Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Agrees to Pay $520M
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in late December 2016 that it had reached an agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. to settle a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) criminal complaint that the company had bribed officials in Russia, Ukraine and Mexico to ensure increased sales of its multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone, in those countries. Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell said in a statement issued with the DOJ's announcement: “Companies that compete fairly, ethically and honestly deserve a level playing field, and we will continue to prosecute those who undermine that goal.”
The settlement amount in the DOJ action is $283 million, with another $236 million slated to go to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in related proceedings. Teva has also pledged to cooperate with federal prosecutors and to accept the oversight of an independent corporate compliance monitor for a period of three years.
None of the complained-of activities — including the payment of bribes to high-ranking Russian officials to get them to buy Copaxone at a time when Russia was trying to reduce expenditures on high-cost foreign drugs — involved employees based in the United States. Teva says that none of the overseas employees implicated in the schemes are still working for the company; in fact, Teva replaced its entire Russian leadership team in 2013. After the settlement announcement was issued, Erez Vigodman, Teva's president and CEO, said in a statement: “While the conduct that resulted in this investigation ended several years ago, it is both regrettable and unacceptable, and we are pleased to finally put this matter behind us.”
The settlement amount and the sanctions imposed were based on several factors that went for and against the drug manufacturer. On the plus side, Teva cooperated with the investigators once it was served with a subpoena by the SEC. On the minus side, Teva failed to timely self-disclose the bribes, and dragged its feet in providing requested documents during the early stages of the investigation.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Agrees to Pay $520M
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in late December 2016 that it had reached an agreement with
The settlement amount in the DOJ action is $283 million, with another $236 million slated to go to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in related proceedings. Teva has also pledged to cooperate with federal prosecutors and to accept the oversight of an independent corporate compliance monitor for a period of three years.
None of the complained-of activities — including the payment of bribes to high-ranking Russian officials to get them to buy Copaxone at a time when Russia was trying to reduce expenditures on high-cost foreign drugs — involved employees based in the United States. Teva says that none of the overseas employees implicated in the schemes are still working for the company; in fact, Teva replaced its entire Russian leadership team in 2013. After the settlement announcement was issued, Erez Vigodman, Teva's president and CEO, said in a statement: “While the conduct that resulted in this investigation ended several years ago, it is both regrettable and unacceptable, and we are pleased to finally put this matter behind us.”
The settlement amount and the sanctions imposed were based on several factors that went for and against the drug manufacturer. On the plus side, Teva cooperated with the investigators once it was served with a subpoena by the SEC. On the minus side, Teva failed to timely self-disclose the bribes, and dragged its feet in providing requested documents during the early stages of the investigation.
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
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.