The Economist

"Writ Large", The Economist, 1.10.2009, 53.

Groups that investigate government misbehaviour say their efforts are now being hampered by English libel law. 'London has become a magnet for spurious cases. This is a terrifying prospect to most NGOs because of legal costs alone,' says Dinah PoKemper, general counsel at the New York - based Human Rights Watch. It recently received a complaint from lawyers acting for a foreign national named in a report on an incident of mass murder. 'We were required to spend thousands of pounds in defending ourselves against the prospect of a libel suit, when we had full confidence in the accuracy of our report,' she says.

The problem is not just money. Under English libel law, a plaintiff must prove only that material is defamatory; the defendant then has to justify it, usually on grounds of truth or fairness. That places a big burden on human-rights groups that compile reports from confidential informants - usually a necessity when dealing with violent and repressive regimes.


"Indefensible", The Economist, 1.10.2009, 66.

Rather than driving good Asian companies and managers from Hong Kong, closing such a loophole that allows companies to report earnings up to 3 months after the end of the fiscal period while directors and managers can still trade shares would instil greater confidence in minority investors. That should lower the cost of capital for companies and enhance returns - exactly what executives should want, if they are really working for all owners, that is.

[transparency -> trust -> investment]

[Law used to stifle dissent, opposition or competition]