The truth is apparently no defense for the state when it comes to issuing warning labels for nicotine gums and patches. Recently, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, 04 C.D.O.S. 3259 that federal regulations trump state statutes when it comes to putting pregnant women on alert about the possible dangers of Nicorette' and other nicotine-replacement therapies -- even if the state warnings are legitimate. "Whether a label is potentially misleading or incomprehensible is essentially a judgment of how the consumer will respond to the language of the label," Justice Joyce Kennard wrote. "A truthful warning of an uncertain or remote danger may mislead the consumer into misjudging the dangers stemming from the use of the product, and consequently making a medically unwise decision."
- April 27, 2004Mike McKee
In a decision issued March 9 in the case of Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n v. Rowe, No. 03-153-B-W, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3758 (D. Maine 3/9/04), U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. delayed enforcement of a novel Maine law whose intent is to make the business practices of companies that negotiate drug prices on behalf of health plans more transparent. The preliminary injunction has at least temporarily prevented the state of Maine from implementing Maine's 2003 "Act to Protect Against Unfair Prescription Drug Practices (M.R.S.A. ' 2699), known as UPDPA, against pharmaceutical benefits managers (PBMs).
April 27, 2004Janice G. InmanThe most recent news from the agency.
April 27, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Without disease and illness, there would be no need for life science companies or the products that they develop. Some modern maladies and ailments present more challenges than opportunities for biotech and medical device firms. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and comparable pathogens present medical device and life science manufacturers with new and daunting risks. One such peril lies in the realm of product liability.
April 27, 2004Kevin M. QuinleyRecent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
April 26, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Last month, we explained that when a once steady and reliable customer becomes delinquent in payment and eventually files for bankruptcy protection, your client becomes one of many creditors trying to recover a portion of its investment. We explained how, whenever a creditor receives a benefit from a debtor shortly before the debtor files for bankruptcy, a preferential transfer may occur. And we showed how section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a trustee to avoid pre-bankruptcy transfers as "preferences." The first tactic we discussed for defending such preference actions was to dispute plaintiff's prima facie case. In this month's installment, we discuss preference avoidance by statutory exception, and the availability of a jury trial.
April 26, 2004Ted A. Berkowitz and Aaron S. HalpernIn the Chapter 11 context, it is common for interested parties to challenge the characterization of a Chapter 11 debtor's obligations under an agreement styled as a lease. A Bankruptcy Court's determination as to whether a transaction is a "true" lease or a secured financing can have far-reaching consequences on the administration of a debtor's Chapter 11 case and the respective rights of each party to the agreement. As the recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Duke Energy Royal, LLC v. Pillowtex Corp. (In re Pillowtex, Inc.), 349 F.3d 711 (3d Cir. 2003) illustrates, when faced with the question of whether a transaction constitutes a "true" lease or a secured financing, bankruptcy courts will look beyond the form to the substance of the parties' agreement.
April 26, 2004Michelle Raftery and Kenneth EpsteinLast month, we explained that a bankruptcy court lacks "either the statutory or equitable power to authorize" the debtor's payment of pre-bankruptcy nonpriority unsecured claims, as noted in Capital Factors, Inc. v. Kmart Corp. (In re Kmart Corp.) We explained that the clear, no-nonsense opinions of the district court and the Court of Appeals reversed four bankruptcy court orders, and we explained why the Seventh Circuit's Kmart decision is noteworthy. We went on to discuss the "Doctrine of Necessity" (the Doctrine), a current justification used by some bankrtupcy courts to permit the post-petition payment of certain assertedly "essential" pre-petition claims in Chapter 11 reoganized cases. This month, we discuss Principal Judicial Precedents, Decisions Favorable to the Doctrine, Cases Rejecting the Doctrine, and The Rebirth of the "Doctrine of Necessity."
April 26, 2004Michael L. Cook and William R. FabrizioDedicated parking spaces appurtenant to office leases, especially covered spaces, are a prized commodity, particularly in suburban markets where virtually all of a tenant's employees drive to work. A tenant may be able to negotiate an arrangement where it receives more parking passes than the actual number of cars it is permitted to park at the premises at any given time under the theory that not all employees with a parking pass will actually show up for work on any given day. The problem presented by this approach is, of course, the one day when every driver with a parking pass shows up for work and there is no room for all of their cars.
April 23, 2004William CroweHighlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
April 23, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

