Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a major pharmaceuticals manufacturer headquartered in Wilmington, DE, pleaded guilty in Wilmington's federal district court to conspiring to violate the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). The company agreed to pay $355 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities in connection with pricing and marketing practices regarding Zoladex, a drug sold by AstraZeneca and used primarily for the treatment of prostate cancer. AstraZeneca also agreed to comply with the terms of a corporate integrity agreement that ensures, among other things, that the company will report to the Medicare and Medicaid programs the average sale price for drugs reimbursed by those programs.
From January 1991 through December 31, 2002, employees of AstraZeneca allegedly provided thousands of free samples of Zoladex to physicians, knowing and expecting that certain of them would prescribe and administer the free samples to their patients and then bill the patients, Medicare, Medicaid, or other federally funded insurance programs for those samples. During that same period, AstraZeneca allegedly offered and paid illegal remuneration in various forms such as free Zoladex, unrestricted grants, business assistance grants and services, travel and entertainment, consulting services, and honoraria.
The investigation into AstraZeneca commenced after the filing of a civil False Claim Act suit by Douglas Durand, who was employed as the Vice President of Sales for TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the prostate cancer drug Lupron. In October 2001, TAP agreed to pay $875 million to resolve civil and criminal liabilities in connection with its pricing and marketing of Lupron.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?