This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Kirschenbaum — Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act does not prohibit pharmaceutical manufacturers from imposing conditions on the distribution of discounted drugs to covered entities in the program. In United Therapeutics Corporation v.
By Faraz Siddiqui — As drug manufacturers battle the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) in federal courts over the role of 340B contract pharmacies, an Eighth Circuit decision to uphold a 2021 Arkansas law may render those cases inconsequential in that state. Code Ann. § 23-92-604(c)(1), (2) (Act 1103).
Kirschenbaum — On September 30, we blogged about the ongoing dispute and litigation around the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B Drug Discount Program (click here ). A key issue before the court was whether, despite the relevant statute’s silence on the issue, Congress intended to allow the use of contract pharmacies.
According to the complaint, Glock also failed to train dealers to avoid illegal sales or nix contracts with those whose sales could be traced to crime scenes.
2015) in finding that manufacture and delivery of a product in a foreign country can infringe a US patent if sufficient sales-activity occurred within the US. The Federal Circuit rejected this appeal — holding that the presumption is applied when courts interpret the law or construe a statute. Broadcom Ltd. and Apple Inc.,
In this case, Truck Insurance Exchange wants to object to the plan proposed by the bankrupt asbestos company Kaiser Gypsum because the plan does not require the disclosure of parallel claims to other asbestos manufacturers that would allow the insurer to make sure the claims it must pay are not fraudulent.
brings the justices yet another case under a statute with which they are all too familiar – the Federal Arbitration Act. The workers in this particular case (including Neil Bissonnette) are commercial truck drivers, who transport packaged goods manufactured by Flowers Foods, best known for its production of Wonder Bread.
By Faraz Siddiqui — In the Spring of 2021, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) threatened six drug companies with billions of dollars in penalties for not providing 340B discounts to covered entities that sell drugs through vast networks of contract pharmacies (more background on earlier posts ). A lot is at stake here.
The 340B program, authorized under Section 340B of the Public Health Services Act and administered by HRSA, imposes a ceiling price on pharmaceutical manufacturer sales to “covered entities,” which are certain health clinics that receive federal funding and certain types of safety net hospitals to provide them drugs at lower prices.
According to the allegations in the complaint, approval of the new Los Angeles manufacturing facility required a Prior Approval Supplement (PAS) and a Pre-Approval Inspection (PAI) of the facility. 3729) quit tam suit, alleging that Grifols USA, Grifols Biologicals, Grifols, S.A.,
By Faraz Siddiqui — Last week, we blogged about a growing list of drug manufacturers that have refused to follow a 2010 guidance issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), which permits 340B covered entities to contract with multiple pharmacies to dispense drugs to covered entity patients. Code Ann. §
The collaborative idea was that Eddings would manufacture the sheaths because Junker did not have that capability. The Federal Circuit relies upon traditional contract law principles to determine whether a particular communication constitutes such an offer. Remember the contract foundational trio: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration.
the “Gree Companies”), an appliance manufacturer and two of its subsidiaries that were involved in the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of dehumidifiers. of Zhuhai, Hong Kong, Gree Electric Appliances Sales Co. and Gree USA Inc. DOJ’s enforcement against the Gree Companies and its executives occurred in stages.
The question comes to the court in the case of George Sheetz , who in 2016 applied for a permit to build a 1,854-square-foot manufactured home on land that he owns in Placerville, California. To receive the permit, Sheetz was required to pay El Dorado County $23,420 in traffic-mitigation fees. In Corner Post v. Warner Chappell Music v.
The employee alleges that the union contracted with his employer, United Airlines, to compel employees to pay fees in an amount equal to union dues. New York passed a law imposing an annual surcharge on opioid manufacturers and distributors. The state uses the money to pay for remedial programs related to opioid abuse.
The contracts contain an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause nominating a non-Australian jurisdiction. Many passengers contracted COVID-19; some died. Statute has left little of the common law untouched. Background The Ruby Princess’ passengers contracted on different sets of terms and conditions (US, UK and AU).
.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a manufacturer may seek judicial review in that circuit even if it neither resides nor has its principal place of business there, so long as its petition is joined by a seller of its products, such as a gas station or convenience store, based in the circuit. Cunningham v.
Under the False Claims Act (FCA), if a company’s fraudulent conduct induces a governmental entity to enter into a contract with the company, then any claims for payments under that contract are false. established by statute and case law. This fraudulent inducement theory is well?established
Applications of AI manufacturing AI has various applications in manufacturing that are revolutionizing the traditional methods and streamlining the processes. Enhanced safety AI-powered systems can identify and prevent potential hazards in the manufacturing environment.
