Illinois law invalidating a settlement agreement intimidating a witness pa

Generics company Mylan essentially called the move by Allergan a sham and said that it was merely an attempt to evade generic competition for a longer period of time. Claire Mc Caskill (D-MO) also questioned the deal, adding, "This is one of the most brazen and absurd loopholes I’ve ever seen, and it should be illegal …Given its recent comments regarding corporate responsibility, Ph RMA can and should play a role in telling its members that this action isn’t appropriate, and I hope they do that."However, industry group BIO late last week called on senators in the judiciary committee to look into numerous deficiencies in the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) review (IPR) system "and the extent to which its use by certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers undermines longstanding and carefully-balanced procedures governing market entry and patent dispute resolution under the highly successful Hatch-Waxman Act." In an 11-page order separate from the one invalidating the Restasis patents for obviousness, US Circuit Judge William Bryson wrote that the court "has serious concerns about the legitimacy of the tactic that Allergan and the Tribe have employed.

The essence of the matter is this: Allergan purports to have sold the patents to the Tribe, but in reality it has paid the Tribe to allow Allergan to purchase—or perhaps more precisely, to rent—the Tribe’s sovereign immunity in order to defeat the pending IPR proceedings in the PTO.

At issue was the state party’s solicitation of state contractor money into the party’s federal account and subsequent use of those funds to finance mailers in support of Governor Dannel Malloy’s re-election campaign. 9-612), had earlier chosen to offer a friendly warning not to use federal political party accounts to circumvent the state’s pay-to-play regulatory scheme.

The agency, which oversees enforcement of Connecticut’s pay-to-play law (Ct. As we have previously noted, Connecticut takes some degree of pride in its restrictive pay-to-play statute, and in the fact that the statute’s constitutionality was upheld in federal court.

As stated by Pershing Square in its application for exemption from 206(4)-5’s penalty provisions, the rule “can be violated as a result of circumstances wholly unrelated to the harm the Rule was designed to prevent. to promote or facilitate any bond or ballot measure in California.” Additionally, access to the underwriter pool will also be premised on a concurrent certification by covered entities and officials that they will not provide “bond campaign services” in connection with California municipal bond campaigns or ballot measures.

While the addition of a few basic certification statements may seem minor to the untrained eye, requiring affirmative statements such as these will also almost certainly heighten the compliance risk borne by the regulated community.

Those entities and individuals caught in the regulatory crosshairs of the Treasurer’s new policies, however, undoubtedly have a more cynical view of their adoption. Regardless of timing, the restrictions put in place by this new enforcement initiative require entities in the current California state bond pool to comply by August 31, 2016 or risk suspension from participation.

This is particularly the case given the fact that the initiative targets forms of political engagement that are already highly-limited by Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G-37, and was introduced at a time when Treasurer Chiang is launching his candidacy for California Governor. Those entities and individuals seeking to gain entry into the current pool will also face similar certification requirements as of that date.

All that matters under the regulation is that Pershing Square is one of many funds managing the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Fund and that one of its lower-level investment analysts donated to a candidate seeking election to an office (governor) that has the power to appoint members of the state pension fund who, in turn, would have the power to select those firms hired to manage the fund’s money.

From the somewhat-biased perspective of an adviser to those seeking to comply with the myriad of pay-to-play rules at the federal, state and local levels, Pershing’s application for an exemption would appear well-founded and the relief sought appropriate. ”) As many in the regulated community were enjoying some well-earned time away from the office last week, California State Treasurer John Chiang was hard at work in Sacramento announcing new policies aimed at curbing the ability of municipal bond counsels, underwriters, and financial advisors to participate in local bond election campaigns.


Leave a Reply