Forest to pay $164M for various violations

Share this article:
A federal judge has sentenced Forest Pharmaceuticals to pay a criminal fine of $150 million and forfeit $14 million in assets for its guilty plea last November to felony and misdemeanor charges. These involved obstructing an FDA regulatory inspection, distributing Levothroid when it was an unapproved new drug, and illegally promoting Celexa for use in children and adolescents.
The Justice Department says the sentencing was the final component of a global resolution totaling more than $313 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations against Forest.
In September 2010, Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals entered a civil settlement to resolve False Claims Act charges involving Levothroid, Celexa and Lexapro. As part of the civil settlement, Forest agreed to pay over $149 million, including more than $88 million to the federal government and more than $60 million to states.
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.
close

Next Article in Features

Email Newsletters

MM&M EBOOK: PATIENT ACCESS

Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Features

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Click the above link to access the complete Digital Edition of the August 2014 issue of MM&M, with all text, charts and pictures.

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Agencies must generate emotional resonance with the target audience, not unlike Apple, Pepsi or Nike

Are discounts cutting out co-pays?

GSK's decision to cut Advair's price spurred some PBMs to put it back on formulary. Will drugmaker discounts diminish the need for loyalty programs? How can these programs stay relevant beyond giving co-pay assistance?