Saturday, March 3, 2012
Microfinancing gone bad: Lender's own probe links it to suicides
February 24, 2012
MUMBAI, India (AP)
First they were stripped of their utensils, furniture, mobile phones, televisions, ration cards and heirloom gold jewelry. Then, some of them drank pesticide. One woman threw herself in a pond. Another jumped into a well with her children.
Sometimes, the debt collectors watched nearby.
More than 200 poor, debt-ridden residents of Andhra Pradesh killed themselves in late 2010, according to media reports compiled by the government of the south Indian state. The state blamed microfinance companies — which give small loans intended to lift up the very poor — for fueling a frenzy of overindebtedness and then pressuring borrowers so relentlessly that some took their own lives.
The companies, including market leader SKS Microfinance, denied it.
However, internal documents obtained by The Associated Press, as well as interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees, independent researchers and videotaped testimony from the families of the dead, show top SKS officials had information implicating company employees in some of the suicides.
An independent investigation commissioned by the company linked SKS employees to at least seven of the deaths. A second investigation commissioned by an industry umbrella group that probed the role of many microfinance companies did not draw conclusions but pointed to SKS involvement in two more cases that ended in suicide. Neither study has been made public.
Both reports said SKS employees had verbally harassed over-indebted borrowers, forced them to pawn valuable items, incited other borrowers to humiliate them and orchestrated sit-ins outside their homes to publicly shame them. In some cases, the SKS staff physically harassed defaulters, according to the report commissioned by the company. Only in death would the debts be forgiven.
The videos and reports tell stark stories:
One woman drank pesticide and died a day after an SKS loan agent told her to prostitute her daughters to pay off her debt. She had been given 150,000 rupees ($3,000) in loans but only made 600 rupees ($12) a week.
Another SKS debt collector told a delinquent borrower to drown herself in a pond if she wanted her loan waived. The next day, she did. She left behind four children.
One agent blocked a woman from bringing her young son, weak with diarrhea, to the hospital, demanding payment first. Other borrowers, who could not get any new loans until she paid, told her that if she wanted to die, they would bring her pesticide. An SKS staff member was there when she drank the poison. She survived.
An 18-year-old girl, pressured until she handed over 150 rupees ($3) — meant for a school examination fee — also drank pesticide. She left a suicide note: "Work hard and earn money. Do not take loans."
In all these cases, the report commissioned by SKS concluded that the company's staff was either directly or indirectly responsible.
Caught in the despair of poverty, tens of thousands of impoverished Indians kill themselves every year, often because of insurmountable debt. The supportive structure of the microfinance companies was supposed to change that.
But Davuluri Venkateswarlu, director of Glocal Research in Hyderabad, which conducted the industrywide investigation, said in an interview that he told SKS executives there was "clear involvement of SKS personnel" in some suicides.
SKS continues to deny all responsibility for the deaths and says it never commissioned an independent inquiry. SKS spokesman J.S. Sai, who flew to Mumbai from the company's Hyderabad headquarters to discuss the AP findings, said the company stands by its September 2011 affidavit before India's Supreme Court. In that affidavit, chief executive M.R. Rao says SKS "is neither the cause of nor responsible for any suicides in the state of Andhra Pradesh."
The deaths came after a period of hypergrowth leading up to the company's hugely successful August 2010 initial public offering.
Originally developed as a nonprofit effort to lift society's most downtrodden, microfinance has increasingly become a for-profit enterprise that serves investors as well as the poor. As India's market leader, SKS has pioneered a business model that many others hoped to emulate.
But the story of what went wrong at SKS has led current and former employees and even some major shareholders to question that strategy and raises fundamental questions for the multibillion-dollar global microfinance industry.
Meanwhile, whistleblowers at SKS say that they have been targeted for retaliation and that the company has failed to correct structural flaws that contributed to the suicides.
"At the end of it," said Alok Prasad, chief executive of the Microfinance Institutions Network, the industry group that commissioned the Glocal report, "you come down to a handful of cases where some things went wrong. Is that indicative of the model being bad or very rapid expansion leading to a loss of control?"
___
Microfinance was born in desperation. Amid the 1970s famine in Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus began giving small loans to poor women with his own money. Despite the predictions of bankers, the women paid him back.
The core idea of Yunus' Grameen Bank was the borrower group. Five women from a village determine how large a loan each member gets and act as guarantors. If even one member is delinquent, no new loans are issued. Group members apply pressure — and support — that has kept repayment rates near 100 percent.
Yunus' innovation won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.
In 1997, Yunus acolyte Vikram Akula founded his own microcredit organization, Swayam Krishi Sangam, Sanskrit for "self-help society." In 2005, SKS started operating as a for-profit company and Akula began chasing private investment to achieve the massive scale required to dent global poverty.
In August 2010, SKS Microfinance — then India's largest microlender — went public. Exuberant investors oversubscribed the $350 million offering nearly 14 times. The stock surged more than 10 percent its first day. The company handed out 21,000 watches to employees in celebration.
Then media reports began to surface that over-indebted borrowers were killing themselves.
In October 2010, a mob of 150 people surrounded SKS's Hyderabad headquarters, protesting the suicide of a borrower's husband. They threatened to drag the corpse inside and demanded $20,000.
