Misdemeanors Post-<em>Caronia</em>
Traditionally, felony misbranding requires that a company or its employees gave false or misleading speech. A misdemeanor misbranding prosecution only…
January 15, 2013 at 08:01 AM
5 minute read
Traditionally, felony misbranding requires that a company or its employees gave false or misleading speech. A misdemeanor misbranding prosecution only requires the off-label promotion itself. So what happens to misdemeanor misbranding liability in the 2nd Circuit in light of U.S. v. Caronia?
“Under Caronia, which held that speech that is truthful and not misleading is lawful and protected under the First Amendment, it means you could still have felony liability if the government can prove false or misleading speech,” says Jonathan Sack, a partner at Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer. “But if they can't, the [off-label] activity would be protected under the First Amendment, and you would not have misdemeanor liability in that context.”
In December 2012, a federal judge for the Eastern District of New York approved a guilty plea and $762 million penalty by Amgen Inc. to resolve misdemeanor misbranding and civil False Claims Act liability. There, Sack says, the government crafted a misbranding theory that doesn't rely on false or misleading speech, and Amgen accepted it and pleaded guilty to it.
“There was no litigation about whether that was a viable theory,” Sack says, “but clearly the government took the position that [it] was. In the government's view, there is misdemeanor misbranding liability unaffected by Caronia.”
Traditionally, felony misbranding requires that a company or its employees gave false or misleading speech. A misdemeanor misbranding prosecution only requires the off-label promotion itself. So what happens to misdemeanor misbranding liability in the 2nd Circuit in light of U.S. v. Caronia?
“Under Caronia, which held that speech that is truthful and not misleading is lawful and protected under the First Amendment, it means you could still have felony liability if the government can prove false or misleading speech,” says Jonathan Sack, a partner at
In December 2012, a federal judge for the Eastern District of
“There was no litigation about whether that was a viable theory,” Sack says, “but clearly the government took the position that [it] was. In the government's view, there is misdemeanor misbranding liability unaffected by Caronia.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rocket Docket': EDVA Judge Controls Google's Fate in Ad Tech Monopoly Trial
4 minute readTarget's Don Liu: 4 Fortune 500 GC Posts, a Singular Focus on Opening Doors for Asian Americans
9 minute read'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Monsanto Moves to Pause PCB Trial That Starts This Week
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250