New Agreement to Accelerate Importation of Health Products Through PAHO
On June 11, 2025, was published in the DOF the “AGREEMENT recognizing as equivalent the requirements established in the Health Regulation and the technical evaluation procedures carried out by the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks for the granting of the marketing authorization of health products, to the requirements, tests and evaluation procedures carried out by the regulatory authorities of reference to allow the sale, distribution and use of health products in their country, and to the evaluations of the World Health Organization’s Prequalification Program, as well as the criteria for the importation of products for the treatment of emerging, unattended diseases or in cases of national emergency“.
The Agreement establishes the criteria for the importation of products for the treatment of emerging and unattended diseases or in situations of national emergency. Among its provisions, it highlights that certain products such as vaccines, medicines and medical devices may be acquired by the Ministry of Health through the Strategic Fund and the Revolving Fund of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), without the need to have a marketing authorization in Mexico.
It should be recalled that this is not the first agreement of this nature, the last similar agreement was published in the DOF on December 4, 2024, “AGREEMENT to obtain the import permit for health products destined to guarantee the supply of the public sector”, which allows obtaining more expedited import permits for products that already have a marketing authorization or sanitary registration issued by recognized regulatory authorities. (See our newsletter editions: SEP 19, 2024; FEB 2020; JUN 30, 2021).
In comparison, the new pathway through PAHO could represent an even more expeditious mechanism to try to “secure” the health sector’s supply in priority cases than the one established by the agreement of December 4, 2024. In addition, this new agreement leaves without effect those previously published on March 29, 2019, January 28, 2020, and the June 22, 2021, amendment, although it does not repeal the December 4, 2024, agreement.
This new agreement does not define or specify the terms “emerging or neglected diseases or cases of national emergency”, nor does it clearly establish the timeframe or the conditions for its application, which generates uncertainty regarding the scope and operability of the Agreement. Likewise, there is a possible affectation due to possible conditions of competitive disadvantage, discrimination and inequity to the suppliers of health products, due to the entry of products acquired from PAHO, at their discretion.
HSE Begins Public Consultation on CLP Reform Proposal
The United Kingdom’s (UK) Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has begun a public consultation on a legislative proposal to reform the Great Britain (GB) Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation. HSE notes that GB CLP Article 37 links mandatory classification and labeling (MCL) in GB to evaluation activity in the European Union’s (EU) harmonized classification and labeling (CLH) system by creating a statutory obligation to consider the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) Committee for Risk Assessment’s (RAC) opinions on harmonized classification proposals made under the EU CLP. This consideration is required “even for those which consider substances or hazard classes not authorised for use in GB.” The requirement to consider RAC opinions that are not relevant to GB adds additional burdens for the regulator and is exacerbated by the recent EU CLP revisions. The European Commission (EC) introduced six new hazard classes into the EU CLP, and these classes are prioritized for consideration under the EU CLH system. HSE states that this revision to the EU CLP “will result in a greater proportion of RAC opinions featuring non-GB CLP hazard classes.” HSE notes that the statutory timelines in Article 37 of the GB CLP are currently triggered when a RAC opinion is published, “requiring evaluations to be sequenced by the RAC opinion publication date determined for the EU.” According to HSE, the current timelines restrict its ability to prioritize its GB MCL evaluation work appropriately and to provide regulatory clarity to a timescale dictated by relevance to the GB market.
HSE states that it believes amending the GB CLP is necessary to provide greater certainty for duty holders and to ensure that future GB MCL evaluation activity can be delivered “predictably and sustainably.” HSE proposes to consolidate GB CLP Articles 37 and 37A into one procedure under which MCL proposals would be evaluated, thereby simplifying the process for substance and mixture classification in GB. HSE notes that the consolidated procedure would include a fast-track evaluation pathway for assessing classification proposals from territories that adopt the United Nations (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).and have a transparent classification process. Classification proposals from jurisdictions that do not adopt the UN GHS and do not have a transparent classification process would be evaluated under a full process, similar to that currently described in Article 37A. HSE provides a flowchart showing a possible route to fast-track evaluation for assessing classification proposals from UN GHS adopting territories that have a transparent classification process:
HSE also proposes to omit from the consolidated procedure the legal requirement for it to send a copy of its ministerial recommendation to devolved government (DG) ministers. According to HSE, “[t]his would reduce the administrative burdens arising from this aspect of delivery of the GB MCL system and ensure that resource is used proportionately.” HSE notes that it “remains committed to the evaluation of classification proposals that focus on carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductive toxic and respiratory sensitising hazards” and states that these proposals would be prioritized for fast-track evaluation where they originate from the EU. Comments are due August 18, 2025.
Perfume, Proof, and Parallel Imports: How Coty’s Traceability System Won a Trade Mark War
Background
On 16 April 2025, the District Court of The Hague in the Netherlands handed down a decision relating to the complex issue of trade mark exhaustion in the context of parallel trade disputes.
The claimant, Coty Beauty Germany (Coty), is a global cosmetics company and exclusive licensee of several well-known trade marks, including Hugo Boss. Coty operates a selective distribution network for the products in the European Economic Area (EEA). The defendant, Easycosmetic Benelux (Easycosmetic), is an unauthorised wholesaler of perfumes and cosmetics that operates outside of Coty’s selective distribution network.