It was one of dozens of deaths the government of Andhra Pradesh blamed on aggressive tactics by microfinance companies. Police jailed microfinance employees, including dozens from SKS. Among the charges was abetment to suicide, essentially driving people to kill themselves, a crime under Indian law. Authorities investigated 76 cases in which employees from SKS and other microfinance companies were blamed for driving borrowers to take their own lives. The state passed a law designed to clamp down on abuses with new restrictions on loan disbursement and collection and onerous registration requirements on the companies. Microlending in India's largest microcredit market was effectively shut down.
Microfinance officials fought the new law and denied the charges, accusing the state government of trying to gain traction with voters and punish companies for capturing valuable market share from state-run lending groups.
Established microlenders such as SKS said loan sharks operating under the guise of microfinance were behind the excesses. SKS and other companies asked a court to stop the arrest of their employees. The court issued a stay on new arrests. Today, no one is in jail.
In a November 2010 letter to India's finance minister, Akula defended his company and included supportive articles from The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.
At the same time, the industry group Microfinance Institutions Network hired Glocal to investigate 44 deaths among debtors of microfinance companies, including SKS.
Venkateswarlu, the Glocal director, presented the findings to executives at three lenders. In January 2011, he delivered startling news to Akula and Rao: SKS employees had clear involvement in the suicides of four borrowers, meaning that their actions appeared strongly linked to the subsequent deaths, according to their investigation.
The AP obtained a four-page section of the Glocal report that deals with the SKS case studies. It related the financial history of borrowers, the loans obtained, the nature of pressure or harassment for repayment and the microfinance company involved. Venkateswarlu verified that it was the material he presented to Akula and Rao.
"They said they'd look into the issue and take some appropriate action," Venkateswarlu said.
SKS sent internal audit teams to the field. Their reports exonerated the company.
Unable to reconcile the two sets of findings, SKS hired Guardian's Human & Civil Rights Forum and Third Eye, a private investigative agency, to do a more thorough, independent inquiry, according to Ramesh Vautrey, head of administration at SKS, who oversaw the investigation, and Rajender Khanna, the president of Guardian's.
A Jan. 17, 2011, letter from SKS, signed and stamped by Vautrey, asked Khanna to "carry out a fact finding enquiry on the causes of suicide and complicity of our field staffs without any prejudice," according to a copy of the letter obtained by AP. The AP was shown invoice numbers for SKS payments to Third Eye and emails indicating the findings were sent to top management.
P.H. Ravikumar, who became interim chairman of the SKS board last November, said neither management nor the board authorized an independent inquiry into borrower deaths.
"Our enquiries from 2009 to 2011 have revealed that neither SKS nor its employees have been the cause for any of the suicides in the state of Andhra Pradesh," the company said in a statement. The company also said SKS employees have been acquitted in two borrower suicide cases in Andhra Pradesh and that only one criminal case remains outstanding.
Khanna sent teams to speak with families of the dead, village leaders, neighbors and loan agents, videotaping the interviews. Their report said SKS employees bore direct or indirect responsibility for at least seven suicides, including two that overlapped with the Glocal findings.
The interview videos were shown to the AP by Uma Maheshwari, who said she was present during one set of recordings and visited several of the families personally. She left SKS in July.
In one video, the daughter of borrower Dhake Lakshmi Rajyam cries, gasping as she talks to an investigator in Tadepalligudem, Andhra Pradesh.
Rajyam was unable to pay off $2,400 owed to eight different companies. Employees of microfinance companies, including SKS, urged other borrowers to seize the family's chairs, utensils and wardrobe and pawn them to make loan payments, her family told investigators. Unable to bear the insults and pressure of the crowd of borrowers who sat outside her home for hours to shame her, Rajyam drank pesticide on Sept. 16, 2010, and died, the family says.
"We have lost my mother," her daughter says. "Nobody will support us."
The investigator's conclusions lay the blame on SKS employees, saying they failed to comply with company policies "and even basic moral rights."
Vautrey said he sent the case studies to three top managers, including Rao. Emails obtained by AP indicate that summary reports were emailed to the managers.
Rao did not respond to multiple requests from AP seeking comment.
Vautrey went to Akula's office one night and told him what they were doing was bad karma.
"I don't want to be part of a team abetting suicides," Vautrey said in an interview. "It is systemic failure. We have no right to kill anybody for our own business. Let's close down our business if we can't do it right."
___
A profound shift in values and incentives at SKS began in 2008.
In October, Boston-based Sandstone Capital, now SKS' largest investor, made a major investment. It joined U.S. private equity firm Sequoia Capital, which funded Google and Apple and is SKS' largest shareholder, on the board of directors.
Akula, who had been chief executive in the company's early days, stepped down in December 2008 but stayed on as chairman. The company brought in new top executives from the worlds of finance and insurance.
SKS also began transferring more loans off its books, selling highly rated pools of loans to banks, which then assumed most of the associated risk of borrower default. That freed SKS to push out more and bigger loans.
In December 2009, SKS launched a massive sales drive. The "Incentives Galore" program ran through February 2010 — just one month before the company filed its IPO prospectus.
Agents won prizes worth up to 10 times their average monthly salary for signing huge numbers of new borrowers. Vautrey said he coordinated the shipment of 8,800 televisions, refrigerators, gold coins, mixers, washing machines and DVDs as rewards for more than 3,000 districts nationwide.
One loan officer signed up 273 groups in a month. Under training protocols, the ideal number of groups formed per month is 12, the maximum is 36, according to field agents and reports written by Akula.
