Dechert

Abstract: Few sciences have held out such therapeutic promise and correspondingly stirred so much controversy in countries throughout the world as the developing science surrounding human embryonic stem cells. Since the first reported development of several lines of human embryonic stem cells in 1988, many governments around the world have attempted to address the thorny ethical issues raised by human embryonic stem cell research by the passage of laws. In some cases these laws have directly regulated governmental funding of the science; in other cases they have created a legal environment that has either encouraged or discouraged both governmental and private funding of the science. This article first differentiates human embryonic stem cells from other types of stem cells and frames the ethical controversy surrounding human embryonic stem cell research, then surveys laws governing human embryonic stem cell research in various scientifically advanced countries located throughout the Pacific Rim, Europe and North America and explains the impact these laws have had on governmental and private funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

Abstract: Since the Chinese economy has transitioned to a sustainable model, the Chinese socially responsible investment (SRI) market has expanded rapidly, which has deeply stimulated the development of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings for Chinese firms. Domestic agencies, such as SynTao, Rankins (RKS), Sino-Securities (SSII), and China Alliance of Social Value Investment (CASVI), and international agencies, such as Bloomberg, FTSE Russell (FTSE), and Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), have launched their own ESG rating systems. These emerging ratings may provide users of information with more diverse references; however, if their results are too divergent, they may also confuse users. To what extent do these ESG rating results in the Chinese market converge or diverge? Aiming to answer this question, we used Hushen 300 index firms in 2019 as the initial sample, and selected 195 firms covered by the above seven ratings for the analysis. Firstly, by comparing the overlap in the top 100 lists of these sample firms, we found that the list overlap rate between each pair of ratings was between 66.36% and 82.35%; however, only 35% of the firms were listed in the top 100 of all seven ratings. Furthermore, the Pearson correlation analysis showed that the correlation coefficients between each pair of ratings ranged from 0.057 to 0.736, and the average was only 0.411. These results suggest a wide divergence in the ESG rating results for Chinese firms. We suggest that information users need to consider a more diverse and comprehensive perspective when utilizing these ratings.

Abstract: This article addresses all of the issues involved in the debate about whether or not bioethicists should be paid by private biomedical companies to perform consultations. These issues include the following: differentiation of this role from bioethicists' other roles, an analysis of to whom bioethicists owe a duty, consideration of what bioethicists are "selling," whether bioethicists should be allowed to get paid, when payment becomes problematic, and whether consulting fee arrangements should be regulated. The author often compares bioethicists' relationship to the companies to bioethicists' other relationships, as well as to professional relationships in other fields, such as law and accounting.

Abstract: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, aka One Belt One Road—OBOR) creates enormous opportunities for both Chinese and foreign investment in BRI countries. Emerging from the allegedly “largest scale” of cross-border investments in modern history are countless complex contracts of a commercial, public, or hybrid nature. It is vitally important for both Chinese and foreign investors to be well prepared and equipped for dealing with potential disputes arising from these contracts. In this chapter, after briefly introducing the background to BRI, the authors focus on analyzing the potential legal risks that may appear, among others, in BRI infrastructure projects, and advise on the evolving and prevailing rules of international commercial and investment arbitrations, which, in the authors’ view, are the most effective and protective dispute resolution mechanisms available to investors.