further questions the business model’s controversy in the present tech-centric landscape.

By Quintus Wong

Parliament vs. People

The British Parliament and by virtue the Westminster system is the oldest of democratic institution and very much the basis of many country’s governance across the globe. However, after 42 years of ever closer integration and delegated sovereignty, it is unsurprising that Brexit is the most monumental challenge to the UK’s unwritten constitution and Parliament.

This challenge has reached its precipice, with the immovable object of Parliament and unstoppable force of the people colliding. Our politics works on the basis of representative democracy, where the people elect representatives to a Parliament, whose decisions are ultimately sovereign and binding upon everyone. This is to ensure the balance of effective governance and effective representation of citizens. Referenda are an anomaly, since they present the opportunity for direct democracy to be exercised. This brings us to the current situation, whereby Boris Johnson claims to act on behalf of the people, against a Parliament who are supposedly trying to subvert the will of the citizens they represent. The problem arises when both forms of democracy are legitimate forms of democracy, for very valid reasons on both sides. 

Especially for advocates of Brexit, in Parliament and the population at large, it is repugnant that some in the political establishment are proactively trying to thwart the largest democratic exercise is modern political history. On the other side of the debate, it is fantastical to even comprehend suspending representative democracy through prorogation, especially when it is conducted by those who should respect it the most, the Government of the day. Suggestions of holding a general election after Brexit day and ignoring a Vote of No Confidence (and thereby involving the Queen in politics, a constitutional red line) further these claims.

And so the debate has been framed: Parliament versus the People; representative versus direct democracy; a coup from both sides. The biggest danger of all, however, is suspicion of the political system and the equity it should deliver. The legitimacy of both representative and direct democracy is eroding, but what else is left?

By Connor Smith

Is my phone listening to me?

A while back, I was talking to a friend of mine about a dress I wanted to wear for my birthday, describing it in detail. Later that day, I open Instagram and start scrolling, as usual, however, this time, the first ad that pops up is attempting to sell me exactly what I had earlier described. This experience seems to be common, and for many people goes by relatively unnoticed. But when exactly did we all consent to companies invading our private lives like this?

By now, everyone is familiar with the concept of vocal assistants in smartphones. To use these programs, you must consent to your phone listening to all your conversations on the off chance of hearing that ‘hey Siri’.

However, does this consent really extend to ads that are catered to your conversations. I personally don’t remember ever agreeing to that. The terms and conditions for Instagram’s use vaguely say that ‘The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you.’ This does provide them with a pretty wide protective barrier when it comes to legal liability, but does this absolve them from any responsibility to their users?

The first, and most obvious issue, is the outright breach of privacy. There’s a million ways this could develop into an actual threat to the identity of a person, and we’ve all probably already heard about the scary hacker pretending to be us using documents stolen from our ‘sent’ email folder. They also tend to be pretty aggressive, showing up very often and leaving little to do besides paying for a website you’d only use like once or twice in your life.

This could be resolved by stopping certain apps from having access to your microphone (which they always ask when you first start using it). But when you do that, and you are someone that frequently posts content online, the use of social media apps without full access to a camera becomes somewhat obsolete. In this way, social media apps seem to ‘force’ you to keep your microphone on.

However, Facebook and Instagram have over 3 billion users combined, and listening to just half of these users’ conversations would be a tricky task to tackle: 35% of Facebook’s users speak a language other than English, which would involve a developed system that not only displays the app in the person’s specific language, but is also able to understand, process and store all that data. They already have in place plenty of other marketing mechanisms (which may admittedly be even scarier than phones listening in) in place on most shopping websites to collect and use your data. They also probably don’t care enough to listen in anyway, but the fact that they could is scary in itself.

In regards to this potential danger, the law seems to be slow to keep up. The European Commission implemented the General Data Protection Regulation in 2018, which was incorporated into UK legislation in the same year. Both generally protect the same freedoms for the average consumer of online content: clear and understandable data about who’s processing what and for what reason, ability to request a service provider for the data they have about you, the company's’ obligation to inform you if data was stolen or lost if this could have a harmful effect on you. However, where both of these fall short is the practical application. While the GDPR provides for the individual to be informed if their data is used outside the EU, so far I’ve not come across one major platform that has informed me about anything similar to that, even if most of them are based outside the EU. Same can be said about the clear and simple description of where your data goes to. So far, major social media companies seem to hide under a simple similar statement: ‘The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you.’ This allows for too much freedom against the usual consumer, who should be entitled to knowing about any change that goes in processing their data.

