Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Johnson & Johnson to Pay $52 Million in PA Drug Pricing Dispute
Johnson & Johnson must pay $52 million in damages and penalties after a Pennsylvania judge found the pharmaceutical company falsely reported the prices of its drugs. Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett announced Dec. 17, 2010, that a Commonwealth Court judge rendered the verdict after a five-week trial in Easton, PA. Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to repay more than $45 million to Medicaid and the PACE prescription drug program for senior citizens, along with more than $6.5 million in civil penalties. In 2004, Corbett's office sued Johnson & Johnson, several of its subsidiaries and 14 other drug companies, alleging they manipulated a pricing benchmark known as the “average wholesale price.” Corbett's office has recovered $49 million so far, and other cases are pending.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.