The dispute concerned a 200ml bottle of “Bottled Night” Hugo Boss perfume, which was being sold by Easycosmetic in the Netherlands. Coty claimed that this specific bottle had originally been shipped to South Africa and therefore had not been placed on the EEA market by Coty or with its consent.
Legal Framework
The case hinged on Article 15(1) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (2017/1001), which states that a trade mark owner cannot oppose further commercialisation of goods once they have been lawfully placed on the EEA market by or with the trade mark owner’s consent. This principle is referred to as trade mark exhaustion.
However, the District Court of The Hague clarified the position on the burden of proof in trade mark exhaustion cases, which is nuanced. The trade mark holder, here Coty, must initially substantiate the claim of infringement. However, the burden of proving that the trade mark is exhausted—in this case, that the goods were lawfully placed on the EEA market—lies with the defendant, Easycosmetic.
However, the District Court of The Hague clarified the position on the burden of proof in trade mark exhaustion cases, which is nuanced. The trade mark holder, here Coty, must initially substantiate the claim of infringement. However, the burden of proving that the trade mark is exhausted—in this case, that the goods were lawfully placed on the EEA market—lies with the defendant, Easycosmetic.
The claimant operates a selective distribution system;
The goods do not clearly identify the intended market;
The trade mark owner refuses to share information about the disputed product’s intended destination; and
The defendant’s suppliers are not forthcoming about their own sources of supply.
In Coty v Easycosmetic, it was not necessary for the court to rule on whether the burden of proof had shifted, because Easycosmetic ceased to dispute that the perfume bottles were marketed for outside the EEA.
Still, this did not mean that Coty’s product traceability evidence went to waste.
The Role of Traceability in Coty’s Victory
A pivotal element in Coty’s success was its ability to trace the product’s origin and distribution path. Coty presented evidence from its internal product tracking system, which showed that the specific bottle in question had been manufactured for and shipped to a non-EEA market, specifically South Africa.
The traceability system allowed Coty to:
Identify the batch number and match it to a specific shipment;
Demonstrate the intended market for the product; and
Prove the lack of consent for EEAmarketing of the perfume bottle.
Traceability: A Legal Sword and Shield
The Coty v Easycosmetic ruling is a powerful reminder that traceability is not just a logistics tool, it is a legal asset. For companies looking to protect their brands, especially those operating a selective distribution system, investing in an effective product tracking system is essential for protecting brand reputation and trade marks in the EEA.
A traceability system is necessary to comply with certain government regulations, for example cosmetic distributors are already obliged under the EU Cosmetic Regulations (EC) No 1223/2009, which was retained by UK law as the UK’s Cosmetic Regulations, to maintain a traceability system.
A robust traceability system can serve as decisive evidence in legal disputes to thwart unauthorised parallel imports from outside the EEA. As this case proves, there are certain circumstances in which the court will instruct the trade mark owner to provide evidence of non-EEA origin. Therefore, a well-maintained product traceability system ensures that brand owners are able to provide convincing evidence in court.
A solid traceability system acts as a deterrent to unauthorised resellers who want to exploit a non-EEA bargain, and this case serves as a reminder to unauthorised resellers that they may find themselves defenceless and out of pocket in infringement lawsuits.
If products are traceable, the brand owner may be able to operate and enforce its selective distribution system with greater ease, as it allows it to identify sources of supply of unauthorised resellers and ensure such product leaks are appropriately dealt with (for instance, also against EEA partners that breach their selective distribution terms with the brand by selling outside the network).
Traceability can support efficient and compliant product recalls.
Product traceability can assist with verifying commercial warranty/repair claims from consumers, for instance where a commercial warranty from the brand is only available for products purchased from approved sources (permitted in most member states).
Finally, a suitably designed traceability system can also in principle be deployed to meet a brand’s digital product password obligations under legislation such as the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation.
Ultimately, a traceability system is a powerful legal and commercial resource for brands. Our team would be happy to assist your brand with establishing and maintaining a compliant and effective traceability system.
Interim Statement on ‘54 Act Reform
Summary
The Law Commission has issued an interim statement on the reform of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the Act). Its initial consultation addressed the “contracting-out” model, types of tenancy and duration of tenancy.
Background
The Act is 70 years old, and some consider it outdated for today’s real estate market. It has not undergone a major overhaul for over 20 years. The explosion of e-commerce, effects of the 2008 financial crisis and shifts in government priorities have rendered parts of the Act outdated, cumbersome and unclear. Landlords and tenants frequently “contract out” of the Act’s protections, as the associated formalities can be complex and slow, which can cause delay. The Law Commission launched its first consultation in November 2024. The interim statement represents the first major update since its initial consultation that closed in February 2025.
The Law Commission’s Provisional Conclusions
In light of the responses received, the Law Commission has reached the following provisional conclusions:
The existing “contracting-out” model received broad support and is favoured to be retained.
