Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
GEORGIA
Botox Manufacturer Agrees To Guilty Plea and Combined Criminal and Civil Penalty
On Sept. 1, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced that Allergan Inc., the Irvine, CA-based pharmaceutical manufacturer, had agreed to plead guilty and pay $600 million in connection with the company's off-label promotion of its biological product, Botox. The settlement figure, which remains subject to approval by the district court, includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling $375 million and a civil settlement with both the federal government and the states totaling $225 million.
The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that companies specify the intended use for each biological product in the corresponding products' applications to the FDA, whose approval is then granted for each specified use that is safe and effective. It is a federal crime for manufacturers to promote “off-label” uses, defined as those not approved by the FDA.
Sally Quillian Yates, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, described the settlement, in part, by stating, “The FDA had approved therapeutic uses of Botox for only four rare conditions, yet Allergan made it a top corporate priority to maximize sales of far more lucrative off-label uses that were not approved by FDA. Allergan further demanded tremendous growth in these off-label sales year after year, even when there was little clinical evidence that these uses were effective. The FDA approval process ensures that pharmaceutical companies market their medications for uses that are proven to be effective, and this case demonstrates that companies that fail to comply with these rules face criminal prosecution and stiff penalties.”
The government's involvement was prompted by the filing of a False Claims Act (FCA) complaint in Georgia against the company by a consultant and sales representative for the company. This complaint was followed by whistleblower complaints in the Districts of Massachusetts and Maryland, filed by two former Allergan employees and another company sales representative, respectively.
MICHIGAN
$140.9-Million Plea Agreement for
Price Fixing By Panasonic Corp. and Whirlpool Corp. Subsidiary
On Sept. 30, the DOJ announced that it had reached an agreement with the Japanese Panasonic Corporation, and a Delaware-based subsidiary of Whirlpool Corporation, Embraco North America Inc., for the companies' respective roles in an international price-fixing conspiracy involving refrigerant compressors used in both residential and commercial applications. The agreement, which requires court approval, includes a guilty plea by each entity to a violation of the Sherman Act, as well as combined payment of $140.9 million in criminal fines. For its part, Panasonic agreed to pay a $49.1 million criminal fine, while Embraco agreed to pay a $91.8 million criminal fine.
In the Courts and Business Crimes Hotline were written by Associate Editor Kenneth S. Clark and Matthew J. Alexander, respectively. Both are associates at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC.
GEORGIA
Botox Manufacturer Agrees To Guilty Plea and Combined Criminal and Civil Penalty
On Sept. 1, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia announced that
The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that companies specify the intended use for each biological product in the corresponding products' applications to the FDA, whose approval is then granted for each specified use that is safe and effective. It is a federal crime for manufacturers to promote “off-label” uses, defined as those not approved by the FDA.
Sally Quillian Yates, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, described the settlement, in part, by stating, “The FDA had approved therapeutic uses of Botox for only four rare conditions, yet Allergan made it a top corporate priority to maximize sales of far more lucrative off-label uses that were not approved by FDA. Allergan further demanded tremendous growth in these off-label sales year after year, even when there was little clinical evidence that these uses were effective. The FDA approval process ensures that pharmaceutical companies market their medications for uses that are proven to be effective, and this case demonstrates that companies that fail to comply with these rules face criminal prosecution and stiff penalties.”
The government's involvement was prompted by the filing of a False Claims Act (FCA) complaint in Georgia against the company by a consultant and sales representative for the company. This complaint was followed by whistleblower complaints in the Districts of
MICHIGAN
$140.9-Million Plea Agreement for
Price Fixing By Panasonic Corp. and Whirlpool Corp. Subsidiary
On Sept. 30, the DOJ announced that it had reached an agreement with the Japanese
In the Courts and Business Crimes Hotline were written by Associate Editor Kenneth S. Clark and Matthew J. Alexander, respectively. Both are associates at
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.