11th Circuit Panel Splits Over Flowers in Pharmaceutical Fight
The key question was whether trace amounts of a substance that was "coincidentally" found in nature is classified as a supplement or drug.
September 03, 2019 at 05:50 PM
6 minute read
A federal appeals panel upheld a lower court's ruling that millions of dollars' worth of dietary supplements seized by the Food and Drug Administration from embattled Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals was properly subject to forfeiture under federal law.
But the 2-1 opinion sets up a further challenge from the Norcross-based supplement company and its CEO, Jared Wheat, who has been battling the FDA for years and faces separate criminal charges related to his marketing of other products.
An opinion published Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Court said the additive at the heart of the FDA's complaint against Hi-Tech and Wheat, 1,3-Dimethylamylamine was not permitted under Food Drug and Cosmetic Act amendments that allow plant-based substances to be marketed as dietary supplements, even though the substance can be found in trace amounts in geraniums.
Hi-Tech had argued that, even though the DMAA it used is laboratory-produced, it should be allowed to fly under the exception even though there is no reported instance of geranium-based DMAA ever being produced for market consumption.
The company also argued that the substance is "generally recognized as safe" and should not be regulated as a food additive at all.
The opinion was written by District Judge Robert Hinkle of Florida's Northern District, sitting by designation, with the full concurrence of Judge Gerald Tjoflat.
The case "presents a genuine factual dispute over whether trace amounts of DMAA are naturally contained in geraniums," wrote Hinkle. "On the one hand, studies have found trace amounts of DMAA in geraniums … and the record includes competent testimony that there is no known pathway by which geraniums could produce DMAA.
"Either way, it is clear that DMAA is not contained in geraniums in amounts greater than could reasonably be characterized as trace amounts," he wrote.
The FDCA and Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act "provides favorable treatment for 'dietary supplements,' defined to include any 'botanical' or 'constituent' of a botanical. This case presents the question whether these terms apply to a substance that was invented in a laboratory and is artificially produced for commercial sale but that, entirely coincidentally, may be found in trace amounts in a plant."
"We hold that the terms do not extend this far," Hinkle wrote.
Judge Adalberto Jordan concurred only in part, writing in a dissent that the trial court was wrong to grant the FDA summary judgment upholding the seizure.
"This is a difficult case, and in my opinion there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to the principal statutory question we confront," Jordan wrote. "The majority opinion sets out one plausible interpretation of [the law], but I read the statute differently."
The statute's text, Jordan said, does not support the conclusion "that a 'constituent' of a 'botanical' must have a history of being extracted in usable quantities" or "must have been derived from a plant for use in a medicinal, cosmetic, or dietary product."
Whether DMAA is a "constituent" of geraniums should be decided at trial instead of on summary judgment, Jordan said.
In an email response to a query to Hi-Tech's lawyers, the company said it would ask for an en banc hearing on the issue "as we believe Judge Jordan's dissent was the correct interpretation. and noted that Hinkle—as a designated judge—will not be part of that rehearing.
"If we are unsuccessful we will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court," said the statement.
Hi-Tech and Wheat's counsel includes Jack Wenik of Epstein Becker & Green in Newark, N.J.; Arthur Leach of Alpharetta's Arthur Leach Attorney at Law; Bruce Harvey Law Firm principal Bruce Harvey and Atlanta sole practitioner E. Vaughn Dunnigan.
The forfeiture action is being prosecuted by James Harlow and Claude Scott with the Department of Justice's Consumer Protection Branch in Washington, D.C., and David O'Neal of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia.
A DOJ spokesman in Atlanta declined to comment on the case.
As detailed in the opinion and other filings, in 2012 the FDA—which considers DMAA an "amphetamine derivative"—began sending warning letters to marketers of dietary supplements containing the substance that they were "adulterated" and unsafe.
Some companies stopped selling the products, but Hi-Tech did not, and in 2013 FDA inspectors seized about $3 million worth of products including bulk geranium powder and finished products with names like Black Widow, Lipodrene Hard Core and Yellow Scorpion.
The FDA initiated civil forfeiture proceedings in Georgia's Northern District, and Wheat and Hi-Tech filed their own declaratory judgment action seeking the products return.
In April 2017, Senior Judge Willis Hunt Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the government summary judgment and ordered the substances forfeited; Hi-Tech appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
That appeal was pending when the government sought and obtained a criminal indictment against Wheat, Hi-Tech and an employee for wire fraud and money laundering and violations of FDCA regulations regarding anabolic steroids and another drug.
The indictment did not mention DMAA, but, in executing search warrants in late 2017, agents said they saw "large quantities of DMAA-containing products and raw materials in plain view."
A federal magistrate issued warrants and agents seized what were described as five tractor-trailer loads of DMAA-containing products worth what Hi-Tech said was about $19 million from its facilities.
Last year, Hi-Tech sought the return of the seized merchandise from the 2017 sweeps, arguing that the items "are perishable and must be stored and contained in a particular manner to avoid spoilage."
In May, U.S. Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas of Georgia's Northern District ordered that the seized goods be returned to Hi-Tech, but she warned that bond provisions demanding that they not be marketed or distributed are still in effect and that the defendants "must proceed with extreme caution to ensure full compliance with those orders."
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 AllUpcoming Changes to Medicare Secondary Payer Reporting: What WC Insurers and Attorneys Need to Know
5 minute readBiden Administration Tells Justices That Bans on Gender Care Are Sex Discrimination
11th Circuit Allows Florida Transgender Health Care Ban to Continue Pending Full Appeal on Constitutionality of Law
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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