Current exclusions for certain tenancies, like agricultural tenancies which have their own statutory regime, are considered to be appropriate and will continue.
There is support for increasing the threshold from which security of tenure applies from a fixed term of six months to a term of two years.
These provisional conclusions will shape the next consultation paper and final recommendations, the timing of which is to be confirmed by the Law Commission in due course. This will focus on the technical details of how the Act might be reformed in light of the provisional conclusions of the first consultation to ensure that the Act works for the modern commercial leasehold market.
UK Data Use and Access Bill Becomes Law
The UK’s major post-Brexit reform of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), the Data Use and Access Act (DUAA), was became law on 19 June 2025.
The DUAA had a long gestation in the form of two previous draft laws, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bills No. 1 and 2, the second of which failed when the UK general election 2024 was called. The new government resurrected most elements of the previous proposals as the DUAA.
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office has published guidance on the effects of the DUAA for businesses, but some of the more eye-catching changes include:
Of particular interest to businesses considering AI solutions – the removal of restrictions on use of personal data for automated decision-making, as long as there are some safeguards in place.
Consent no longer required to set statistical and functionality cookies.
The wider impact of the DUAA on UK–EU data transfers remains to be seen, with the EU due to review its UK adequacy decision by the end of 2025. However, as the EU has announced its own intention to reform the GDPR, more change could be on the way.
Workplace Wrap – July 2025
As we find ourselves in the new financial year, a number of the key financial thresholds relating to employees have changed. Click here to view our summary of the key thresholds for the 2025/2026 financial year.
From 1 July 2025, the national minimum wage has increased by 3.5% to AU$24.94 per hour.
Award minimum wages have also risen by 3.5%.
In reaching its conclusion as to the national minimum wage, the Fair Work Commission has cited its principal consideration as a reduction in the real value of wages for employees.
The Fair Work Commission notes this reduction has been driven by the spike in inflation beginning in 2021 and peaking in late 2022. The result, in the eyes of the Fair Work Commission, has been that the lower paid have experienced greater difficulties in meeting their everyday needs.
Therefore, the Fair Work Commission has sought to temper real wage decline without contributing to higher inflation.
The Fair Work Commission notes its wage decision this year has been moderated by the upcoming increase in the Superannuation Guarantee contribution rate, and the uncertainties caused by the influence of the United States trade policies. However, the Fair Work Commission considered the wage increase determined is sustainable in a labour market that remains strong overall.
The Fair Work Commission also observed that workforces that are reliant on modern awards for their wage rates are disproportionately female, with more than half being casual employees and more than a third being low-paid employees. The Fair Work Commission also noted that it intends to continue with its targeted review of particular award classifications to eliminate gender-based undervaluation of work and ensure that female workers receive equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value.
From 1 July 2025, the Superannuation Guarantee rate will increase to 12%.
The maximum contribution base per quarter has been reduced from AU$65,070 for the 2025 income year, to AU$62,500 for the 2026 income year so as to accommodate the increased contribution rate but noting that the annual concessional cap remains at AU$30,000.
This means that once an employee’s ordinary time earnings exceed AU$62,500 per quarter, employers are not required to make further superannuation contributions under the Superannuation guarantee legislation. If separate contractual obligations to pay superannuation apply, these obligations are unaffected.
The changes will apply from the first full pay period starting on or after 1 July 2025.
We note that whilst the Australian Taxation Office will begin making superannuation contributions on government-funded Parental Leave Pay, parental leave paid by an employer will continue to not fall within the definition of ordinary time earnings such that employers are not required to pay superannuation on these amounts.
The Fair Work Act’s high income threshold will also be indexed and from 1 July 2025, has increased to AU$183,100. Non-award and non-enterprise agreement covered employees who earn in excess of AU$183,100 will be unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
There has been no change in the value of penalty units applicable to the Fair Work Act which remain at AU$330 per unit.
What You Should Be Doing From 1 July?
Employers should:
Review annualised salary arrangements to ensure that the annualised wage rate is sufficient to meet or exceed the employees’ minimum award or minimum wage entitlements taking into account the 3.5% increase.
Update payroll systems and processes to ensure the increased wages and superannuation contribution are paid from the first full pay period starting on or after 1 July 2025 and note the change to the maximum contribution base.
Review enterprise agreement pay rates (where applicable) and ensure the pay rates do not fall below the applicable modern award base rate or the national minimum wage (as applicable).
Ensure all employees who are eligible are being paid the appropriate super guarantee.
Be mindful of the new high income threshold of AU$183,100.
United Kingdom: UK Crypto Regulation: Regulated Activities
The UK is quickening the pace on the new crypto regulatory regime. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published three papers in quick succession in May 2025: a discussion on key policy positions (DP25/1) and two consultations on detailed rules (CP25/14 and CP25/15). This blog focuses on DP25/1. Please see our upcoming separate blogs on the other proposals.
The FCA intends to regulate not only UK cryptoasset trading platforms but also certain non-UK overseas platforms. Any non-UK overseas cryptoasset trading platforms that service retail customers in the UK on a cross-border basis will need to get authorised by the FCA, and they will need to set up a UK physical presence in order to obtain authorisation. It is currently not clear in what circumstances an overseas crypto exchange would be considered to have retail customers in the UK – e.g. whether there would be look-through to the ultimate customers if the exchange itself services only institutional intermediaries which have underlying retail customers.
