site sponsored by
When an attorney releases information you might want to look at motives
Posted on 13 June 2009
Source: World of DTC Marketing
Categories: Regulatory
Leave a Reply
Ask Our Experts
Heather R. Powell
Regulatory
Dawn Obermoeller
Social Media
Jonathan Richman
Non-Personal Promotion
Optimize RX
Internet Marketing & Analytics
Share Your Knowledge
We are always seeking seasoned pharmaceutical marketing professonals as contributors. If you have a strong background in pharmacetical marketing, and are interested in sharing your skills and knowledge with our community, or syndicating your existing blog posts, please click here.
- Popular
- Latest
- Comments
- Tags
- Subscribe
- Morethanmedication.ca – Paralympic commercial
- Plusquedesmedicaments.ca – Paralympic commercial
- At Novartis, It’s Pregnant Women vs. Cheerleaders Among the Sales Reps
- [video]Cramer: Abbott’s a Growth Stock
- BioSante rallies on study; drug stocks slip
- How Many Reps Visit A Doctorâs Office Each Week?
- Facet Biotech Has $722M That Says It Pays to Stand Up to Bullies
- Zostavax – A disease that may cause burning, stabbing, searing pain
- Merck joins consortium on vax plant
- Aveo Pharma delays IPO, at least briefly
- Optimize RX: yep - recvd - thanks - how much daily u.v.'s r u g...
- JMB: This is another bashing article from an author who...
- Martin: It's just silly of you to obsess over the possibil...
- Gregg Feris: Jon, Thanks for the in depth reply. I like the ...
- Doc: Why should Exxon have to pay this fine for somethi...
2009
adpharm gallery
advertising
alpha
biotech
bnet
business
development
director
drug
DTC
english
europe
fda
fierce pharma
gallery
hcp
health
industry
internet
largest
marketing
News
north
north america
north_america
online
online-pharmaceutical
pharma
photo
Print
print_ad
Regulatory
research
sales
seeking-alpha
single-page
Social Media
technology
the-gallery
the-largest
time
usa
wikipedia
wsj
Stay up to date
- Subscribe to the RSS Feed
Lets see if I have this correct. A pharma company promotes a drug off label for years, make hundreds of millions of dollars (a large precentage of those profits from the US Govt - i.e. us taxpayers) most likely causes harm to patients but fires people that are responsible. Now in our legal system, it takes years to get this to trial/court and lawyers are paid for their efforts. But in your world we should just be happy the illegal activity has stopped and the company (on this particular issue) has moved on. Why should pharma companies get a pass? If the illegal activity is still within the staute of limitations, why is it wrong to pursue it? Defending pharma companies over lawyers is insane. Are all lawyers altrustic? Only as much as pharma companies are altruistic. Sit in the average pharma company marketing meeting, these people care less about patients as much, if not more than any lawyer. Please find a different argument. Pharma companies should be pursued to the FULL extent of the law.
Why should Exxon have to pay this fine for something from 1989?
WASHINGTON (AFP)June 15, 2009 — A US federal appeals court on Monday ordered Exxon Mobil Corp. to pay 507.5 million dollars in punitive damages plus interest for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.
The ruling by the ninth US Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California was consistent with the figure suggested by the Supreme Court last year. It also awarded plaintiffs 5.9 percent interest starting from the date of the original trial judgment in September 1996.
The cumulative amount of the interest payments could nearly double the 507.5-million-dollar fine.
But the figure is still a small fraction of the five billion dollars in damages Alaska natives, fishermen, business owners and others had originally been awarded by a jury in 1996. That amount was later reduced following appeals by Exxon, which is based in Irving, Texas.