Big Hit Music has released new statements about its legal response to the violation of its artists’ rights.

On June 29, Big Hit Music shared two separate statements regarding the protection of its artists BTS and TXT against personal attacks such as maliciously edited posts, false rumors, sexual harassment, and more.

Big Hit Music’s full English statement regarding BTS is as follows:

Hello.
This is Big Hit Music.

Our company regularly initiates legal proceedings against perpetrators of malicious activities related to BTS, including defamation, personal attacks, sexual harassment, the spread of groundless information, and ill-intentioned criticism. We would like to

On this snapshot authorized replace, we report that on 25 Could 2022, in a written reply by Mr. Christopher Hui, the Secretary for Monetary Providers and the Treasury, to Legislative Council questions on crowdfunding, Mr. Hui confirmed that the Hong Kong Authorities is reviewing the regulation of crowdfunding in Hong Kong.

The target of the evaluation is to supply clearer regulatory necessities, and to strengthen the transparency and accountability of crowdfunding actions. The evaluation may even deal with strategies to forestall fraudulent crowdfunding actions for probably unlawful functions. The evaluation will embody a public session to be accomplished inside 2022

Hearings in the Supreme Court are now shown live on the Court’s website.

On Wednesday 26^th July the Court will hand-down judgment in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28. The Court will determine the following issue: Are litigation funding agreements (“LFAs”) pursuant to which the funder is entitled to recover a percentage of any damages recovered “damages-based agreements” (“DBAs”) within the meaning of the legislation which regulates such agreements?

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 28/07/23)

• East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v

On appeal from: Mrs Philipp: [2022] EWCA Civ 318

In 2018 Mrs Fiona Philipp and her husband, Dr Robin Philipp, fell victim to a fraud. They were deceived by criminals into instructing Barclays Bank (the Bank) to transfer £700,000 in two payments from Mrs Philipp’s current account with the Bank to bank accounts in the United Arab Emirates. The instructions were carried out and the money was lost.

In these proceedings Mrs. Philipp claims that the Bank is responsible for this loss. She contends that the Bank owed her a duty under its contract with her or under common

Hearings in the Supreme Court are now shown live on the Court’s website.

On Wednesday 5^th July the Court will hand-down judgment in R (on the application of Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and others [2023] UKSC 24. The Court will determine whether, in the context of police misconduct proceedings, it is open to a reasonable disciplinary panel to make a finding of misconduct if an officer’s honest, but mistaken, belief that his life was threatened was found to be unreasonable . The hand-down will begin at 9:45am in Courtroom 1.

From

Nafisa Hasan (“the wife”) and Mahmud Ul-Hasan (“the husband”) married in 1981. In 2012 in Pakistan the husband obtained a divorce. The wife applied to the courts in England and Wales for financial relief under section 12(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) on the basis that the divorce was an overseas divorce recognized as valid in England and Wales. On her application under the 1984 Act, the court in England and Wales was empowered to make any of the orders which it could make under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) if

The public sector equality duty (“PSED”) imposed by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is a procedural obligation that requires public bodies to have due regard to the equality needs listed in that section when exercising their functions. This appeal concerns the territorial scope of the PSED. It raises the issue of whether a public body is required under the PSED to have due regard to people living outside the United Kingdom when exercising its functions.

The Appellant is a Palestinian refugee currently living in Lebanon, having fled the conflict in Syria. She asserted that she should be treated

This appeal relates to the interpretation of the Immigration Rules, in particular the Tier 1 (Investor) Migrant regime (as in force in December 2017 – it has since been closed). This regime was designed to grant leave to remain to high-net-worth individuals making a substantial financial contribution to the UK. To qualify individuals were required to have £1 million (of either their own money or money borrowed from a UK-regulated financial institution) under their control in the UK. They must also have invested at least £750,000 of such sum in the UK through UK Government bonds or in shares in