Cryptoasset intermediaries that buy/sell cryptoassets will also need to obtain authorisation. Further, if they wish to service retail customers, the cryptoasset in question must be admitted onto at least one UK authorised cryptoasset trading platform. This means the intermediary’s business model would depend on factors outside its control, i.e. whether there would be any authorised cryptoasset trading platform that happens to have the relevant cryptoasset listed on their platform. This could present significant challenges, particularly at the start of the regime where trading platforms themselves are also applying to get authorised.
While the FCA prefers to ban cryptoasset lending and borrowing for retail customers, it leaves the door somewhat open by also exploring an alternative – to allow retail access but with enhanced conduct rules on intermediaries (e.g. requiring assessment of customer creditworthiness). Given the importance of lending/borrowing in the current crypto ecosystem, an absolute ban on retail access may likely have significant consequences. It remains to be seen where the final determination will land.
For cryptoasset staking, one key proposal is to make the staking firm liable for failures of their third party service providers (e.g. those providing technology to the firm). This may potentially have significant impact on staking firms (e.g. they may need to reconsider their arrangements with third party service providers).
UK Data Act 2025: Key Changes Seek to Streamline Privacy Compliance
The UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (the Act) officially came into law on June 19.
The Act seeks to modernize the UK’s data protection and e-privacy regimes. It aims to help support the economy, improve public services, and make everyday life and business compliance easier by encouraging secure data sharing between consumers and third parties.
Updates to Current Legislation
The Act introduces amendments to the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, impacting areas such as legitimate interests, direct marketing, data subject access requests (DSARs), and automated decision-making, notably:
A new lawful basis for data processing in the form of “recognized legitimate interests.” These are specific types of processing activities that are automatically considered lawful, for example, fraud detection and prevention, information security, crime prevention, and public health and safety.
Relaxed rules around automated decision-making and cookie consent. Notably, explicit consent will no longer be required for certain types of cookies, including analytics, site optimization, and website functionality. With respect to automated decision-making, prior rules regarding individual rights not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing have now been relaxed to apply only when the decision involves special category data such as health, race, region, or biometric data.
Provides broader flexibility in connection with data subject access requests. In practice, these changes only reflect the existing guidance of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which many controllers have followed in recent years. This includes codifying the requirement for the controller’s search for personal data concerning the data subject to be (no more than) a “reasonable and proportionate search.”
Impact on Organizations
For financial services organizations, the Act may streamline their ability to process data without always needing a legitimate interests assessment (LIA), for example in connection with fraud prevention, IT security, intra-group administration, and direct marketing.
The Act may reduce several administrative burdens that prior UK privacy laws placed on all organizations by removing opt in consent requirements for functional and analytics cookies used on websites, potentially offering greater flexibility for data subject access requests, and reducing the requirement for legitimate interest assessments in certain cases.
The Act also lays the foundation for data initiatives that would enable data portability in certain key sectors, including transport, finance (outside of retail banking), healthcare, and energy. These purpose of these initiatives is to encourage greater innovation in these sectors, similar to Open Banking, which already exists for retail banking. Linked to this, there are also provisions for digital IDs, which might simplify know your customer (KYC) processes and remote ID verification. These changes may, in part, enable customers to switch more easily between suppliers, the aim of which is to drive more innovation through increased competition.
Although these changes may benefit UK organizations, they do not change requirements under the broader GDPR. UK organizations should carefully assess their compliance programs to ensure that any changes made to UK operations do not result in compliance gaps under GDPR and other EU member state laws.
Considerations for Companies
UK organizations should assess their compliance programs and, more generally, their data strategy to determine whether or not these remain “fit for purpose” in light of the changes the Act introduces. For example, companies should consider:
Reviewing data processing activities to identify where the new “recognized legitimate interests” basis for processing may be relied upon;
Updating DSAR processes;
Reassessing cookie and marketing compliance to take advantage of opt out for low-risk cookies;
Preparing for smart data schemes where relevant; and
Preparing for digital ID and verification frameworks.
Summer of Women’s Sport: Protecting the Welfare of Female Athletes and Tackling Abuse
A big UK summer of women’s sport is upon us. Tennis kicked things off, with Tatjana Maria becoming the first woman since 1973 to be crowned champion at the illustrious Queen’s Club. Wimbledon is about to begin, quickly followed by the Women’s Euros, the home Women’s Rugby World Cup, and the Cricket World Cup, amongst other domestic and international sporting fixtures.
As excitement is building for the performances to come, expectation mounts for the potential impact this long sporting summer can have on the growth of women’s sport. While the increased spotlight on women’s sport is welcome, we are also reminded of the all-too familiar toxicity that must be navigated in the pursuit of these objectives. Fans of women’s sport have grown accustomed to greater access and insight into the lives of female athletes, many of whom use social media to raise their personal profile and that of their respective sport (and, in turn, to generate supplemental income). But such increased attention heightens the risk of targeted abuse, which often appears to be rooted in sexism and misogyny.