"The focus is only on targets," Ramulu Sirgapur, who spent a decade at SKS before he left in December, told AP. "Even if we've given feedback, there might be recovery or repayment issues. That's OK. Just concentrate on growth."
The result: Management had a great set of numbers to show investors as it shopped the IPO. In a month, SKS could add 400,000 borrowers and 100 branches, and train more than 1,000 new loan officers. SKS had 6.8 million borrowers and had disbursed $3.2 billion in loans. India was pimpled with SKS branches, which bloomed in nearly 100,000 villages.
SKS said it was the fastest growing microfinance company in the world.
But basic principles of lending were overlooked, according to interviews with current and former employees, as well as correspondence and internal PowerPoint presentations by Akula.
Six current and former SKS staffers with experience in the field told the AP they no longer had time to check a borrower's assets or follow up and make sure a loan was put to productive use. They said that they were pressured to push more debt onto people than they could handle and that the number of days devoted to borrower training was cut in half.
"You have a (borrower group), and a loan officer goes out and trains them, educates them, then they give the loan. That's the SKS I'd seen in 1999. That was the whole model on which microfinance is supposed to work. In the quest for growth, a lot of these things got neglected," said Ankur Sarin, director of the SKS trusts, which are the fourth largest shareholder in the company and tasked with looking out for borrower interests.
As the relationships between heavily indebted borrowers and loan agents broke down, it became harder to collect.
Frustrated agents began working together and going door to door to collect, rather than taking payments only in public — a company rule designed to limit coercion. They began using other borrowers to pressure defaulters into repaying.
"The growth was very rapid. That growth led to some suboptimal outcomes," said Ashish Lakhanpal, managing director of Kismet Capital, one of SKS's largest shareholders, who was on the SKS board until October 2010. "Were there lapses? Absolutely."
While the board was concerned about fast credit growth, the company never believed it was harming borrowers, Lakhanpal said.
"Mistakes were made, but I find it difficult to believe there was anything people did at a managerial level to encourage field officers to do that," he said.
___
In spring 2011, Akula began circulating a plan to spend $10 million to train financial counselors who would make sure clients weren't getting into too much debt and used their loans productively, according to Sarin, Vautrey and others with firsthand knowledge of the proposal.
The plan was never adopted.
Publicly, Akula continued to deny that SKS bore any responsibility for suicides. "Whatever happened was due to external factors and was not reflective of any fundamental flaw in our model," he told India's Business Today.
Privately, Akula prepared a 55-page presentation for the board that detailed the seven suicides that SKS' outside investigation had blamed on the company. The presentation showed how the pre-IPO push for growth led to a systemic breakdown, and again urged core reforms to restore training and lending discipline.
Board members received copies of Akula's presentation at a July 26, 2011, meeting, said a former employee who helped prepare the material and spoke anonymously for fear of retribution.
The minutes of the meeting, however, make no mention of the report.
"As per my notes, this was not part of the board proceedings," company secretary Sudershan Pallap wrote in a Sept. 26 email to Akula, who had complained of the omission.
Ravikumar, who would become interim chairman when Akula resigned, said the board was never informed that SKS employees were implicated in any suicides, and denied Akula presented any such findings to the board.
"There was no presentation from Vikram Akula at that board meeting. This will be reflected in the minutes, as signed by Vikram Akula," he said.
Ravikumar said the board reviewed reports from the Microfinance Institutions Network, but none of them implicated SKS employees.
Akula continued to complain to the board that his presentation had been ignored. He summarized his concerns about the company's direction in emails, obtained by the AP, to seven board members, including Sequoia's Sumir Chadha, Sandstone's Paresh Patel and three independent directors: Ravikumar, Harvard's Tarun Khanna, and Pramod Bhasin, the former chief executive of Genpact.
Chadha, Patel and Khanna did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Ravikumar declined to comment on what he said was personal correspondence.
Bhasin said reports claiming SKS bore responsibility for borrower suicides were "unsubstantiated."
"Any issues raised to the Board at various times were fully investigated by external parties and found to be unsubstantiated or without evidence or actions were taken on them where appropriate," he wrote in an email.
Rancor within the company was intensifying. Board members felt Akula was suffering from a bad case of "founder's syndrome," that he couldn't stand to share power at a company that had become too big for him to run.
Finally, on Nov. 23, 2011, Akula resigned.
Vautrey said he was targeted, and SKS began termination proceedings against him on Feb. 6. Three members of his staff have been fired and have filed wrongful termination complaints with the state.
On Feb. 6, SKS also sold 2.43 billion rupees ($49 million) in securitized loans. The stock price surged 10 percent. Top executives have been on the road, hoping to raise 5 billion rupees ($100 million) from international investors.
Sai, the company spokesman, said SKS has hired an ombudsman, is spending $3 million to improve its customer grievance program and has revamped training to ensure that employees comply with current regulations and do not lend to over-indebted borrowers. He said the company would like to reorganize incentives to maintain rapid growth while ensuring loan quality. Those changes have yet to be implemented, he said.
India's role as global drug supplier threatened by EU pact
KATY DAIGLE, AP
February 10, 2012
NEW DELHI (AP) — Efforts by India and the European Union to strengthen trade are threatening India's ability to deliver lifesaving medicines to the world's poorest, analysts say as the two sides push through protracted negotiations on a free-trade pact.
The two sides said after a summit Friday in New Delhi that they would speed up efforts to reach an agreement this year.
