# data[].attributes.headline
Brazilian mining company to pay out £86m for disaster that ...www.theguardian.com › world › jul › vale-brazil-minin...

# data[].attributes.subject
Brazilian mining company to pay out £86m for disaster that ...www.theguardian.com › world › jul › vale-brazil-minin...

# data[].attributes.body
Herald of Free enterprise - 200 people lost their lives because the doors weren’t closed properly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Herald_of_Free_Enterprise

# data[].attributes.body
Blake ◊: It's a pack of a lot of examples. Copy the link and enter it .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Chapter 362 of the Laws of Hong Kong) ("TDO"), as amended by the Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment) Ordinance 2012, prohibits common unfair trade practices deployed against consumers, including:

false trade descriptions;

misleading ommissions;

aggressive commercial practices;

bait advertising;

bait-and-switch; and

wrongly accepting payment

The maximum penalty upon conviction of the above offences is a fine of HK$500,000 and imprisonment for 5 years. The Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") is the principal enforcement agency of the TDO.

As an alternative to pursuing prosecution, the TDO provides for a civil compliance-based mechanism under which C&ED may, with the consent of the Secretary for Justice, accept an undertaking from a trader believed to have engaged, be engaging, or be likely to engage in conduct that constitutes any of the above offences. This undertaking is a commitment by the trader not to continue or repeat the conduct concerned, providing a means to encourage compliance and resolve infringements expeditiously.

In the case KCCC 1279 of 2014, a beauty parlor solicited consumers to purchase prepaid service plans without telling them that all existing clients and equipment would be taken over by another operator. Although the level and quality of service provided might not be affected in any way, such a piece of material information was essential for an average consumer to make informed transactional decisions. A director of the beauty parlor was convicted for engaging in commercial practice that was a misleading omission and was fined HK$4,000.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unfair Trade Practices - Case Study | Lexology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Chapter 362 of the Laws of Hong Kong) ("TDO"), as amended by the Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment) Ordinance 2012, prohibits common unfair trade practices deployed against consumers, including: false trade descriptions; misleading ommissions; aggressive commercial practices; bait advertising; bait-and-switch; and wrongly accepting payment The maximum penalty upon conviction of the above offences is a fine of HK$500,000 and imprisonment for 5 years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate changewww.theguardian.com › business › mar › top-oil-firms-...

# data[].attributes.subject
Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate changewww.theguardian.com › business › mar › top-oil-firms-...

# data[].attributes.body
Global Financial Institutions Fined $26 Billion for AML, Sanctions & KYC Non-Compliance Since 2008 Financial Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tesco has threatened legal action after being hit with a £10m fine from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) following an inquiry into the price fixing of dairy products.

The supermarket giant was one of nine firms facing penalties totalling close to £50m for colluding over the price of milk and cheese in 2002 and 2003.

But Tesco expressed "surprise and dismay" that it was included in the penalties handed down by the regulator.

Tesco denies it colluded with others.

The OFT estimated that the collusion saw shoppers pay 2 pence extra for a litre of milk and 2p extra on 100g of cheese.

The regulator originally calculated that an extra £270m was spent by UK consumers as a result of the price fixing, but no total figure has been included in the final report.

Fines reduced

The OFT found that Arla, Asda, Dairy Crest, McLelland, Safeway, Sainsbury's, The Cheese Company, Wiseman, and Tesco infringed the Competition Act by co-ordinating rises in the prices consumers paid for certain dairy products in 2002 and, or 2003.

The first eight all received leniency after admitting liability.

However, Tesco has denied collusion and said it would defend its position vigorously, and "through the courts if necessary".

"We surely have now reached the stage where the absurdity of the OFT operating as investigator, prosecutor and judge cannot be allowed to continue," said Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Tesco's director of corporate and legal affairs.

Tesco's share price was down slightly at 1100BST on Wednesday, as was Morrisons' - the owner of Safeway.

Fines were originally set at a total of £116m, but were reduced after consultation. For example Wiseman said it had originally reached a settlement of £6.1m with the OFT. This sum was reduced to £4.2m in March 2010, and is now down to £3.2m.