In the past few weeks alone, we have seen the threatening messages tennis that star Katie Boulter regularly receives[1] and heard from England’s Lioness players who are choosing to avoid social media during the Euros due to damaging online abuse becoming the norm.[2] World Rugby has announced that it is stepping up protection of female players, including by tackling abuse that has already been detected ahead of the World Cup.[3] There are also many examples of female family members (and children) of male athletes being the targets of similar abuse.[4].
Sadly, abuse is not confined to the online realm, as the recent chilling experiences of Emma Raducanu exemplify. Security provisions for the forthcoming Wimbledon Championships reportedly have come into sharper focus this year, and have already blocked from the public ballot a man who was given a restraining order for stalking Ms Raducanu. An estimated 1,000 personnel are expected to support security efforts across the Championships, including police and military personnel, fixated threat specialists and behavioural experts who are trained to spot strange behaviour.[5]
In this context, we reflect on the discussion and learnings from the panel discussion on Protecting the Welfare of Female Athletes and Confronting Misogyny at the second Squire Patton Boggs Women’s Sport Symposium, which took place earlier this year. The panel focussed on the themes of safeguarding, welfare, misogyny and abuse in women’s sport, providing insight from expert speakers Yvonne Nolan (General Counsel, World Rugby), Dr. Emma Kavanagh (Associate Professor in Sport Psychology and Safe Sport, Bournemouth University), Gary Bye (Former Safeguarding and Player Care Manager, International Tennis Federation) and Georgia Relf (Sports Account Manager, Signify), moderated by Dr. Katie Smith (Associate, Squire Patton Boggs).
Broadening Scope of Safeguarding
The IOC consensus statement on safeguarding and interpersonal violence in sport[6] is demonstrative of the shift away from safeguarding being focused solely on children and vulnerable adults. There is a wider notion of safe sport. This is for all in the ecosystem, meaning athletes of all ages and levels but also family members, officials, coaches, staff and volunteers, and fans. This broadening is important but brings its own challenges to sports governing bodies and other stakeholders to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to protect the welfare of those categories of individuals.
In turn, there is a recognition that support across a broader range of areas is required. This was highlighted in the expanded definition of Duty of Care promoted and explored in Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson’s 2017 Independent Report to Government: “covering everything from personal safety and injury, to mental health issues, to the support given to people at the elite level.”[7] Increasingly, there is a need to consider threats from the online arena, with athletes and others involved in sport becoming the targets of abuse on social media platforms.
In terms of women’s sport, there are the additional factors of sexism and misogyny at play. These are societal problems that find their way into sport, with hatred and contempt for women being displayed through abusive behaviours in both physical and virtual spaces. Dr Kavanagh considers that such behaviours as forms of gender-based violence and has co-authored studies investigating the subculture of misogyny within women’s football[8] and gender-based violence targeting high-profile women in tennis.[9] Abuse often targets female athletes’ physical appearance or other personal attributes, with notable correlation to betting activity (i.e. gamblers who have lost bets).[10]
Prevention, Support and Response
Safeguarding in sport is about risk. To prevent harm occurring, sports must properly assess that risk and have wide-ranging and effective policies and procedures that are implemented at all levels. To ensure that such policies are appropriately tailored and strictly adhered to can be a challenge for international governing bodies with member associations, athletes and other stakeholders in various different jurisdictions.
Sports governing bodies and athletes themselves are increasingly investing in services such as those offered by Signify, an ethical data science company, in order to identify the problems, investigate and take action. In addition to internal disciplinary and other regulatory processes, there are legal actions (both civil and criminal) that can be taken against those responsible for abuse, including private prosecutions, defamation claims, injunctions to prevent harassment, and non-molestation orders.
Sports must ensure that easy access to reporting is available, with both formal and informal channels open, providing victims with the best possible chance of reaching out for help and preventing further harm. Education is also important so that athletes are fully prepared and can identify risks and low-level behaviours before they escalate. This would include training for content creators around the risks associated with social media, which is especially important for female athletes who are looking to build and exploit their personal brand. Women’s sport teams and athletes are dominating digital platforms,[11] providing important opportunities for growth, income and investment, but it must also be recognised that this profile-raising could leave individuals more exposed to abuse.
Importance of supporting female athletes
When athletes are not kept safe, there is an impact on performance. The potential harmful effects are shown by recent examples, such as Khadija ‘Bunny’ Shaw withdrawing from the Manchester City Women FC squad after suffering misogynistic and racist abuse,[12] and Emma Raducanu, who stated how she “couldn’t see the ball through tears… [and could] barely breathe” after being targeted by a stalker who “exhibited fixated behaviour”.[13]
As articulated in Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson’s Report,
“The success of sport, in terms of helping people achieve their potential, making the most of existing talent, and attracting new people to sport relies on putting people- their safety, wellbeing and welfare- at the centre of what sport does.”
