Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
High Court Skeptical of Restrictions on Drug Company Access to Prescribing Data
Vermont's law requiring doctors' consent before information about their prescribing practices can be passed on to data mining companies and drug manufacturers may not survive a U.S. Supreme Court decision. In oral arguments before the Court on April 26, several justices indicated concerns that the Vermont Pharmaceutical Data Mining Law could violate the Constitution's First Amendment by discriminating on the basis of the speaker's (drug companies and their sales reps) identity. “You are making it more difficult for them to speak by restricting their access to information that would enable their speech to be most effective,” Justice Antonin Scalia told Vermont Assistant Attorney General Bridget Asay, who was defending the law. Asay responded by noting that drug manufacturers' speech would also “be more effective if they had access to patient information, if they had access to their competitors' trade secrets. There's certainly other information available that they would like to use in marketing, but is not available to them by law. Drug companies have no First Amendment right to demand doctors' prescription information just as they have no right to demand doctors' tax returns.”
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.
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."