The OFT said that supermarkets had indirectly exchanged pricing details with each other via the dairy processors.

However, it said that not all the companies were involved in all the infringements that it had found.

The final penalties announced by the OFT were £9.39m for Asda, £7.14m for Dairy Crest, £1.66m for McLelland, £5.69m for Safeway, £11.04m for Sainsbury's, £1.26m for The Cheese Company, £3.2m for Wiseman and £10.43m for Tesco. Although Arla was found to been involved in the infringement regarding milk in 2003, it has not been fined as it alerted the OFT to price fixing and was given immunity.

"Competition in the supermarket sector is generally intense and has delivered significant benefits to shoppers across the UK in terms of innovation, choice and improved value for money," said OFT chief executive John Fingleton.

"Our investigation and this final decision will help ensure that this competition is maintained."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tesco has threatened legal action after being hit with a £10m fine from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) following an inquiry into the price fixing of dairy products. The supermarket giant was one of nine firms facing penalties totalling close to £50m for colluding over the price of milk and cheese in 2002 and 2003.

# data[].attributes.headline
In the twelve year period April 2000 to March 2012 there were 53 fatal injuries in the food and drink manufacturing industries.These fatalities involved machinery/plant (38%), workplace transport (25%), falls from height (15%), confined spaces/asphyxiation (11%), struck by an object (8%), animals (2%) and electrocution (2%).

# data[].attributes.subject
In the twelve year period April 2000 to March 2012 there were 53 fatal injuries in the food and drink manufacturing industries.These fatalities involved machinery/plant (38%), workplace transport (25%), falls from height (15%), confined spaces/asphyxiation (11%), struck by an object (8%), animals (2%) and electrocution (2%).

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/wagamama-tgi-fridays-marriot-hotels-12152315

# data[].attributes.body
December 2016, Odebrecht and its petrochemical subsidiary, Braskem, admitted bribery to the tune of $788m (£553m) and agreed a record-breaking fine of at least $3.5bn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The oil and gas industry is putting great efforts into trying to convince the Canadian public that they are making strides to be more environmentally responsible. Don't buy it.

The fact is oil and gas companies' total impact on Canada's water, land, species, and the climate continues to grow. Even on a per barrel basis, oil companies are creating ever more carbon emissions.

"Canadian oil has never been dirtier"

Over the last three decades, Canada's oil and gas sector has shifted towards production that is higher in carbon and more risky-from conventional oil to tar sands oil, and with increased production from offshore. This is documented in our new report on the barriers the oil and gas lobby puts up to slow progress on climate action. On average, the amount of carbon emitted to produce a barrel of Canadian oil has continuously increased since 1990-a 16 per cent increase overall. Canadian oil has never been dirtier.
Read the report.
The oil lobby and some political parties have actually suggested that Canada could reduce global carbon emissions by exporting more oil and gas. And yet, Canada's oil is one of the dirtiest in the world. A study published in the prestigious journal Science found that 46 countries produced oil with a lower per barrel carbon footprint than Canada. Only three countries were worse: Algeria, Venezuela, and Cameroon. We're 47th out of 50 countries.

So this is the opposite of what the oil companies are saying. The truth is that exporting more Canadian oil will increase global carbon emissions.

Two other factors need to be taken into account

There are two other factors that show the issue is actually worse than what the data tell us. First, a multitude of scientific studies show that oil and gas facilities leak a lot more climate-altering gases than what is reported by industry. That's true for conventional oil and gas production that leaks a lot of methane-a potent greenhouse gas. It's also true for tar sands operations that emit on average 30 per cent more carbon dioxide than officially reported.

Second, Canada is upgrading and refining less and less oil. It's also shipping more raw bitumen to American states. As a result, an increasing portion of oil's carbon footprint is being "offshored" to the U.S. That carbon is still being emitted, but it just happens to be on the U.S.'s books.

Where would Canadian oil rank in carbon emissions if those two factors were taken into account? Would it be worst in the world?

