2nd Circuit Upholds Drug Company Executives' Convictions in $9.7M Kickback Scheme
A three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based appeals court said there was "ample evidence" to support the 2018 convictions of Gary Tanner, the ex-Valeant executive, and former Philidor Rx Services CEO Andrew Davenport on four charges, including fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
October 31, 2019 at 02:15 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday upheld the convictions of two former executives who engineered a secret kickback scheme to defraud drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals International.
A three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based appeals court said there was "ample evidence" to support the 2018 convictions of Gary Tanner, the ex-Valeant executive, and former Philidor Rx Services CEO Andrew Davenport on four charges, including fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska of the Southern District of New York sentenced both men to serve one year and a day and ordered each to forfeit $9.7 million in proceeds from the scheme.
On appeal, attorneys for Tanner and Davenport challenged instructions Preska had given to the jury and argued that the evidence presented to the jury during the four-week trial did not support their convictions.
"Tanner and Davenport insist that their case falls outside 'the paradigmatic cases of bribes and kickbacks,'" U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier wrote in a 20-page opinion. "Helping Philidor, they suggest, ultimately helped Valeant. We are not persuaded."
The ruling did, however, find that Preska had "abused her discretion" in requiring that $8 million be paid in restitution to Valeant, now known as Bausch Health Cos., and told the judge to come up with a "sound methodology" for determining Valeant's actual losses.
Preska also erred, the panel said, in requiring each defendant to turn over $9.7 million, the total value of the scheme. According to Thursday's ruling, the two defendants were "jointly and severally" liable for that sum and not individually required to pay it.
Lohier was joined in the ruling by Judges Dennis Jacobs and Michael Park.
Prosecutors said the $9.7 million payment to Tanner came from the roughly $50 million that Davenport received in a $133 million deal for Valeant to acquire an option to buy Philidor, a specialty mail-order pharmacy based in Hatboro, Pennsylvania.
According to court documents, Tanner communicated in secret with Davenport, sometimes using an email account in the name of "Brian Wilson," and lied to his firm about trying to seek out other pharmacies that Valeant could use to distribute its drugs.
Prosecutors said the kickback payment to Tanner was laundered through shell company bank accounts under the control of both men in order to hide the arrangement from Valeant. All the while, they said, Tanner advised Davenport in negotiations with Valeant, despite a clear conflict of interest stemming from his position with the company.
"Tanner materially undercut Valeant's ability to diversify its network through specialty pharmacies that competed with Philidor; he secured for Philidor a discount on Valeant products that was not in Valeant's interest; and he advised Davenport on negotiating the terms of the [purchase option agreement]," Lohier wrote in upholding the convictions.
Attorneys for Tanner and Davenport were not immediately available to comment on the ruling.
Tanner was represented by Daniel Volchok, Howard Shapiro and David Lehn of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Washington, D.C., and Brendan McGuire, Matthew Galeotti, Claire Guehenno and Marguerite Colson of the firm's New York office.
Davenport was represented by Alexandra Shapiro and Daniel J. O'Neill of Shapiro Arato Bach in New York.
The case was captioned United States v. Tanner.
Read More:
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 AllMajor Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readLawsuit Alleging $23 Million Contract Breach Against Biogen Moves Forward
Bristol-Myers Squibb Wins Dismissal of $6.4 Billion Lawsuit Alleging Intentional Delay of Cancer Drug
Trending Stories
- 1Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 2Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
- 3Spencer Lawton, Savannah Prosecutor Who Tried ‘Midnight in the Garden’ Case, Dies at 81
- 4Uber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
- 5Steve Bannon 'We Build The Wall' Fraud Trial Pushed to February 2025
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