Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The TAP Pharmaceutical Acquittals
In 2001, the U.S. Attorney in Boston charged TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc. (TAP) with conspiring to provide urologists with thousands of free samples of Lupron', for which the doctors billed Medicare and their patients. In order to survive and continue selling its blockbuster product for advanced prostate cancer, TAP made a reasoned decision to pay the government $885 million to resolve both civil and criminal charges. With this resolution, Boston's talented federal prosecutors continued their remarkable success in bringing major pharmaceuticals to their knees and reaching landmark settlements.
Multi-Pronged Conspiracy
Drawing far less attention was the related indictment of six TAP managers from five states as well as a Massachusetts urologist. Five other TAP employees were later charged under what Judge Learned Hand once described as the “darling of the prosecutor's nursery” — the general federal conspiracy statute. The three-pronged count alleged a broad conspiracy to defraud Medicare, to violate the Anti-Kickback statute, and to violate the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA). The Medicare prong alleged that TAP failed to charge its best price, while the anti-kickback prong alleged that TAP gave things of value, including free samples, “educational grants,” trips to resorts, free consulting services, medical equipment and forgiveness of debt to physicians and others to generate Lupron prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries. The PDMA prong alleged that TAP caused thousands of free samples worth over $400 each to be billed to Medicare. Boston prosecutors had already negotiated guilty pleas with three urologists, obligating them to testify in what became the biggest health care trial in the country in 2004.
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?