Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On July 18, 2019, a federal grand jury in Cincinnati indicted the former compliance officer of a pharmaceutical distributor, James Barclay, the pharmaceutical distributor, and others with conspiring to illegally distribute controlled substances. Among other things, the indictment alleged that Barclay, who was responsible for supervising the distributor’s compliance with drug laws, and others sold millions of painkiller pills to pharmacies, while regularly exceeding the company’s internal threshold limits and ignoring obvious signs of diversion and abuse. When the company’s internal suspicious order monitoring system flagged many of these orders, Barclay and other defendants allegedly failed to conduct any due diligence or report the suspicious orders to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), as required by law. The Barclay indictment was issued around three months after federal prosecutors in Manhattan brought felony criminal charges against a different drug distributor, its former Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), William Pietruszewski, and others on allegations that they opened new customer accounts without conducting due diligence and sold customers controlled substances despite knowing they were being distributed for illegitimate purposes. On April 19, 2019, Pietruszewski pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and willful failure to file suspicious order reports with the DEA.
By Joseph F. Savage Jr. and Christopher J.C. Herbert
In an environment of aggressive federal prosecution and regulation both businesses and public officials are challenged to identify the permissible line between proper financial transactions — things like campaign contributions and business entertainment — and unlawful payments. And, in what the First Circuit called a “novel theory of Hobbs Act extortion,” public officials now have to struggle with the scope of permissible advocacy — when does advocacy for constituents become extortion?
By Harry Sandick and Tara Norris
Part One of a Two-Part Article
In its recently ended October Term 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided several notable criminal law decisions that will have a meaningful impact on white-collar practitioners’ work and, importantly, offer clues regarding the movement of the criminal law in subsequent terms. In this two-part article, we review several of the key decisions and consider their implications, both for practitioners in this area and for Court-watchers interested in future Court decisions.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton recently announced a change in how the SEC will consider requests for waivers of certain serious collateral consequences that would otherwise result from settlement of an SEC enforcement action. These collateral consequences, often referred to as “bad actor” or “bad boy” provisions, can vary greatly and may disqualify an entity from conducting certain business or utilizing certain means to offer securities.
By Juliet Gunev
Canadian Clean Fuel Technology Company and Former CEO Pay $4.1 Million to Settle China Related FCPA Case