Health industry workers and activists worry India may bow to EU demands for strict intellectual property protections and investor guarantees, which could close down the world's generic drug supply.
India's $26 billion drug industry has become an immense profit engine, growing at 15-25 percent a year — but also a lifeline for millions of patients in poor countries, many in Africa, unable to pay sky-high Western prices to treat illnesses that include HIV, malaria, asthma and cancer. For HIV alone, India makes more than 80 percent of the world's medicines.
The EU says it has suggested a clause in the free-trade pact "to ensure that nothing in the proposed agreement would limit India's freedom to produce and export lifesaving medicines."
Despite the EU assurance, Indian drug makers and health workers say two broad provisions in the agreement — one on intellectual property rights, and the other on investor lawsuits — would make it much easier for international pharmaceutical giants to sue the Indian government, drug manufacturers and distributors.
That, they argue, would dramatically curtail Indian production of many lifesaving drugs, or cause prices to rise to levels many cannot afford.
"The EU has changed strategy and has now focused on enforcement," trying to create an intellectual property rights regime "that will intimidate even legitimate generic manufacturers and thereby impact access and availability," said Dilip G. Shah, a former Pfizer executive who now heads both the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance and the industry's Vision Consulting Group.
Activists have unleashed a global campaign to call the EU out on the policies. Analysts and drug makers say they have a point. While India's pharmaceutical companies would likely survive under a regime limiting generics, millions of the world's neediest patients, including within India, may not.
"The industry will be OK. They can produce anything" including drugs for Western multinationals, pharmaceutical analyst Bino Pathiparampil of IIFL Capital said. They may also gain from easier access to European markets.
"But there would be a serious impact on society, as many of the poor would be cut off from treatments," he said.
Since the talks began in 2007, Indian negotiators have refused to hamper the country's generic drug industry by undermining the low-cost production, high-quality professionalism or permissive licensing regime that has helped the industry grow.
But India and the EU both face different pressures today than when they started five years ago. Following a year of economic turmoil, Europe is eager to reach India's young and upwardly mobile market of 1.2 billion people, while India wants to prove its place among the world's economic powerhouses.
This year would also be ideal for India's government to show progress on a pact that can distract from a recent string of embarrassing corruption scandals. Indian and EU officials did not discuss the concerns over Indian generics with reporters after their meeting on Friday.
The EU is India's biggest trading partner, accounting last year for $92 billion in bilateral sales. The trade pact, they say, would lift that to an annual $237 billion by 2015.
With the talks held behind closed doors and without participation by health ministers, analysts say there are few voices to prevent the final draft from giving multinational pharmaceuticals enough power to shut generics down.
On Friday, hundreds of people living with HIV protested in New Delhi to press Indian officials to reject any rules that might limit world supplies of anti-retroviral treatments.
"Whether we get to live or die should not be up to trade negotiators," Mundrika Gahlot of the Delhi Network of Positive People said in a statement.
Half of the generics India produces are used domestically, as India grapples with its own health care crisis and many impoverished patients are left to pay for care themselves.
The European Union has suggested it could drop two demands that would have affected the generics industry, specifically on patent extensions and on allowing companies to keep scientific data and clinical studies under wraps.
But experts say there are even more worrying provisions in the draft, which has been leaked during the talks and discussed by Indian negotiators with health care workers.
Measures to strengthen intellectual property rights, for example, would require courts to impose injunctions on drug production whenever a complaint is filed, whereas courts today often allow production of lifesaving drugs to continue while cases are pending.
There are also measures for widening lawsuits so patent holders can sue not just pharmaceuticals producing generics, but also those who supply materials as mundane as plastic bottles, nonprofit groups and foreign governments who purchase the drugs, and hypothetically even those who use them — the patients.
Another measure would let investors sue the Indian government if they feel their investment is being undermined, for example, by a license that allows a generic to be produced.
"Who do these measures serve? Not the European people, not the Indian people, not even the governments," said Indian lawyer Anand Grover, who since 2006 has served as a U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights to health. "In fact, this is for a very small, profit-taking group of people."
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Indian NGOs confront GWU Law School efforts to push maximalist IPR norms in India
KEI
4. March 2010 - 17:10
The ties between Universities and businesses are often complex and blurred. Private companies or trade associations fund research and seminars, and have consulting relationships with faculty members, trying to shape public policy and judicial decisions on a wide range of issues. A particularly interesting industry/university connection concerns something called the "India Project," that is associated with the George Washington University (GWU) Law School.
The GWU India Project was started in 2003 and its stated objective is to "create interactions between leading US, European, Asian and Indian academics, industry leaders, lawyers, judges and policy-makers in the field of IP." With backing by a number of major corporations with extensive patent and copyright interests, the India Project targets high level Indian government officials and judges, who are invited to participate in a number of seminar and trips, to receive training and advice in how to increase the level of patent and copyright protection in India, featuring one-sided presentations from a selective group of "experts."
Recently, a number of Indian journalists and NGOs have been to press their own government and GWU for more transparency of this University/Industry advocacy effort.
On February 26, 2010, several NGOs sent a letter to Mr. Shri Anand Sharma, Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry (letter reproduced below) demanding transparency and more information on these meetings and for the Indian government to put a stop to such industry sponsored lobbying with Indian judges and policymakers.