For the time being, it doesn’t seem like anybody has an answer to why ads sometimes seem to be based off the content of private conversations, and there doesn’t seem to be much legal protection for the average consumer for these kinds of breaches of data. Let’s just hope that this is just a conspiracy theory, and if it’s not that this technology remains just for advertising dresses and nothing more sinister.

By Andreea Dicu

Game of Thrones: how law students think it should end

In the world of Game of Thrones, anything goes. With the start of the new season, it’s pretty clear that the system just doesn’t work anymore. Even though there is currently the impending doom of war, they need to think about what they’re going to do once they (hopefully) settle down..

Westeros currently has a system of absolute monarchy, where power is concentrated in the hands of the king or queen, with little delegations to the Hand of The King and, sometimes, to its very small council. Together, they make up the three branches of state, with next to nothing holding them accountable. This is how you end up with situations where the frustrations of the people are bottled up until they turn into a war. We’ve seen this unfold on the show over the course of the first three seasons, with The War of the Five Kings, that ultimately ends up fragmenting the entire kingdom and killing each of the five kings involved. This clearly means that there is a dire need for change in how Westeros is governed.

There have, of course, been plenty of wise characters that have suggested this over the course of the show’s run. Perhaps you’ll remember one of Daenerys’ most iconic lines, “I’m not going to stop the wheel, I’m going to break the wheel”, in response to Tyrion’s criticisms that she has no place in Westeros’ current system. Her motives appear to be noble here, understanding the Kingdom’s need for a different approach to governing, but we can see from her actions that she intends to merely adapt the wheel to fit her motives. So Dany’s a dead end. At the end of season 7, Tyrion suggests adopting a form of elective monarchy, similar to that of the Holy Roman Empire. This model has the potential to work in the archaic world of Game of Thrones, but there is a high chance of it ending much like them, with exclusively one dynasty on the throne, in this case, another long line of Targaryens, if his plan to put Dany on the Iron Throne is successful. This is where we need to consider whether morals will play a central part in the newly reformed political system of Westeros, and if the answer is yes, is a family infamous for inbreeding the best choice? Probably not.

The social structure of Westeros clearly indicates that the common people just want to get on with their lives while the Great Houses of Westeros seem to like having a monarchy to fight over. So, the fundamental question for Westeros is how exactly they go about tackling the issue of the lack of accountability to stop the spawn of the devil – I’m looking at you Joffrey and Ramsay – from becoming unstoppable.

Considering some realistic factors such as the timeframe of when GoT is set up, we recognize that something outrageous like a Republic is too much of a stretch for their archaic society because of the size of the Kingdom in comparison with its technological abilities. There are no better communications methods other than ravens, and getting from Dorne to the Wall takes around 3 months of non-stop riding. On top of that, most common people are illiterate. All of this would just result in the nobility once again fighting for power.

Here’s what we suggest: setting up a separate judiciary-like body.

See, as fantastical as GoT might be, there still seem to be some set of rules that people must follow. We know this because Tyrion and Littlefinger got put on trial for crimes that they were accused of, which suggests that they do indeed have laws that govern them – but the obvious problem is that the ‘judges' when you get put on trial are (wait for it) the ruling monarch and people he/she appoints. Basically, what I am trying to convey here is that there is no fair trial as the system is corrupt as can be and the person sitting on that throne has all the power in the world.

This is where the separation of the judiciary could really benefit them. If Westeros was to develop a court system that was independent of the monarch, existing laws such as kingslaying, adultery, murder, treason etc. would be a lot more embedded in their society. Perhaps there could be a written document titled something like ‘The Westeros Penal Code’that could be drafted and made easily accessible to the people, which explicitly lists things that are illegal. This way people’s rights will be protected better, and most importantly the ruling body can’t cherry pick when and who to apply the rules to! Now we’re not suggesting they magically set up a complex judicial system like we have today with multiple tiers, but simply an independent body with the sole purpose of upholding laws that have been implemented and holding everyone (yes, even the monarch!) to account when a crime is committed, by allowing for a fair trial.

Furthermore, in this system, the judges who make decisions can be elected by the people based on merit, preventing the monarch from influencing it with their potentially corruptible little hands. Since most of the common people are illiterate, it would only make sense that the judges who get elected are picked from the array of knowledgeable maesters or well-educated highborn individuals, unrelated to the ruling family, who would be able to make reasonable, informed decisions.