Let's not forget the carbon emitted when oil is burned, mostly in cars, trains, and buses that could run on renewable electricity instead.

And that's still only considering climate change.

The environmental impact of Canada's oil and gas industry keeps going up

Oil and gas operations are also creating massive amounts of water pollution, local air pollution, and land disturbance. They also impact plants, animals, and even entire species. Abandoned oil and gas wells, old tar sands mines, and toxic tailings ponds have created an environmental disaster that could cost $260 billion to clean up. That tab is likely going to be picked up by governments rather than the companies that created the mess. That's because the funds available for clean up would cover only 0.6 per cent of the cleanup costs.

Oil executives need to stop lying. The environmental impact of oil and gas companies operating in Canada is only going up.

And governments need to act. Federal and provincial decision-makers need to acknowledge that the oil and gas industry in Canada is big enough. Over the next two to three decades, we need to transition away from fossil fuels like oil and gas and towards clean, renewable energy. In the meantime, governments need to ensure that the environmental cost of oil and gas operations be placed entirely on those responsible-petroleum companies themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The oil lobby is lying. Canadian oil isn't clean oil - Environmental Defence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The oil and gas industry is putting great efforts into trying to convince the Canadian public that they are making strides to be more environmentally responsible. Don't buy it. The fact is oil and gas companies' total impact on Canada's water, land, species, and the climate continues to grow.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/09/uk-care-homes-scramble-to-buy-their-own-ppe-as-national-deliveries-fail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the twelve year period April 2000 to March 2012 there were 53 fatal injuries in the food and drink manufacturing industries.

These fatalities involved machinery/plant (38%), workplace transport (25%), falls from height (15%), confined spaces/asphyxiation (11%), struck by an object (8%), animals (2%) and electrocution (2%).

Fatal injuries since April 2000 include:

Note: the above table includes some fatalities to contractors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the twelve year period April 2000 to March 2012 there were 53 fatal injuries in the food and drink manufacturing industries. These fatalities involved machinery/plant (38%), workplace transport (25%), falls from height (15%), confined spaces/asphyxiation (11%), struck by an object (8%), animals (2%) and electrocution (2%).

# data[].attributes.headline
scaffolding firm health and safety breach

# data[].attributes.subject
scaffolding firm health and safety breach

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-41337901

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Global health care giant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company's unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices, the Justice Department announced today. The resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history and the largest payment ever by a drug company.

GSK agreed to plead guilty to a three-count criminal information, including two counts of introducing misbranded drugs, Paxil and Wellbutrin, into interstate commerce and one count of failing to report safety data about the drug Avandia to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Under the terms of the plea agreement, GSK will pay a total of $1 billion, including a criminal fine of $956,814,400 and forfeiture in the amount of $43,185,600. The criminal plea agreement also includes certain non-monetary compliance commitments and certifications by GSK's U.S. president and board of directors. GSK's guilty plea and sentence is not final until accepted by the U.S. District Court.

GSK will also pay $2 billion to resolve its civil liabilities with the federal government under the False Claims Act, as well as the states. The civil settlement resolves claims relating to Paxil, Wellbutrin and Avandia, as well as additional drugs, and also resolves pricing fraud allegations.

"Today's multi-billion dollar settlement is unprecedented in both size and scope. It underscores the Administration's firm commitment to protecting the American people and holding accountable those who commit health care fraud," said James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General. "At every level, we are determined to stop practices that jeopardize patients' health, harm taxpayers, and violate the public trust - and this historic action is a clear warning to any company that chooses to break the law."

"Today's historic settlement is a major milestone in our efforts to stamp out health care fraud," said Bill Corr, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). "For a long time, our health care system had been a target for cheaters who thought they could make an easy profit at the expense of public safety, taxpayers, and the millions of Americans who depend on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. But thanks to strong enforcement actions like those we have announced today, that equation is rapidly changing."

