Pfizer asked for indemnity. The journalist supplied examples of what the indemnity might cover. Those examples are not attributed to Pfizer — you don't see phra

Pfizer asked for indemnity. The journalist supplied examples of what the indemnity might cover. Those examples are not attributed to Pfizer — you don't see phrase like "according to a Pfizer spokesperson, …". The wording doesn't even state that the examples are likely to be among Pfizer's motivating reasons, just that such things would be among the affected cases, should they occur. It says one clear and attributed thing: "The government believed Pfizer should be liable for any acts of negligence or malice" and that Pfizer disagreed. That is, Pfizer believes that Prizer should be liable for only some acts of negligence or malice. I suspect there's some hyperbole, that the government doesn't really believe that any act of etc., but that the real core of the issue is in that area. What is an act of negligence, what acts of negligence are Pfizer's responsibility? I've heard about people getting fake vaccines in Brazil, that sounds like malice, is it Pfizer's responsibility, did Pfizer take sufficient steps to safeguard against that? And so my initial assumption is that there are laws or have been some past judgments that Pfizer's lawyers believe pose undue legal risk in that jurisdiction. The article doesn't go into that at all, or into the question of the parties' actual motivations, which I find a bit disappointing, considering that phrase "investigative journalism" on the masthead.