The following are excerpts from two recent reports by Indian journalists, and the Indian civil society letter:
Latha Jishnu for the Business Standard: Insidious India project. MNC-backed IP summits try to influence sitting judges on patent law enforcement issues pending in Indian courts. Reports:
"Grandly titled, `The India Project,' GWU has brought several delegations of American IP heavyweights from leading law firms, judges of the Federal Circuit (the central US court of appeal) and a clutch of academics primarily to teach Indians "the importance of IP." That’s what Raj Dave, manager of the India Project, an alumnus of IIT-Khargapur who is now partner in a Washington law firm, has been saying repeatedly."
"These symposiums are all sponsored by big business, many of whom have a vested interest in how the judiciary is tackling the numerous patent cases now being fought in the high courts and the Supreme Court. The 2009 symposium, for instance, was sponsored by Novartis, The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which is the association of the big boys of the US pharma industry; Intellectual Ventures, a firm specializing in buying up IP rights of other companies; software giant Microsoft and chip designer Qualcomm. The grand sponsor has been the US-India Business Council (USIBC), a lobby that which has been leading a powerful campaign against certain provisions in the Indian Patent Law."
"This year’s event (February 14-18) had USIBC and Gilead Sciences as the sponsors and among those attending the February conclave was the Controller General of Patents PH Kurian along with senior lawyer Amarjit Singh Chandiok who has appeared for the government in a case where Bayer has challenged a key section of India’s patent law. Sponsors, who pay hefty sums to send delegates to the events, are also allowed to make presentations, an opening that some companies have used to push their own case. In what has come as a shock to participants at the 7th IP Summit held last month in Delhi and Mumbai is that Gilead was allowed to make a presentation on its AIDS drug Tenofovir, the patent for which has been rejected by the Indian Patent Office. Gilead’s appeal against the rejection is pending with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The presentation made by the company had this closing warning: "The licensing model — Gilead licenses its patents to generic firms — is at risk and the decision by the IPAB will send a powerful signal about prospects for tech transfer partnerships with Indian companies."
Ramesh Shankar for Pharmabiz: Experts, NGOs oppose CII-GWU summit on IP for strong patent regime in India.
Reports:
"Even as the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)'s two-day 'Summit on IP' in association with the George Washington University (GWU) has got underway in Mumbai, several public interest groups and experts have raised eyebrows expressing apprehensions that the one-sided focus of IP Summit is detrimental to Indian interests.
This is highly disturbing, as the merits of a strong IP law regime is being contested globally, and there are no empirical proofs of the benefit of a stronger IP law regime. The World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) Development Agenda has clearly shown that strong IP law regimes are not an unquestionable good. It emphasises a balanced IP law regimes instead of a strong one, which must be a regime that takes into consideration the developmental level of each country. Even WIPO agrees that intellectual property is not an end in itself, and that a strong IP law regime but a tool that has to be used carefully, the NGOs and experts said.
The NGOs, who will soon send a missive to the CII and other concerned organisations, said the US patent system is widely recognized as having broken down completely and is currently being reconsidered at multiple levels -- at the legislative level by the Congress and the Senate in the form of the Patent Reform Acts, at a judicial level by the Supreme Court of the USA, and at the administrative level by the USPTO.
Given that, it is questionable what effects the US to India knowledge transfer, which is touted as the prime objective of these summits, will have.
Vehemently opposing the summit, experts said that the US law on patents, for instance, does not have many of the public interest provisions that the Indian law does. The US government and industry lobby groups like PhRMA and IIPA, which contribute to the US Trade Representative's annual Special 301 report, have consistently opposed many public interest provisions various laws, such as the provisions for post-grant oppositions. They have also consistently pushed for a "TRIPS-Plus-Plus" regime, repeatedly pressuring the Indian government to enact legislation to cover optical discs; to implement the WIPO Internet Treaties, which India has so far refused to sign; to strengthen criminal enforcement of IPR beyond the requirements of Art. 61 of the TRIPS agreement; to introduce data exclusivity, which a governmental committee has in the past rejected as against Indian pharmaceutical companies' interests."
The following is the letter sent by Indian NGOs to the Minister of Commerce and Industry:
Friday, February 26, 2010
To: Shri Anand Sharma,
Honorable Minister of Commerce and Industry
Room No. 45, Udyog Bhavan
Rafi Marg New Delhi – 110 001
Tel: 2306 1492 / 1008 Fax: +91-11-23062947
Re: Summits on Intellectual Property by George Washington University India Project and CII, and
Re: Ethics of interaction with Indian Judges, law and policy makers at these summits
Honorable Minister,
We, the undersigned public interest organizations and individuals from different fields, note with great concern meetings and "interactions" being organised annually with Indian judges and policy makers on intellectual property as part of so-called summits on intellectual property (IP Summits).
These IP summits in major cities of India are organised annually by the India Project of the George Washington University of the United States, and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) with funding from multinational pharmaceutical companies, industry associations and corporate law firms. Even though George Washington University claims to organise and co-sponsor with the Confederation of Indian Industry, industry sponsorship is prominently displayed at the IP summit (See annexure 1).
India’s patent laws and access to essential medicines
Sir, as you are aware, when India’s patent law was amended in 2005 (mandated by the WTO TRIPS Agreement), the Indian Parliament included key public health safeguards to ensure the continued manufacture and supply of safe, effective and affordable Indian generic medicines.
The availability and affordability of generic medicines is crucial not only for Indian patients but also for those in the rest of the developing world. Currently 92% of people living with HIV on treatment in low- and middle-income countries use generic drugs mostly from India.