This resolution marks the culmination of an extensive investigation by special agents from HHS-OIG, FDA and FBI, along with law enforcement partners across the federal government. Moving forward, GSK will be subject to stringent requirements under its corporate integrity agreement with HHS-OIG; this agreement is designed to increase accountability and transparency and prevent future fraud and abuse. Effective law enforcement partnerships and fraud prevention are hallmarks of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which fosters government collaboration to fight fraud.
Criminal Plea Agreement
Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company in its application to the FDA must specify each intended use of a drug. After the FDA approves the product as safe and effective for a specified use, a company's promotional activities must be limited to the intended uses that FDA approved. In fact, promotion by the manufacturer for other uses - known as "off-label uses" - renders the product "misbranded."

Paxil: In the criminal information, the government alleges that, from April 1998 to August 2003, GSK unlawfully promoted Paxil for treating depression in patients under age 18, even though the FDA has never approved it for pediatric use. The United States alleges that, among other things, GSK participated in preparing, publishing and distributing a misleading medical journal article that misreported that a clinical trial of Paxil demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of depression in patients under age 18, when the study failed to demonstrate efficacy. At the same time, the United States alleges, GSK did not make available data from two other studies in which Paxil also failed to demonstrate efficacy in treating depression in patients under 18. The United States further alleges that GSK sponsored dinner programs, lunch programs, spa programs and similar activities to promote the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. GSK paid a speaker to talk to an audience of doctors and paid for the meal or spa treatment for the doctors who attended. Since 2004, Paxil, like other antidepressants, included on its label a "black box warning" stating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in short-term studies in patients under age 18. GSK agreed to plead guilty to misbranding Paxil in that its labeling was false and misleading regarding the use of Paxil for patients under 18.

Wellbutrin: The United States also alleges that, from January 1999 to December 2003, GSK promoted Wellbutrin, approved at that time only for Major Depressive Disorder, for weight loss, the treatment of sexual dysfunction, substance addictions and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, among other off-label uses. The United States contends that GSK paid millions of dollars to doctors to speak at and attend meetings, sometimes at lavish resorts, at which the off-label uses of Wellbutrin were routinely promoted and also used sales representatives, sham advisory boards, and supposedly independent Continuing Medical Education (CME) programs to promote Wllbutrin for these unapproved uses. GSK has agreed to plead guilty to misbranding Wellbutrin in that its labeling did not bear adequate directions for these off-label uses. For the Paxil and Wellbutrin misbranding offenses, GSK has agreed to pay a criminal fine and forfeiture of $757,387,200.

Avandia: The United States alleges that, between 2001 and 2007, GSK failed to include certain safety data about Avandia, a diabetes drug, in reports to the FDA that are meant to allow the FDA to determine if a drug continues to be safe for its approved indications and to spot drug safety trends. The missing information included data regarding certain post-marketing studies, as well as data regarding two studies undertaken in response to European regulators' concerns about the cardiovascular safety of Avandia. Since 2007, the FDA has added two black box warnings to the Avandia label to alert physicians about the potential increased risk of (1) congestive heart failure, and (2) myocardial infarction (heart attack). GSK has agreed to plead guilty to failing to report data to the FDA and has agreed to pay a criminal fine in the amount of $242,612,800 for its unlawful conduct concerning Avandia.

"This case demonstrates our continuing commitment to ensuring that the messages provided by drug manufacturers to physicians and patients are true and accurate and that decisions as to what drugs are prescribed to sick patients are based on best medical judgments, not false and misleading claims or improper financial inducements," said Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

"Patients rely on their physicians to prescribe the drugs they need," said John Walsh, U.S. Attorney for Colorado. "The pharmaceutical industries' drive for profits can distort the information provided to physicians concerning drugs. This case will help to ensure that your physician will make prescribing decisions based on good science and not on misinformation, money or favors provided by the pharmaceutical industry."
Civil Settlement Agreement
As part of this global resolution, GSK has agreed to resolve its civil liability for the following alleged conduct: (1) promoting the drugs Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Lamictal and Zofran for off-label, non-covered uses and paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe those drugs as well as the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex; (2) making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of Avandia; and (3) reporting false best prices and underpaying rebates owed under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.

