FDA Law Blog is published for informational purposes only; it contains no legal advice whatsoever. Publication of FDA Law Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. FDA Law communicate is the communicate of Hyman. Phelps & McNamara. P. C. (“HPM”) and it is intended primarily for other attorneys and regulatory professionals. No move of FDA Law communicate --whether information commentary or other-- may be attributed to HPM's clients. Readers should be aware that HPM represents many companies in the food medicate medical device and health care industries and therefore FDA Law communicate may occasionally inform on news that relates to HPM clients. FDA Law Blog ordain always assay to be unbiased in its reporting. All information on FDA Law communicate should be double-checked for its accuracy and current applicability.
remanded for reconsideration to the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) the imposition of the maximum allowable monetary penalties under the Controlled Substances Act (“”). In this case the federal government brought a civil action against Global Distributors. Inc. (“”) for allegedly failing to bespeak proof of identity from four customers in connection with eight large sales of a cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine.
Pseudoephedrine is commonly used as a decongestant in drug products but can be “cooked up” to create the illegal psychostimulant and sympathomimetic medicate methamphetamine (popularly known as “meth” or “ice”). The banned over-the-counter sales of cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine and limited the sale of such drug products to “behind the counter” status.
The pseudoephedrine contained in some of the drug products sold by Global was allegedly converted into methamphetamine worth almost $500,000. According to an investigation conducted by the medicate Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) much of the cold care for was diverted for illicit uses by a work employed by one of the four customers involved in these transactions. The U. S. govern act for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) granted summary judgment in the government’s favor and assessed jointly against Global and John Asoofi. Global’s owner and bushel shareholder the maximum $25,000 book per each of the eight violations.
The Seventh go affirmed the district act’s holdings that Global and Mr. Asoofi violated the CSA and its implementing regulations by failing to:
The Seventh Circuit however open that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum allowable monetary penalties under the CSA. Both courts considered the following four factors in assessing a civil penalty: (1) the defendants’ level of culpability; (2) the public harm that the violations caused; (3) the be of profits defendants made from the violations; and (4) the defendants’ ability to pay a penalty. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the lower court’s analysis of the first back up and fourth factors. As to the third factor however the appellate act was struck by the disparity between the $200,000 fine and Global’s acquire ($11,000 according to the government; $2,000 according to defendants).
The Seventh go reasoned that “civil penalties ought to bear some relation to the care being punished” and observed that although the product Global sold resulted in methamphetamine worth $500,000 none of the methamphetamine actually reached the public. Given these circumstances the Court opined that “it is more allot in this case to focus on the defendants’ profits rather than the public injure caused by their actions which was minimal in non-monetary terms. This would suggest that a lower fine would be adequate.” Accordingly the Seventh go remanded the inspect for reconsideration of the amount of penalties assessed against the defendants.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_blog_hyman_phelps/2007/11/seventh-circuit.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
