The conundrum of phoenix activity in Australia: Is further reform necessary?

Corporate phoenixing activity is estimated to cost the Australian economy $1-3 billion dollars annually. Significant questions arise as to whether existing legal frameworks are adequate to deal with phoenix activity, and whether further reform is necessary. Bills proposing reform appear to be languishing amid doubts as to their potential effectiveness. This paper will examine the conundrum presented by phoenix activity, the importance of further reform and the impact of the lack of a statutory definition of ‘phoenix activity’ on a regulatory environment that not only uses the term, but punishes offenders accused of it.

The conundrum of phoenix activity: Is further reform necessary?

Phoenix activity presents a conundrum for the law and its regulators. While there is economic cost associated with all phoenix activity, the underlying behaviour is not always illegal. A transaction with indicators of phoenix activity may be an entirely innocent and well-intentioned display of entrepreneurial spirit, albeit one that has ended in failure. Restructuring post business failure is not illegal per se. Recent reforms targeting phoenix activity fail to grapple with the vast range of behaviour that can be described as phoenix activity since they do not differentiate between legal and illegal activity. This article explores the importance of the distinction between legal and illegal phoenix activity, the extent to which the existing law captures a range of behaviour that can be described as illegal phoenix activity and the response of key regulators and governmental bodies to the absence of single law that attempts to define illegal phoenix activity.

Duty and Control in Intermediary Copyright Liability: An Australian Perspective

In the internet age, copyright owners are increasingly looking to online intermediaries to take steps to prevent copyright infringement. Sometimes these intermediaries are closely tied to the acts of infringement; sometimes – as in the case of ISPs – they are not. In 2012, the Australian High Court decided the Roadshow Films v iiNet case, in which it held that an Australian ISP was not liable under copyright’s authorization doctrine, which asks whether the intermediary has sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 directs a court to consider, in these situations, whether the intermediary had the power to prevent the infringement and whether it took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the infringement. It is generally not difficult for a court to find the power to prevent infringement – power to prevent can include an unrefined technical ability to disconnect users from the copyright source, such as an ISP terminating users’ internet accounts. In the iiNet case, the High Court eschewed this broad approach in favor of focusing on a notion of control that was influenced by principles of tort law. In tort, when a plaintiff asserts that a defendant should be liable for failing to act to prevent harm caused to the plaintiff by a third party, there is a heavy burden on the plaintiff to show that the defendant had a duty to act. The duty must be clear and specific, and will often hinge on the degree of control that the defendant was able to exercise over the third party. Control in these circumstances relates directly to control over the third party’s actions in inflicting the harm. Thus, in iiNet’s case, the control would need to be directed to the third party’s infringing use of BitTorrent; control over a person’s ability to access the internet is too imprecise. Further, when considering omissions to act, tort law differentiates between the ability to control and the ability to hinder. The ability to control may establish a duty to act, and the court will then look to small measures taken to prevent the harm to determine whether these satisfy the duty. But the ability to hinder will not suffice to establish liability in the absence of control. This chapter argues that an inquiry grounded in control as defined in tort law would provide a more principled framework for assessing the liability of passive intermediaries in copyright. In particular, it would set a higher, more stable benchmark for determining the copyright liability of passive intermediaries, based on the degree of actual, direct control that the intermediary can exercise over the infringing actions of its users. This approach would provide greater clarity and consistency than has existed to date in this area of copyright law in Australia.

A mixed-methods research approach to the review of competency standards for orthotist/prosthetists in Australia

Aim: The requirement for an allied health workforce is expanding as the global burden of disease increases internationally. To safely meet the demand for an expanded workforce of orthotist/prosthetists in Australia, competency based standards, which are up-to-date and evidence-based, are required. The aims of this study were to determine the minimum level for entry into the orthotic/prosthetic profession; to develop entry level competency standards for the profession; and to validate the developed entry-level competency standards within the profession nationally, using an evidence-based approach. Methods: A mixed-methods research design was applied, using a three-step sequential exploratory design, where step 1 involved collecting and analyzing qualitative data from two focus groups; step 2 involved exploratory instrument development and testing, developing the draft competency standards; and step 3 involved quantitative data collection and analysis – a Delphi survey. In stage 1 (steps 1 and 2), the two focus groups – an expert and a recent graduate group of Australian orthotist/prosthetists – were led by an experienced facilitator, to identify gaps in the current competency standards and then to outline a key purpose, and work roles and tasks for the profession. The resulting domains and activities of the first draft of the competency standards were synthesized using thematic analysis. In stage 2 (step 3), the draft-competency standards were circulated to a purposive sample of the membership of the Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association, using three rounds of Delphi survey. A project reference group of orthotist/prosthetists reviewed the results of both stages. Results: In stage 1, the expert (n = 10) and the new graduate (n = 8) groups separately identified work roles and tasks, which formed the initial draft of the competency standards. Further drafts were refined and performance criteria added by the project reference group, resulting in the final draft-competency standards. In stage 2, the final draft-competency standards were circulated to 56 members (n = 44 final round) of the Association, who agreed on the key purpose, 6 domains, 18 activities, and 68 performance criteria of the final competency standards. Conclusion: This study outlines a rigorous and evidence-based mixed-methods approach for developing and endorsing professional competency standards, which is representative of the views of the profession of orthotist/prosthetists.