Off-Label Promotion and Kickbacks: The civil settlement resolves claims set forth in a complaint filed by the United States alleging that, in addition to promoting the drugs Paxil and Wellbutrin for unapproved, non-covered uses, GSK also promoted its asthma drug, Advair, for first-line therapy for mild asthma patients even though it was not approvedor medically appropriate under these circumstances. GSK also promoted Advair for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with misleading claims as to the relevant treatment guidelines. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that GSK promoted Lamictal, an anti-epileptic medication, for off-label, non-covered psychiatric uses, neuropathic pain and pain management. It further resolves allegations that GSK promoted certain forms of Zofran, approved only for post-operative nausea, for the treatment of morning sickness in pregnant women. It also includes allegations that GSK paid kickbacks to health care professionals to induce them to promote and prescribe these drugs as well as the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex. The United States alleges that this conduct caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs.

GSK has agreed to pay $1.043 billion relating to false claims arising from this alleged conduct. The federal share of this settlement is $832 million and the state share is $210 million.

This off-label civil settlement resolves four lawsuits pending in federal court in the District of Massachusetts under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery.

Avandia: In its civil settlement agreement, the United States alleges that GSK promoted Avandia to physicians and other health care providers with false and misleading representations about Avandia's safety profile, causing false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs. Specifically, the United States alleges that GSK stated that Avandia had a positive cholesterol profile despite having no well-controlled studies to support that message. The United States also alleges that the company sponsored programs suggesting cardiovascular benefits from Avandia therapy despite warnings on the FDA-approved label regarding cardiovascular risks. GSK has agreed to pay $657 million relating to false claims arising from misrepresentations about Avandia. The federal share of this settlement is $508 million and the state share is $149 million.

Price Reporting: GSK is also resolving allegations that, between 1994 and 2003, GSK and its corporate predecessors reported false drug prices, which resulted in GSK's underpaying rebates owed under theMedicaid Drug Rebate Program. By law, GSK was required to report the lowest, or "best" price that it charged its customers and to pay quarterly rebates to the states based on those reported prices. When drugs are sold to purchasers in contingent arrangements known as "bundles," the discounts offered for the bundled drugs must be reallocated across all products in the bundle proportionate to the dollar value of the units sold. The United States alleges that GSK had bundled sales arrangements that included steep discounts known as "nominal" pricing and yet failed to take such contingent arrangements into account when calculating and reporting its best prices to the Department of Health and Human Services. Had it done so, the effective prices on certain drugs would have been different, and, in some instances, triggered a new, lower best price than what GSK reported. As a result, GSK underpaid rebates due to Medicaid and overcharged certain Public Health Service entities for its drugs, the United States contends. GSK has agreed to pay $300 million to resolve these allegations, including $160,972,069 to the federal government, $118,792,931 to thestates, and $20,235,000 to certain Public Health Service entities who paid inflated prices for the drugs at issue.

Except to the extent that GSK has agreed to plead guilty to the three-count criminal information, the claims settled by these agreements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

"This landmark settlement demonstrates the Department's commitment to protecting the American public against illegal conduct and fraud by pharmaceutical companies," said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division. "Doctors need truthful, fair, balanced information when deciding whether the benefits of a drug outweigh its safety risks. By the same token, the FDA needs all necessary safety-related information to identify safety trends and to determine whether a drug is safe and effective. Unlawful promotion of drugs for unapproved uses and failing to report adverse drug experiences to the FDA can tip the balance of those important decisions, and the Justice Department will not tolerate attempts by those who seek to corrupt our health care system in this way."
Non-monetary Provisions and Corporate Integrity Agreement
In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, GSK has executed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). The plea agreement and CIA include novel provisions that require that GSK implement and/or maintain major changes to the way it does business, including changing the way its sales force is compensated to remove compensation based on sales goals for territories, one of the driving forces behind much of the conduct at issue in this matter. Under the CIA, GSK is required to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses and long-term incentives from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct. GSK may recoup monies from executives who are current employees and those who have left the company. Among other things, the CIA also requires GSK to implement and maintain transparency in its research practices and publication policies and to follow specified policies in its contracts with various health care payors.