Attempts to change India’s pro-public interest IP laws
Since 2005, there are continuing attempts through cases against the government of India (Novartis vs. Union of India, Bayer vs. Union of India) by the multinational pharmaceutical industry and through free trade agreement negotiations with developed countries to force India to adopt greater standards of intellectual property protection which are far beyond the mandatory levels required by the WTO-TRIPS Agreement. This is aimed at preventing the domestic production, registration and export of essential medicines by Indian generic manufacturers.
The Indian courts too are constantly faced with the difficult prospect of multiple litigations where they are balancing private patent rights with the fundamental rights of life and health enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
US Industry funded IP Summits
In this regard, we are extremely concerned about the "IP Summits" organised by the US based George Washington University India Project in collaboration with CII.
Sponsors of the George Washington University’s IP Summits which include the US-India Business Coalition (USIBC), pharmaceutical companies and the law firms that represent them in patent disputes before the Indian courts have the privilege to nominate speakers and be included in all programmes including in meetings and discussions that involve Indian judges and senior government policy makers.
Over the years, prominent sponsors and organisers of these summits have included multinational pharmaceutical companies like Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Intellectual Property Owners Association, The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the US-India Business Council (USIBC). (Annexure 2). The manner in which these Summits have been used by these sponsors in relation to pharmaceutical patents is discussed in greater detail below.
The sponsors of the IP summit also include Intellectual Ventures, Microsoft, and Qualcomm. These companies have a vested interest in software patents as they have already amassed a large number of such patents in the few countries that allow for patenting of software.
As things stand, computer programmes per se are not patentable in India by virtue of being excluded from patentability by section 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act. Indeed, Parliament in 2005 rejected an attempt to create exceptions for that provision. Still, these companies wish to change the Indian Patent Office's application of the law to go against the dictate of the Indian Parliament, and are doing so by time and again questioning the Indian law.
Many academics, civil society organizations, and people from the indigenous software industry as well as the free/open source software community have pointed out the hazards of changing the law on software patents to the Indian software industry. Yet these voices are not allowed to be present at meetings such as these organized by CII.
Interactions with the judiciary as part of these IP summits
This year’s programme – the 7th IP Summit was held from 14-18 February 2010 in Delhi and Mumbai. On 14 February, an ‘Interaction with Judiciary and Moot Court on IPR’ organised by GW University and CII as part of the programme at the National Law University in Dwarka, Delhi.
According to sources, the moot court problem placed before the judges related to enforcement of intellectual property rights. This is an area of growing controversy as developed countries like the US and EU and their multinational pharmaceutical companies are pushing for greater enforcement – these issues are before the courts in many cases (sub-judice) and it is of great concern that judges of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court were presented with similar problems at a summit funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies. It is evident that the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry were not fully informed of who was funding/co-organising this summit.
Moving away from what is usually an academic exercise with students, at this moot court, practising lawyers argued the problem before sitting judges. Given the funding of these summits and the statements of George Washington University staff and organisers, we are hard pressed to believe that such interactions are merely academic exercises. This is confirmed by the following quote of one of the prominent staff members of the George Washington University:
"…one of the goals of the India Project -the objective of which was to create interactions between leading US, European, Asian and Indian academics, industry leaders, lawyers, judges and policymakers in the field of intellectual property - was to work closely and cooperatively with Indian judges to ensure not just enaction but enforcement of patent laws. Because it's all fine to have good laws but the important thing is to enforce them." [Emphasis added. See: Intellectual Property experts to help India revamp laws, RediffNEWS, February 01, 2006, Annexure 3]
2010 IP Summit – Attacking Section 3(d) – India’s safeguard against evergreening of patents
As the Honorable Minister is aware, the USIBC, a prominent sponsor of this year’s IP summit, has published a report criticising India’s patent law; specifically the report has attacked Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. This provision in fact stipulates that companies should not be able to obtain patents in India for medicines that are not actual inventions, such as drug combinations or slightly improved formulations of existing medicines and actually ensures patents should only be granted on medicines that are truly new and innovative. While the USIBC attempted to invite the Hon’ble Minister to the release of this report during his visit to the US last year, the Hon’ble Minister made it clear during his visit that India takes its role in supplying safe, effective and affordable medicines seriously.
Patient groups such as the Cancer Patient Aid Association and PLHIV networks have argued for strict patentability criteria and have filed pre-grant oppositions against patent applications claiming patents on new forms, combinations of known medicines – to protect domestic production of essential cancer, Hepatitis C and AIDS medicines.
As the Honorable Minister is also aware, having lost the case to strike down Section 3(d) of the Patents Act two years ago, Novartis has now launched fresh legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of India to weaken this critical public health safeguard. This case will have important implications on the patentability criteria of medicines and hence has implications for Indian patients.
The law firm representing Novartis in the Supreme Court case challenging the scope of Section 3(d) also presented at this meeting how Section 3(d) did not comply with TRIPS and the interpretation of Section 3(d) it wants the Indian Patent Office to adopt (Annexure 4). Incidentally, Novartis has been a prominent sponsor of the IP Summits. Apart from their lawyers, Novartis also featured prominently on the rest of the agenda of this year’s summit both in Delhi and in Mumbai.
2010 IP Summit - Pharma companies lobby against patent rejections
Apart from the interactions with the judiciary, policy makers and key government officials also feature prominently in these meetings. That these meetings are being used as forums by companies to promote their intellectual property and to lobby for either law amendments or even to plead their cases currently pending before, for instance, the Indian Patent Office is clear from the agenda and the programme.
