Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Drug & Device News

By ljnstaff | Law Journal Newsletters
March 01, 2017

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 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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.