"Our five-year integrity agreement with GlaxoSmithKline requires individual accountability of its board and executives," said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "For example, company executives may have to forfeit annual bonuses if they or their subordinates engage in significant misconduct, and sales agents are now being paid based on quality of service rather than sales targets."

"The FDA Office of Criminal Investigations will aggressively pursue pharmaceutical companies that choose to put profits before the public's health," said Deborah M. Autor, Esq., Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "We will continue to work with the Justice Department and our law enforcement counterparts to target companies that disregard the protections of the drug approval process by promoting drugs for uses when they have not been proven to be safe and effective for those uses, and that fail to report required drug safety information to the FDA."

"The record settlement obtained by the multi-agency investigative team shows not only the importance of working with our partners, but also the importance of the public providing their knowledge of suspect schemes to the government," said Kevin Perkins, Acting Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch. "Together, we will continue to bring to justice those engaged in illegal schemes that threaten the safety of prescription drugs and other critical elements of our nation's healthcare system."

" Federal employees deserve health care providers and suppliers, including drug manufacturers, that meet the highest standards of ethical and professional behavior," said Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. "Today's settlement reminds the pharmaceutical industry that they must observe those standards and reflects the commitment of Federal law enforcement organizations to pursue improper and illegal conduct that places health care consumers at risk."

"Today's announcement illustrates the efforts of VA OIG and its law enforcement partners in ensuring the integrity of the medical care provided our nation's veterans by the Department of Veterans Affairs," said George J. Opfer, Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs. "The monetary recoveries realized by VA in this settlement will directly benefit VA healthcare programs that provide for veterans' continued care."

"This settlement sends a clear message that taking advantage of federal health care programs has substantial consequences for those who try," said Rafael A. Medina, Special Agent in Charge of the Northeast Area Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Postal Service. "The U.S. Postal Service pays more than one billion dollars a year in workers' compensation benefits and our office is committed to pursuing those individuals or entities whose fraudulent acts continue to unfairly add to that cost."
A Multilateral Effort
The criminal case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division's Consumer Protection Branch. The civil settlement was reached by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado and the Civil Division's Commercial Litigation Branch. Assistance was provided by the HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of the General Counsel-CMS Division and FDA's Office of Chief Counsel as well as the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

This matter was investigated by agents from the HHS-OIG; the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service of the Department of Defense; the Office of the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management; the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Department of Labor; TRICARE Program Integrity; the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Postal Service and the FBI.

This resolution is part of the government's emphasis on combating health care fraud and another step for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. Over the last three years, the department has recovered a total of more than $10.2 billion in settlements, judgments, fines, restitution, and forfeiture in health care fraud matters pursued under the False Claims Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Court documents related to today's settlement can be viewed online at www.justice.gov/opa/gsk-docs.html .

Related Materials:
Remarks by the Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole at the GSK Press Conference
Remarks by Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart F. Delery at the GSK Press Conference

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global health care giant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company's unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From plastic packaging to fossil fuel energy consumption, video game development and distribution can have a huge negative impact on the environment.

Between plastic packaging and console energy consumption, Video Games can be bad for the environment. This stems largely from the electricity that consoles require, which so often come from fossil fuel power plants which emit carbon dioxide. When considering how gaming impacts the environment, several factors come into play, including the physical waste of game packaging, the power consumption of different gaming consoles, and even the length of different video games when it impacts time spent playing.

Video game companies are becoming increasingly aware of their environment impact and the importance of reducing it. This has been behind decisions such as Ubisoft putting an end to physical instruction manuals as long ago as 2010, and Microsoft's commitment to carbon neutrality since 2012. More recently, it's been the topic of conversation in the United Nation's new Playing for the Planet initiative.

