Background A British pharmaceutical manufacturer is a market leader in the production of an anti-cancer drug, which it has been exporting to every major developed country for the last 20 years, and also more recently to developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia. The active ingredient of the drug was patented, but the original patent expired 3 years ago. However, a new improved process for making the drug was patented 10 years ago, and this patent is still in force in various countries, including Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Two years ago, the manufacturer found out that a generic manufacturer based in Vietnam was making and exporting the anti-cancer drug to Malaysia, and being sold in these countries for half the price of their own drug. This was having a serious adverse effect on sales.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Workplace Dispute| Workplace Resolution| Mediators Belfast
On 23 January , Venezuela complained to the Dispute Settlement Body that the United States was applying rules that discriminated against gasoline imports, and formally requested consultations with the United States. Just over a year later on 29 January the dispute panel completed its final report. By then, Brazil had joined the case, lodging its own complaint in April The same panel considered both complaints. The United States appealed. The Appellate Body completed its report, and the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report on 20 May , one year and four months after the complaint was first lodged. The United States and Venezuela then took six and a half months to agree on what the United States should do.
Construction Disputes Case Study 2
One client engaged our services because they had been served with a notice of disciplinary with a view to dismissal by their employer for an act they did not commit. The employee themselves maintained that this was an allegation made by a disgruntled member of staff, unhappy with our client because they had spoken out against their conduct in a previous incident. They also said it was impossible to have occurred because they were in an entirely separate location at the time suggested, meeting with people who could verify this. We followed this up by going to the location the client said they were at and took formal witness statements from people there who could confirm they met and spoke with the client on that day and at that time.
Nowland and his team of attorneys have represented virtually hundreds of companies and businesses of all sizes and in varying industries. We strive to work with a business to achieve a desirable outcome. Our client, the plaintiff in this matter, facilitated the acquisition and shipping of goods from factories in China to the warehouse of the defendant. Defendant would then distribute the goods to its customers in the United States.