This feeds into what Baroness Karen Carney described as the “virtuous cycle” in the context of women’s football:
“Meaningful progress in these areas are crucial in catalysing the virtuous cycle of investment which can support the organic growth of women’s football. As players are nurtured and developed in an increasingly elite performance and welfare environment, on pitch standards will continue to improve, bringing in larger audiences and unlocking new investment from broadcasters and commercial partners.”[14]
At this important time for the growth and commercialisation of women’s sport, it is in everyone’s interests for standards in these areas to be developed and prioritised.
Ideas for the future
The panel also explored improvements that could be made in this area. Better intelligence-sharing both within and across sports is at the top of the list. This would seek to (i) disrupt bad actors moving around a sport in different roles and jurisdictions and between different sports; and (ii) allow best practice to be shared and work for the benefit of all. Support is also needed from those outside of sport, for example social media companies, to assist in identifying wrongdoers and preventing further abuse. Such efforts would of course benefit athletes of all genders, and the authors note that issues of abuse do not solely impact women (although gender can play a role in how abuse manifests).
Sport has a real opportunity to work together and join forces in tackling these societal issues, ensuring that women are protected, supported and allowed to flourish.
[1] Katie Boulter: British tennis player reveals social media abuse she has received – BBC Sport
[2] Alessia Russo: ‘Social media could be really damaging during Euros’ – BBC Sport
[3] World Rugby to protect players and combat online abuse at Women’s Rugby World Cup England 2025 through extended partnership with Signify Group | World Rugby
[4] For example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c1kmn7jjvkjo and https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cr4zzn412gyo
[5] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/c74zjj14xvyo
[6] IOC consensus statement: interpersonal violence and safeguarding in sport | British Journal of Sports Medicine
[7] Microsoft Word – 170419 Duty of Care Review – Final version .docx
[8] Full article: Women’s football subculture of misogyny: the escalation to online gender-based violence
[9] Sporting Women and Social Media: Sexualization, Misogyny, and Gender-Based Violence in Online Spaces in: International Journal of Sport Communication Volume 12 Issue 4 (2019)
[10] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/cj42rvdk2k4o
[11] https://www.womenssporttrust.com/domestic-sport-and-interest-in-female-athletes-experience-continued-growth/
[12] Bunny Shaw: Manchester City striker withdraws from League Cup semi-final squad after suffering racist and misogynistic abuse | Football News | Sky Sports
[13] Emma Raducanu says she ‘couldn’t see the ball through tears’ in Dubai stalking incident and says it ‘could have been dealt with better’ – BBC Sport
[14] Raising the bar – reframing the opportunity in women’s football – GOV.UK
China Newsletter | Q1 2025/Issue No. 63
In This Issue
This China Newsletter provides an overview of key Q1 2025 developments in the following areas:
1.
Antitrust
China Unveils Anti-Monopoly Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Sector
2.
Compliance
China Formally Finalizes First Anti-Corruption Guidelines for the Health Care and Life Sciences Industry
3.
Corporate
China Streamlines Company Registration: Key Changes Effective February 2025
4.
Data Privacy & Cybersecurity
China Issues Personal Information Compliance Audit Rule
China Issues Regulation for Facial Recognition Technology Applications
China Issues Measures for Labeling AI-Generated and Synthetic Content
5.
Foreign Investment
China Publishes 2025 Action Plan for Stabilizing Foreign Investment
6.
International Trade
China Promulgates Regulations for Implementing Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law
Read the Full Newsletter Here
Mexico Publishes Sustainability Reporting Standards
On May 13, 2024, the Mexican Financial Reporting and Sustainability Standards Board (CINIF) published the Sustainability Reporting Standards (NIS), which took effect Jan. 1, 2025. The NIS require any entities that report their financial statements under Mexican Financial Reporting Standards to include sustainability information in financial statements beginning in 2026 using data from the 2025 fiscal year. This GT Alert summarizes the most relevant aspects of the NIS.
I. Context
In response to the increased environmental and social demands in recent years, and in line with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (ODS) and the first international sustainability standards, IFRS S1 and S2, issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) May 13, 2024, CINIF issued the first Mexican NIS, NIS A-1, and NIS B-1. The promulgation of these standards corresponds to the first stage of CINIF’s strategy for issuing the NIS.
II. Purpose
The NIS aim to formalize and standardize ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) information reporting. Specifically, the purpose of NIS-1 is to establish the conceptual framework of the NIS, in line with the conceptual framework of the Financial Reporting Standards (NIF). On the other hand, NIS B-1 establishes the standards for determining the Basic Sustainability Indicators (IBSO) and their disclosure.
III. NIS A-1
Establishes the conceptual framework and general requirements applicable to sustainability information, which are consistent with NIF.
NIS A1 provisions should be applied in conjunction with the detailed requirements provided in NIS B-1.
Defines the characteristics that must be met for sustainability information to demonstrate improvement from previous years’ reporting.
IV. NIS B-1
Establishes the criteria for the identification and disclosure of all IBSOs, which are applicable to all types of entities.