Migraine with aura and migraine without aura are not distinct entities: further evidence from a large Dutch population study

It is often debated whether migraine with aura (MA) and migraine without aura (MO) are etiologically distinct disorders. A previous study using latent class analysis (LCA) in Australian twins showed no evidence for separate subtypes of MO and MA. The aim of the present study was to replicate these results in a population of Dutch twins and their parents, siblings and partners (N = 10,144). Latent class analysis of International Headache Society (IHS)-based migraine symptoms resulted in the identification of 4 classes: a class of unaffected subjects (class 0), a mild form of nonmigrainous headache (class 1), a moderately severe type of migraine (class 2), typically without neurological symptoms or aura (8% reporting aura symptoms), and a severe type of migraine (class 3), typically with neurological symptoms, and aura symptoms in approximately half of the cases. Given the overlap of neurological symptoms and nonmutual exclusivity of aura symptoms, these results do not support the MO and MA subtypes as being etiologically distinct. The heritability in female twins of migraine based on LCA classification was estimated at .50 (95% confidence intervals [CI] .27 - .59), similar to IHS-based migraine diagnosis (h2 = .49, 95% CI .19-.57). However, using a dichotomous classification (affected-unaffected) decreased heritability for the IHS-based classification (h2 = .33, 95% CI .00-.60), but not the LCA-based classification (h2 = .51, 95% CI .23-.61). Importantly, use of the LCA-based classification increased the number of subjects classified as affected. The heritability of the screening question was similar to more detailed LCA and IHS classifications, suggesting that the screening procedure is an important determining factor in genetic studies of migraine.

Further evidence for linkage of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS) susceptibility loci on chromosomes 2p11, 8q22 and 11q23-24 in South African Afrikaners

Utilizing DNA samples from 91 Afrikaner nuclear families with one or more affected children, five genomic regions on chromosomes 2p, 8q, 11q, 20q, and 21q that gave evidence for association with GTS in previous case-control association studies were investigated for linkage and association with GTS. Highly polymorphic markers with mean heterozygosity of 0.77 were typed and resulting genotypes evaluated using single marker transmission disequilibrium (TDT), single marker haplotype relative risk (HRR), and multi-marker "extended" TDT and HRR methods. Single marker TDT analysis showed evidence for linkage or association, with p-values near 0.05, for markers D2S139, GATA28F12, and D11S1377 on chromosomes 2p11, 8q22 and 11q23-24, respectively. Extended, two-locus TDT and HRR analysis provided further evidence for linkage or association on chromosome 2 with p-values of 0.007 and 0.025, and chromosome 8 with p-values of 0.059 and 0.013, respectively. These results provide important additional evidence for the location of GTS susceptibility loci.

Exploring changing culture and building capacity in research with consumers, carers and consumer companions

Background Australian policy mandates consumer and carer participation in mental health services at all levels including research. Inspired by a UK model - Service Users Group Advising on Research [SUGAR] - we conducted a scoping project in 2013 with a view to create a consumer and carer led research process that moves beyond stigma and tokenism, that values the unique knowledge of lived experience and leads to people being treated better when accessing services. This poster presents the initial findings. Aims The project’s purpose was to explore with consumers, consumer companions and carers at the Metro North Mental Health-RBWH their interest in and views about research partnerships with academic and clinical colleagues. Methods This poster overviews the initial findings from three audio-recorded focus groups conducted with a total of 14 consumers, carers and consumer companions at the Brisbane site. Analysis Our work was guided by framework analysis (Gale et al. 2013). It defines 5 steps for analysing narrative data: familiarising; development of categories; indexing; charting and interpretation. Eight main ideas were initially developed and were divided between the authors to further index. This process identified 37 related analytic ideas. The authors integrated these by combining, removing and redefining them by consensus though a mapping process. The final step is the return of the analysis to the participants for feedback and input into the interpretation of the focus group discussions. Results 1. Value & Respect: Feeling Valued & Respected, Tokenism, Stigma, Governance, Valuing prior knowledge / background 2. Pathways to Knowledge and Involvement in Research: ‘Where to begin’, Support, Unity & partnership, Communication, Co-ordination, Flexibility due to fluctuating capacity 3. Personal Context: Barriers regarding Commitments & the nature of mental illness, Wellbeing needs, Prior experience of research, Motivators, Attributes 4. What is research? Developing Knowledge, What to do research on, how and why? Conclusion and Discussion Initial analysis suggests that participants saw potential for ‘amazing things’ in mental health research such as reflecting their priorities and moving beyond stigma and tokenism. The main needs identified were education, mentoring, funding support and research processes that fitted consumers’ and carers’limitations and fluctuating capacities. They identified maintaining motivation and interest as an issue since research processes are often extended by ethics and funding applications. Participants felt that consumer and carer led research would value the unique knowledge that the lived experience of consumers and carers brings and lead to people being treated better when accessing services.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.