Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Criminal Allegations Threaten Merger
Abbott Laboratories' $5.8 billion proposed purchase of Alere, a Massachusetts medical testing company, is in trouble now that multiple criminal allegations have been leveled against Alere. Abbott, apparently now reluctant, reportedly offered Alere around $50 million to release it from its agreement. Alere declined the offer, then claimed in an August 2016 suit that Abbott was dragging its feet due to a severe case of buyer's remorse.
The problems appear to stem from several legal actions now threatening Alere. The first sign of trouble came on Feb. 26, 2016, when Alere announced that it would delay the filing of its annual 10-K form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because of concerns over its revenue recognition practices in Africa and China. The delayed form, finally filed in August 2016, contained little of major concern to the markets, but it did reveal the company's independent auditor's conclusion that Alere had not been maintaining effective internal controls over its financial reporting process. The company's August 2016 filing also showed revised financial results for fiscal years 2013, 2014 and three quarters of 2015.
That did not end Alere's troubles for the year, however, because the Department of Justice (DOJ) handed the company two criminal subpoenas, one related to sales on other continents and the other alleging violations of federal health care and anti-kickback laws. In addition, Alere and its subsidiary, Arriva Medical, are under investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning possible improper claims submitted to Medicare and Medicaid.
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.