Introduces 30 IBSOs, 21 quantitative and nine qualitative, which must be fully disclosed:
Quantitative indicators
Qualitative indicators
Environmental
Social
Governance
Social-Human capital
Governance
1. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, scope 1
2. GHG emissions, scope 2
3. GHG emissions, scope 3
4. Energy consumption
5. Renewable energy consumption
6. Sustainable investment
7. Incoming water
8. Water reuse
9. Wastewater discharge
10. Discharge of treated wastewater
11. Incoming water from water-stressed areas
12. Land use within or near irrigated areas for biodiversity
13. Dependence on substances and products that deplete the ozone layer
14. Generated waste
15. Used waste
16. Hazardous waste
1. Wage gap
2. Training hours
3. Performance evaluations and professional development of employees
4. Accidents and diseases at work that caused incapacity or death
1. Women on the board of directors
1. Management of equal opportunity and suitable work conditions
2. Occupational health and safety management
1. Board of directors
2. Independent supervisory body
3. Risk management policy
4. Sustainability strategy
5. Code of integrity and ethics
6. Information security
7. Protection and privacy of third-party data
For each of the quantitative IBSOs, the absolute and relative value must be determined and disclosed according to the specifications of the standard.
Entities must disclosure at least the following: (i) profile and context in which they operate; (ii) reporting period; (iii) comparable information with the previous year; (iv) economic sector to which they belong; (v) geographic regions in which they operate; (v) economic activities; and (vi) number of workers and categories of occupation, gender, and age ranges.
IBSO disclosure should be made in the notes of financial statements at the end of the reporting period, displayed in comparison with the previous period.
NIS B-1 outlines the sources that may be consulted to obtain the information required for the determination of each IBSO.
V. Effective Date
The NIS took effect Jan. 1, 2025.
VI. Additional Considerations
The NIS B-1 transitory provisions specify that in the first year of application, entities will not be required to present information from previous periods in comparative form with the current period.
The first reporting deadline will be in 2026, using data from the previous year.
In addition to the above, entities may not disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions1 during the fiscal year following Jan. 1, 2025.
1 Scope 3 GHG emissions are the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting entity, but that the entity indirectly affects in its value chain.
Paula Maria De Uriarte contributed to this article
What a Cargo of Wheat Can Teach Us About Jurisdiction, Justice, and the Art of Drafting Contracts
In the pantheon of arbitration appeals, achieving success under sections 67, 68, and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in a single case is rather like scoring a hat trick in a World Cup final – theoretically possible but rarely achieved. Yet this is precisely what CAFI Commodity & Freight Integrators DMCC (CAFI) managed in its recent victory against GTCS Trading DMCC (GTCS).
The decision in CAFI v. GTCS Trading, EWHC 1350 (Comm) (2025) offers a masterclass in how arbitration can go spectacularly wrong when tribunals tie themselves in jurisdictional knots, and how the Commercial Court can untangle even the most byzantine of procedural tangles. More importantly for commercial parties, it provides welcome clarity on when disputes can span multiple contracts – and why arbitrators cannot simply blind themselves to inconvenient contractual provisions.
A Tale of Two Contracts (and Some Sanctions)
As so many modern commercial disputes do, our story begins with the inconvenient incursion of geopolitics upon the noble pursuit of profit.
GTCS agreed to sell CAFI 28,000 metric tonnes of Russian milling wheat at a rate of $465 per tonne under a contract concluded in March 2022. The timing, one might observe, was not ideal. With US sanctions against Russia creating payment difficulties, CAFI found itself in the uncomfortable position of wanting wheat it could not easily pay for.
What followed was a commercial pas de deux familiar to anyone who has ever tried to salvage a deal going sideways. Through the intervention of a broker, the parties negotiated a second contract for the same cargo at a reduced price of $440 per metric tonne. Crucially, this second contract contained what the court termed a “Termination Clause” stating that the first contract was “terminated and considered void.” The cargo was duly delivered and paid for under the second contract.
One might have thought this the end of the matter – a neat commercial solution to an awkward geopolitical problem.
One would have been wrong.
The Arbitration Imbroglio
GTCS, perhaps suffering from seller’s remorse over the $25 per tonne price reduction, commenced Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) arbitration claiming damages for CAFI’s alleged repudiatory breach of the first contract.
GTCS’s argument was simple: CAFI had breached the first contract, and the fact that CAFI had subsequently agreed to buy the same cargo at a lower price merely quantified the damages. CAFI’s response was equally straightforward: the second contract’s Termination Clause had rendered the first contract “void” and thereby extinguished any liability for damages. This presented the GAFTA tribunal with a mealy interpretive puzzle – what exactly did “terminated and considered void” mean?
The First-Tier Tribunal sided with CAFI, finding that GTCS had waived its right to claim damages. GTCS appealed to the GAFTA Board of Appeal, which is where our journey takes a turn.
The Appeal Board found itself faced with what it perceived as a jurisdictional conundrum. Having been appointed under the arbitration clause in the first contract, could it interpret provisions of the second contract? The board concluded it could not: the second contract had its own arbitration clause, and any disputes about its meaning would require a separate arbitration. No arbitration had been commenced under the second contract, and so neither the First-Tier Tribunal nor the board had “jurisdiction to interpret the terms of the [second contract] or how any of those terms impact on the [first] Contract.”[1]
Having reached this conclusion, the board then proceeded to do exactly what logic suggested it could not: it awarded GTCS damages of $700,000, in effect determining that the Termination Clause did not extinguish liability under the first contract. The board’s reasoning was that while it could not interpret the second contract as a contract, it could consider it as “evidence” of what happened after the first contract was terminated.