This year, for instance, Gilead Sciences, a sponsor of the IP summit 2010 used its presentation to discuss why it deserves a patent on the drug tenofovir – a key AIDS drug at a time when its appeal against the rejection of its patent applications is pending before the Indian Patent Office. The audience during such "presentations" as noted above features policy makers and government officials including from the Patent Office. For your reference, the presentation made by Gilead Sciences is attached (Annexure 5).
We believe that it is highly unethical and inappropriate that a meeting organised and/or funded by such companies includes in it interactions with the Indian judiciary and patent office officials before whom are pending appeals filed by pharmaceutical companies against patent rejections decisions.
CII fails protect national interest and domestic industry
In this regard we will be writing separately to the Minister on the role of the CII which we believe no longer promotes the interests of India or of domestic companies. CII’s IP agenda is consistently against the interests of domestic industry and undermines India’s negotiating positions in international forums and free trade negotiations. Specifically meetings organised by CII are lobbying against some of the strong positions on IP taken by India to protect its national interests in the international arena. In this context, we request the government of India to disassociate with CII on any of its IP agendas and programmes.
Imposition of US based positions on IP
While George Washington University claims that its India project is to help enhance India's intellectual property law capacity, it fails to appreciate that India’s lawmakers and judiciary have a history of not only understanding intellectual property (like the Ayyangar Report) and its implications and in fact have devised the most progressive patent laws in particular in the area of food and medicines. As far back as the 1970s, the Indian government recognised the impact of patents on medicines when former Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi said, "The idea of a better-ordered world is one in which medical discoveries will be free of patents and there will be no profiteering from life and death."
Critiques of India’s patent law by the GW University’s faculty and majority of speakers at the IP summit are not balanced with presentations supporting the Indian legislation or highlighting its importance from a right to health and medicines perspective. Groups or others with a different point of view that IP laws need to be appropriate to development needs - have little space at these meetings other than token invitations. Attempts to comment or raise questions are often ignored, cut short or even shouted down by delegates brought in by George Washington University who have a strong IP enforcement bias.
It is evident that these meetings are NOT an independent academic exercise of a US University but actually feature mostly the views of multinational pharmaceutical companies and multinational IT companies, a majority of whom feature prominently as sponsors and in the agenda.
IP summit 2010 and role of DIPP
Given this background, we are extremely concerned that these one-sided meetings have received support from the Department of Industrial Policy and Planning (DIPP). This year’s programme featured the logo of the DIPP. The messages promoted at these meetings go against India’s legal standards on patentability and several of the positions on IP being taken by India at the international level and the Ministry’s support for such meetings sends out a confused message on India’s position on these matters.
We are also surprised to learn from interviews with George Washington University staff that several of these issues have featured in trainings for Indian patent office officials. We quote below the relevant paragraph from the interview:
"We have contributed to education by heightening the dialogue and understanding between India and the U.S. on IP law. We have done so in a collaborative way, as we have much to learn from our Indian counterparts. For example, the new Indian patent law, enacted in 2005, involves a range of issues that require clarification, and the project has resulted in a two-way discussion of real importance to the future of IP protection in India and across the world. Is the new law in compliance with Indian constitutional standards? How does it compare with U.S. law in addressing issues that arise during the processing of a patent application? (With regard to this question we recently held educational sessions with patent examiners at various Indian patent offices). Is it consistent with international standards? These are just some of the issues that attract the attention of people associated with GW's India Project." [Emphasis added. Text of full interview attached to this letter as Annexure 6]
Request to cease unethical and non-transparent lobbying with judges and policy makers
Industry led initiatives with the Indian judiciary are considered unethical and unacceptable. However, CII and GW University have through their annual IP summits in India interacted closely with the Indian judiciary. GW University openly claims this as the positive outcome of the project without clarifying as to how they have organised close interactions with the Indian judges while at the same time worked on this project with the involvement of industry associations and financial support from industry sponsorship that they accept for this programme. Pushing a one-sided agenda that favours the handful of sponsors in a meeting involving higher level judiciary and very senior policymakers and representing this as an academic exercise is highly objectionable.
In light of the above, we urge, the Government of India to undertake the following:
- We re-iterate that "interactions" with the Indian judiciary and law and policy makers as part of such summits is highly unethical and improper at a time when several of the issues being discussed at such meetings are before the courts or the patent offices for adjudication. We request the government of India to take immediate steps to put a stop to such industry sponsored lobbying with judges and policymakers.
- We urge that before lending support and credibility to such exercises, the government of India acquaint itself of all the sources of funding for such meetings and the backgrounds and conflict of interests of key organisers and sponsors. We also urge the Ministry to proceed with caution in supporting such summits that push for stronger IP law regimes without taking into context the interests of Indian industry, especially small and medium enterprises, and the Indian public.
- We request the government of India to disassociate with CII on any of its IP agendas and programmes.
- We also request, that as a recipient of significant government funding and as a stakeholder identified by the government on policy matters, an official enquiry be conducted by the government of India into CII’s IP programmes and sponsors over the past five years.
- We request that the George Washington University India Project no longer be given access to the Indian patent Office, Indian Patent examiners, Indian government officials and most importantly the Indian judiciary. Given their funding, and the manner in which they have carried out their programmes and their admitted interest in the "enforcement of patent laws", they should be recognised as an industry lobby and not an independent academic institution.