Hypothetically under the system:

Joffrey 2.0 decides to go on a killing spree → someone accuses him of murder → Joffrey 2.0 gets put on trial → the independent judges make a decision → Joffrey 2.0 found guilty and there’s nothing he can do about it. Happy days.

Of course, this is in anticipation that someone benevolent takes the Iron Throne after the chaos dies down and hopefully a smart little cookie can come up with a similar idea and it gets implemented. There are still many issues that crop up even with the system we suggested, but no system, not even the one that we have today, is perfect. It sure as heck would be a start for Westeros to becoming a more progressive society and the people can sort out the nitty gritty later as they become more educated. So there you have it, that’s how we think GoT should end, but we can almost certainly tell you that this is not how it will actually end.

Oh and on the chance that Cersei remains on the iron throne – Westeros you’re s c r e w e d.

By Andreea Dicu and Saira Oshiro

Shamima : Stateless in Syria

Unless you have spent the past four months hibernating under a rock, you’re likely to have come across mention of the name Shamima Begum, though you may be asking yourself what all the fuss is about. Her case, and many like hers around the globe, it transpires, begets a few burning questions, but mainly – was the UK Government justified in stripping her of her citizenship?

Four years after escaping school to join ISIS in February 2015, a heavily pregnant 19-year-old Begum was interviewed by The Times’ war correspondent Anthony Loyd at the Al-Hawl refugee camp. Begum made a plea to return to the UK and raise her child. Though she stated that she never committed any atrocities herself, she refused to admit that she regretted her choice to join ISIS when pressed, justifying the actions they took and the ideology they espouse. Three days later, she gave birth to a son. Soon after, Home Secretary Sajid Javid announced the intent to strip Begum of her British Citizenship.

Shamima’s case has created a fierce debate throughout the United Kingdom and the world beyond it. Aside from the moral discussion about her safety and the safety of her new-born son (who soon after died of pneumonia), or whether she got her “just desserts”, it is important to clarify whether these actions taken by the UK Government were, first and foremost, legal. That is what I’m focused on.

I’ll start with the process. In 2014, Theresa May (back when she was Home Secretary), introduced the Immigration Bill 2013-14, allowing the Government to strip UK foreign-born terror-suspects of UK citizenship. This expanded upon previous laws, such as the British Nationality Act 1948, which states that citizenship can be deprived from people who had “unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy during any war in which Her Majesty was engaged”. Given our history of airstrikes on ISIS, it would be difficult to argue we were not at war with them.

In terms of international law, there is one key international Convention that applies to this case: the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. As per article 8(1) the 1961 Convention, “A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationalist if such deprivation would render him statelessness”. The UK Government does not believe that this Convention prevents them from rendering a person stateless, because the terms of the convention entitled ratifying countries to retain a pre-existing domestic law power to deprive a person of their nationality if that person threatened the vital interests of the state. The 1948 Act is the source of that very pre-existing power.

Having established the process through which the UK can do and has done this, it’s clear to see that this could be interpreted as a very dangerous power – and rightfully so. However, a limitation was placed on it after some significant parliamentary debates: the Home Secretary could only exercise that power if they had reason to believe that the person was able to become a national of another country or territory.

Shamima has a Bangladeshi mother. In Bangladesh, citizenship rights are Jus Sanguinis – determined by blood. In Bangladesh this lapses when a person reaches the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it. Furthermore, under Bangladesh law, a UK national born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. It is hence easy to interpret that as a reason to believe that Shamima could have Bangladeshi nationality.

Yet there is a reason this case is so divisive. The Government of Bangladesh have stated that they have a “zero-tolerance” policy when it comes to terrorism, and as a result have rejected the UK Government’s assumption that she is a Bangladeshi citizen. Does this mean that there is no choice but to leave her stateless?

Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, an authority on immigration law and one of the world’s most respected immigration lawyers, sums up one school of thought quite simply:

“The United Kingdom has no right and no power to require any other State to accept its outcasts and, as a matter of international law, it will be obliged to readmit them if no other State is prepared to allow them to remain.”

So, what now? Shamima ran away to join the forces the UK were at war with. There was reason to believe she could get Bangladeshi citizenship – in fact, she is still eligible. Yet Bangladesh don’t want her, and neither do the UK. It’s certainly hard to imagine Sajid Javid changing his mind. She’s begun appeal proceedings to potentially reverse this decision, but it will be tricky to predict whether International or National law will prevail.

By Rebecca Windsor