Related: Next-Gen PlayStation Will Be Incredibly Energy Efficient

Both physical and digital games can leave a surprisingly carbon footprint, according to Console Carbon Footprint research conducted by Slots Online Canada. For physical games, the worst offender is the packaging, including the aluminium poly-carbonate disc, the plastic case, and the paper cover and leaflet inside the case. All of these can end up as trash, especially in the case of annual games such as EA Sports series. According to the Console Carbon Footprint research, if all players threw away their discs when purchasing FIFA 20, they would generate over 283,000 pounds of landfill waste. Meanwhile, digital games can require additional energy consumption based on download times and the work of internet servers. This means that although digital downloads are becoming more common and are more eco-friendly than physical games, they don't even come close to eliminating the environment impact of gaming. Check out the video below for more information about the UN's Playing for the Planet project:

After installed via disc or download, a game's impact on the environment is largely a result of energy consumption. In other words, the more time players spend with their consoles turned on and plugged in, the more energy is consumed from power plants that emit CO2. In addition, the advent and increasing popularity of cloud gaming puts extra stress on servers. With this online streaming, data centers often handle graphics processing as well. All of this adds to video games' carbon footprint.

The good news is that in light of climate change, many video game companies are pledging to greener practices. For instance, though Greenpeace once ranked Nintendo as the least eco-friendly gaming company, Nintendo has since pledged to look into green practices and, in terms of emissions, actually currently produces less CO2 than other companies' consoles. Notably, both the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One have energy-saving modes, and the upcoming PlayStation 5 console is set to be incredibly energy-efficient. When it comes to physical games, Sega plans to ship all of their PC games in recycled packaging. All of these steps, however big or small, are helping move the industry toward a more environmentally-friendly future.

Next: Google's Stadia Is Netflix For Games

Sources: Slots Online Canada, Playing For The Planet
About The Author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Playing Video Games Can Be Really Bad For The Environment (Yes, Really)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From plastic packaging to fossil fuel energy consumption, video game development and distribution can have a huge negative impact on the environment. Between plastic packaging and console energy consumption, Video Games can be bad for the environment. This stems largely from the electricity that consoles require, which so often come from fossil fuel power plants which emit carbon dioxide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Beirut explosion - kept dangerous chemicals for too long and unsafely, ended up causing huge explosion 

# data[].attributes.subject
Beirut explosion - kept dangerous chemicals for too long and unsafely, ended up causing huge explosion 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53668493

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
hat do the catwalks of Paris have to do with 25,000 miles of exposed sea bed thousands of miles to the east? While all eyes have been fixed on designer collections and members of the front row, the true cost of the fashion industry has been revealed in a shock announcement by NASA that the Aral Sea in Central Asia has now completely dried up.

The Aral Sea was once the world's fourth largest lake, home to 24 species of fish and surrounded by fishing communities, lush forests and wetlands. While the lake was salt water, the rivers that fed it were fresh water. In the 1950's the Soviet Union began using the rivers to irrigate the surrounding agricultural area, a process that has been continued to this day by Uzbekistan's brutal dictator Islam Karimov.

The exposure of the bottom of the lake has released salts and pesticides into the atmosphere poisoning both farm land and people alike. Carcinogenic dust is blown into villages causing throat cancers and respiratory diseases.

The fashion industry is linked to this horror of dictatorships and environmental devastation by the fact that the crop being grown with the river water is cotton - 1.47m hectares of cotton. A hugely water intensive crop, one shirt can use up to 2,700 litres.

"Conventional cotton (as opposed to organic cotton) has got to be one of the most unsustainable fibres in the world," says fashion designer and environmentalist Katharine Hamnett. "Conventional cotton uses a huge amount of water and also huge amounts of pesticides which cause 350,000 farmer deaths a year and a million hospitalisations."

Reflecting on the loss of the Aral Sea, Hamnett states: "This is not just climate change this is an extinction issue. As Vandana Shiva said 'no species has deliberately designed its own extinction', but with industrial agriculture we have. The fashion industry is one of the most polluting industries in the world, causing human misery, enormous cost of life and gigantic environmental devastation."

The harvest of Uzbek cotton is taking place right now - it started on the 5 September and is expected to last until the end of October. The harvest itself is also a horror story, on top of the environmental devastation, this is cotton picked using forced labour. Every year hundreds of thousands of people are systematically sent to work in the fields by the government.