This approach created a raft of failings.
The Court’s Triple Victory
CAFI challenged the board’s award. Its challenge succeeded on all fronts, providing a neat demonstration of how the three appeal grounds under the Arbitration Act can work in practice.
Section 67 (jurisdiction): The court held that the Appeal Board was wrong to conclude it lacked jurisdiction to interpret the second contract as a contract.[2] The arbitration clause in the first contract was decidedly vanilla, covering “[a]ny dispute arising out of or under this contract.” That language was broad enough to encompass disputes about whether subsequent agreements affected rights under the first contract. As Henshaw J noted, rational parties would not intend that disputes about the continuing validity of their contract should be carved out and sent to a different tribunal.[3]
Worse still, having found (wrongly) that it lacked jurisdiction to interpret the second contract, the board then went on to exceed the jurisdiction it thought it did have. It followed from the board’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the second contract that it also lacked jurisdiction to determine the question of waiver. But by awarding damages without determining whether the Termination Clause extinguished GTCS’s right to claim them, the board made an implicit determination as to the effect of the second contract, and, by purporting to do so, exceeded its jurisdiction.
Section 68 (serious procedural irregularity): The board’s failure to properly grapple with the waiver issue created other problems too. The court found that even if the board’s finding as to jurisdiction was correct, it was not possible to determine whether CAFI was liable under the first contract without first determining whether GTCS had, through the second contract, waived its claims. By finding CAFI liable for breach without considering the waiver issue, the board, in dereliction of duty under section 33, pre-emptively determined the waiver issue against CAFI – an irregularity so serious it was within the scope of section 68.
Section 69 (error of law): Cementing the hat trick, the court also found that the board, by concluding it could award damages where a live issue existed as to whether liability had been extinguished and that issue had not been resolved by a competent tribunal, had committed an obvious error of law.
Additionally, although ultimately unnecessary for the court to determine,[4] Henshaw J noted that CAFI would have had “a strong case” that the Appeal Board’s conclusion that CAFI needed to show the Termination Clause had been “freely negotiated” or was the subject of “clear discussion” before it could be effective was obviously wrong in law.[5] That dicta confirms that the terms of a written contract speak for themselves, regardless of the process by which they came to be agreed—that a contract means what it says, not what the parties discussed (or failed to discuss) beforehand, and courts and tribunals should not journey beyond the words used in a hunt for evidence of specific negotiation of particular clauses.
Lessons From the Wheat Wars
From forum selection strategies to drafting precision, the case highlights opportunities and pitfalls, and offers kernels of wisdom for commercial practitioners navigating the complexities of multi-contract disputes.
When arbitrators fear to tread: For all its virtues, arbitration is only as good as the arbitrators who conduct it. When tribunals tie themselves in jurisdictional knots and attempt to avoid difficult interpretive questions, they risk creating the very problems they seek to avoid. The Appeal Board’s attempt to split the difference, denying jurisdiction over the second contract and disclaiming ability to discern its meaning while effectively doing exactly that sub silentio, satisfied nobody – and achieved nothing except procedural chaos. Jurisdictional questions demand confidence, not excessive handwringing.
A commercial victory: Commercial parties need not launch multiple arbitrations when subsequent agreements might affect rights under earlier contracts. A single, properly appointed tribunal can – and should – interpret one contract through the lens of later agreements between the same parties. This streamlined approach saves both time and the headache of coordinating parallel proceedings.
Forum shopping made simple: Jurisdiction clauses are not always mutually exclusive.[6] When parties weave together related agreements, each sporting its own arbitration clause, disputes can legitimately fall within multiple jurisdictional nets. The result? Claimants likely get to pick their preferred forum, but they should do so with caution given the attendant risk of parallel proceedings.
The price of poor drafting: Beyond the jurisdictional confusion lies a sobering lesson in the need for clear contractual drafting. The phrase “terminated and considered void” may have seemed like belt-and-braces language to the parties, but it created sufficient ambiguity to spawn two arbitrations, an arbitration appeal, and a Commercial Court appeal. Greater drafting precision might have saved everyone considerable time and expense.
The case provides an exposition of arbitration law in action, and a reminder that even in the esoteric world of GAFTA wheat disputes, basic principles of fairness and logical consistency still matter. The Commercial Court’s willingness to deploy all three statutory appeal grounds demonstrates that when arbitrators get it wrong, they can get it comprehensively wrong—and that the courts retain both the power and the will to put things right.
[1] Section 9.8, extracted in section 28 of the judgment.
[2] Section 43.
[3] Section 38, section 42.
[4] The Appeal Board did not attempt to construe the second contract as a contract and accordingly it was unnecessary to determine CAFI’s alternative challenge (advanced on the basis of section 69) that the board’s approach to interpretation was an obvious error of law.
[5] Section 62.
[6] Section 36.