- Given that George Washington University has gained access to Indian patent examiners and the Indian judiciary, we request the government of India to ask for a detailed record of all the funding of the George Washington University India Project since its inception, of the contacts and conflicts of interest of key persons associated with the Project and a detailed list, agenda, copies of presentations and notes of all formal and informal meetings held by the University in India with the judiciary, patent offices and government officials. This information should be made public as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
- National Working Group on Patent Law
- All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)
- Centre for Trade and Development (Centad)
- Delhi Science Forum (DSF)
- Creating Resources for Empowerment in Action (CREA)
- Delhi Network of Positive People (DNP+)
- Drug Action Forum – Karnataka (DAF-K)
- International Treatment Preparedness Coalition – India (ITPC – India)
- Knowledge Commons
- Maharashtra Network of People living with HIV (MNP+)
- Torchbearers - Advocacy for Disabling Brain Illnesses
- Talking About Reproductive and Sexual Health Issues (TARSHI)
- Naz Foundation (India) Trust
- Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)
- Alternative Law Forum
- IT for Change
- G. Nagarjuna
- Initiative for Health Equity & Society (IHES)
- Diverse Women for Diversity
- Research Foundation for Science Technology & Ecology
- All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN)
Cc.
1. Mr. M. Veerappa Moily
Hon’ble Minister of Law
402-A, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 001
Tel: 23387557, 23384777, 23384617
Fax : 011-23384241, 011-23387259, 011-23382733
2. Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad
Hon’ble Minister of Health and Family Welfare
Room No. 344, 3rd Floor
Nirman Bhavan
New Delhi – 110 001
Tel: 011-23061647, 23061751,
Fax: 23017798, 23792341
3. Shri Rajinder Pal Singh
Secretary
Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Room 157, Udyog Bhavan, Rafi Marg
New Delhi – 110 011
Tel: 23061815, 23061667
Fax: 011-23061598
4. Mr. D. R. Meena
Secretary - Legal Affairs
Ministry of Law and Justice
409-A, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi – 110 001
Tel: 011-23384777,
23382902, 23387259
5. Shri Rahul Khullar
Secretary
Department of Commerce
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Room No. 143, 1st Floor
Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001
Tel: 23063664, 23063617
Fax: 23061796
6. Ms. K. Sujatha Rao
Secretary
Dept. of Health and Family Welfare
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Government of India
149-A, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011
Tel: 23061863 / 23063221
Fax: 23061252
7. Mr. P.H. Kurian
Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Boudhik Sampada Bhavan
Near Antop Hill Head Post Office
S.M. Road, Antop Hill
Mumbai – 400 037
Tel/Fax: 022-2413275
8. Prof. G. Mohan Gopal
Director
National Judicial Academy
Bhadbhada Road, P.O. Suraj Nagar,
Bhopal-462044, M.P. India
Tel: 0755-2696766 Fax: 0755-2696904
Saturday, October 16, 2010
EUROPE! HANDS OFF OUR MEDICINE
Millions of people in developing countries rely on affordable generic medicines to stay alive. More than 80% of the medicines used by MSF to treat AIDS across the developing world are produced in India. But the European Commission is now shutting off the tap of affordable medicines by attacking the production, registration, transportation and exportation of generic medicines. People who need these will be left without a lifeline.
Help Médecins Sans Frontières send a message to the European Commission to keep their HANDS OFF OUR MEDICINE!
India's complaint over in-transit generic seizures dropped?
08-Oct-2010
Securing Pharma
Anand Sharma India's commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma says India plans to withdraw its dispute over the seizure of Indian-made generic drugs at EU borders filed with the World Trade Organization (WTO), according to reports in the Indian press.
Several articles suggest that Sharma has decided to draw back from the dispute because of commitments by the EU to revisit its rules covering seizure of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights (IPR).
There has however been no official statement from any party involved in the dispute resolution procedure indicating that it has been resolved.
The complaint was filed in the wake of around several seizures by EU customs of generic shipments en route from India to markets in Latin America in 2008 and 2009 - allegedly at the request of pharmaceutical brand owners - on the grounds that they were suspected counterfeits and/or violated IPR.
The problem seemed to reside in the differing interpretation of EU Regulation 1383/2003, which allows seizure by border control agencies of products suspected of IPR infringement, and specifically its tenets on goods in transit. Customs in the Netherlands and France, for example, are said to have taken the position that if such a shipment touched ground in the EU, it is considered subject to standard customs procedures and local IPR laws.
The European Commission's Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD) ran a public consultation on 1383 between March 25 and June 7, 2010, with a view to updating the regulation if required, but as yet has not published the results of the exercise.
India mostly exports off-patent generic drugs under the umbrella of the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was passed to harmonise IPR standards and enforcement, as well as facilitate access to essential medicines in developing countries.
If the WTO dispute remains unresolved, the next stage would be formation of a WTO panel specifically to look into the complaint.
Meanwhile EU claims the Drug seizure dispute with India not resolved. Apparently there was some progress but negotiations seem to have broken down.
See also "Freer" trade may hurt access to India generic drugs
*UNITAID says 80 percent of its AIDS drugs come from India
________________
Brazil and India have requested WTO consultations on the generic drug seizures issue.
Brazil's request is here. India's request is here.
For background, SpicyIP has a number of posts on the issue here;