” The officials (but not the State) moved under the anti-SLAPP statute for an early dismissal of the action against them. ” Vehicle sales arbitration grant-and-hold.
As such, that statute was unjust, confiscatory and violated their constitutional due process rights. The court did not make much of Plaintiff’s argument that a manufacturer cannot terminate its participation in Medicare for close to two years, see Motion at 8; Complaint at 27-28, potentially dismissing it as a mere administrative matter.
The Second District, Division Six, published opinion , held that the car manufacturer in the case “is not a third party beneficiary of the sale contract and petitioners are not estopped from objecting to arbitration.” Section 11362.3 ” Another f orum selection grant-and-hold. In People v.
The court wants a Court of Appeal opinion on the constitutionality of a state statute barring public employers from discouraging union membership. He argued that the statute criminalizing his conduct violates the Second Amendment. Clark about the legislation’s application. Lopez already has its own grant-and-hold.
The appellate court answered “no” to these questions: “is a consumer entitled to recover as ‘restitution’ amounts paid to a third party for a service contract on the vehicle? The First District, Division Four, unpublished opinion rejects the constitutional challenge to the statute.
.” The appellate court concluded that, because common law claims cannot be brought against public entities, the county could not be sued for breach of an implied-in-fact or implied-in-law contract. ” Horvitz & Levy filed the successful petition for review. ” Here are the petition for review , answer , and reply.
” Division Two brushed off the statement as “an uncodified declaration in a subsequent law amending a different statute” (cf. to reconsider past decisions to impose prior strikes” and that “[c]ourts should consider Section 1385.” ” (See also here.)
For instance, in a case involving a request for evidence from French airplane manufacturing companies by victims of an airplane crash, instead of a first resort to the Hague Evidence Convention, the U.S. On the basis of case law in England and the U.S. 3] Collins argued that in practice, U.S. 3] Collins argued that in practice, U.S.
Hau: Interim relief against contracting authorities: classification as a civil and commercial matter, coordination of parallel proceedings and procedural autonomy of the Member States. an assignee as a third party is bound by a jurisdiction clause agreed by the original contracting parties.
Murphy, Director of the Office of Generic Drugs’] ratification cured any Appointments Clause deficiency because it is unclear whether any statute properly authorized her appointment. In that case, the DDC recently said : [T]he Court has lingering concerns about whether [Dr.
Securities and Exchange Commission, that: (1) has annual, worldwide gross receipts exceeding $500 million; and (2) is involved in the mining, production, or manufacture of goods for sale. The post New U.S Legislation Would Require Forced Labor Audits first appeared on Global Business and Human Rights.
es the threat posed to companies that rely on third-party manufacturers. Considering the importance of Chinese manufacturing to global trade, the Chinese legal system and its evolving trademark enforcement system will likely cause companies to get creative. 7 While the statute makes willfulness a prerequisite to a pro?ts
There are several statutes that form the basis of our antitrust laws. They also required any financial company entering (or renewing) contracts with state entities to affirm they do not, and will not, boycott those companies. And what are the permissible boundaries of that behavior? What is a Boycott, according to antitrust law?
1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc.
The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c. ,
In 2022, Texas, along with several other states and industry groups representing fuel manufacturers (together, Petitioners), challenged EPA’s new emissions standards in court. These standards required each automobile manufacturer to reduce the average emissions from its vehicle fleet by approximately 5% per year between 2012 and 2025.
It is used in conjunction with the drug misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract, expelling the pregnancy. The post Biden administration and drug manufacturer ask court to block suspension of mifepristone approval appeared first on SCOTUSblog. This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
If genuine, the merchandisewould have an estimated total Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) value of approximately $29,989. Industry News The International Longshoremens Association (ILA) and United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) have reached a tentative agreement on all items for a new six-year Master Contract.
The plaintiffs had challenged the CEQA “baseline” for “fail[ing] to account for ongoing increases in global temperatures,” but the court found that the plaintiffs did not develop the argument “in any serious way” and said it would not “manufacture an argument where none is made and where none exists.”
Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion by a truck trailer manufacturers trade group to stay the final rule adopted by the U.S. Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc. The court also granted motions to strike the state law claims pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute.
The Republican-led “anti-ESG” (environmental, social, governance) movement over the last two years has largely been a legislative effort, comprised primarily of state-level bills that attempt to halt the consideration of climate risk and other commonplace factors in investment decisions connected with government funds, contracts, and pensions.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content