Under pressure from campaigners, in 2012, Uzbek authorities banned the use of child labour in the cotton harvest, but it is a ban that is routinely flouted. In 2013 there were 11 deaths during the harvest (pdf), including a six year old child, Amirbek Rakhmatov, who accompanied his mother to the fields and suffocated after falling asleep on a cotton truck.

Campaigners have also managed to get 153 fashion brands to sign a pledge to never knowingly use Uzbek cotton. Anti-Slavery International have worked on this fashion campaign but acknowledge that despite successes there is still a long way to go.

"Not knowingly using Uzbek cotton and actually ensuring that you don't use Uzbek cotton are two completely different things," explains Jakub Sobik, press officer at Anti-Slavery International.

One major problem that Sobik points out is that much of the Uzbek cotton crop now ends up in Bangladesh and China - key suppliers for European brands. "Whilst it is very hard to trace the cotton back to where it comes from because the supply chain is so subcontracted and deregulated, brands have a responsibility to ensure that slave picked cotton is not polluting their own supply chain."

The two issues - of environmental destruction and forced labour - are intrinsically linked. "Changing the policy that puts farmers and citizens in the position of forced labour to harvest cotton is the essential first step to addressing the overall picture," states Matt Fischer-Daly from the Cotton Campaign, an international coalition working to end Uzbek slavery. "Farmers free to diversify their crops and escape local government controlled monopolies are the lynch pin to changing the ecological impacts."

With cotton one of Uzbekistan's largest cash crops (pdf) accounting for 11.3% of the country's export earning in 2010-2011 and with little criticism of President Karimov's human rights record by his allies in the US and UK, there are serious hurdles to overcome. Hurdles that could be lessened if fashion conglomerates demanded higher standards.

This could be done by brands implementing legally binding contracts with suppliers that ensure suppliers and sub-suppliers do not ever purchase Uzbek cotton. The contracts could be verified using traceability systems and social audits, a process that requires time and money but which is fully achievable. Hamnett advises another key step - phasing out conventional cotton and investing instead in its far more sustainable counterpart: organic cotton.

The environmental impact of losing the Aral Sea is not yet known, what we do know is that the cotton that destroyed it, is cotton picked by forced labour and destined for European shops. This is the reality of a subcontracted deregulated industry not bound by any global environmental or minimum wage legislation.

There was nothing accidental about what is happening in Central Asia, a catastrophe that has provided irrefutable evidence of the damage being done to our planet by the fashion industry. We can either focus on Paris Fashion Week or we can act now to save our world. But to ignore the industry's role in the loss of the Aral Sea is to ignore the destruction of our planet.
Read more like this: The sustainable fashion hub is funded by H&M. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cotton production linked to images of the dried up Aral Sea basin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
hat do the catwalks of Paris have to do with 25,000 miles of exposed sea bed thousands of miles to the east? While all eyes have been fixed on designer collections and members of the front row, the true cost of the fashion industry has been revealed in a shock announcement by NASA that the Aral Sea in Central Asia has now completely dried up.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjftOWpp_rrAhXfSRUIHeh2AQwQxfQBCAowAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawn.com%2Fnews%2F1580591%2Fcase-filed-against-factory-for-violating-child-labour-law&usg=AOvVaw2Jei2iTmya2sIySoUSBY6v

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/t052-s000-10-biggest-product-recalls-of-all-time/index.html%3famp

# data[].attributes.headline
The Enron Scandal. One of the most publicised financial crime in America

# data[].attributes.subject
The Enron Scandal. One of the most publicised financial crime in America

# data[].attributes.body
www.britannica.com

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Aleksandr Kogan sold user information to Cambridge Analytica  which was in violation of Facebook's privacy feature - loss of $150 billion

https://securitytoday.com/articles/2018/11/27/learning-from-a-150-billion-compliance-failure.aspx

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.chargedretail.co.uk/2019/08/27/amazon-selling-4152-banned-and-unsafe-products-says-damning-report/