Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Following a guilty plea last year by a major pharmaceutical company, Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum declared that “[t]he Department of Justice is committed to rooting out and prosecuting health care fraud. It is of paramount importance that the Department use every legal tool at its disposal to assure the health and safety of the consumers of America's health care system.” The tools — the variety of different criminal statutes and theories used to prosecute drug and device manufacturers — are so diverse as to defy easy summary. At one end are the general, long-established offenses, such as the Civil War-era statute criminalizing the submission of false claims to a department or agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C. ' 287 (the “criminal False Claims Act”) or the mail and wire fraud statutes. At the other are highly focused statutes, such as the federal health care “Antikickback Statute,” 42 U.S.C. ' 1320A-7b(b); see also 21 U.S.C. '' 331(t), 333(b) (drug importation and marketing violations), which prohibit, inter alia, “remuneration” to physicians to use drugs or devices that are reimbursable by a federal health care program. See also 68 Fed. Reg. 23,731, 23,734-38 (May 5, 2003) (identifying anti-kickback “risk areas”).
The tools have been wielded effectively. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has obtained staggering criminal, regulatory, and civil fines from pharmaceutical companies. In October 2001, for example, TAP Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $875 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities, under the Antikickback Statute and other laws, arising from the company's distribution of thousands of free samples of Lupron', a prostrate cancer treatment, to induce doctors to write prescriptions.
The Statutory and Regulatory Scheme
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
As businesses across various industries increasingly adopt blockchain, it will become a critical source of discoverable electronically stored information. The potential benefits of blockchain for e-discovery and data preservation are substantial, making it an area of growing interest and importance.