generic pharmaceutical manufacturer | The Health Law Firm Blog

Generic Drug Maker Ranbaxy Pleaded Guilty to Claims of Adulterated Drugs-Must Pay $500 Million Fine

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Generic drug maker Ranbaxy USA Inc., pleaded guilty to drug safety violations and will be responsible for paying $500 million in criminal and civil fines, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The fines will resolve claims that the manufacturer sold inferior drugs and made false statements to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about manufacturing practices at two factories in India. This announcement was made by the DOJ on May 13, 2013. This settlement is the largest drug settlement to date involving a generic drug manufacturer and drug safety.

To read the entire press release from the DOJ, click here.

Ranbaxy USA Inc., is a subsidiary of Indian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. The entities listed in the settlement include: Ranbaxy, Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Inc., Ohm Laboratories, Inc., and Ranbaxy USA, Inc. (collectively “Ranbaxy”).

Criminal Fine and Forfeiture.

Ranbaxy admitted to not conducting proper safety and quality tests of several drugs manufactured at two of its plants in India, according to the DOJ. Under the settlement the company pleaded guilty to three felony counts of violating the federal drug safety law. Ranbaxy agreed to pay $150 million in criminal fines and forfeitures.

False Statements Made to FDA.

According to the DOJ, Ranbaxy also pleaded guilty to four felony counts of knowingly making false statements to the FDA in annual reports. To settle civil claims under the False Claims Act and related state laws, Ranbaxy agreed to pay $350 million. This fine was to resolve false claims that were submitted to government health care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The settlement was entered into by all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government.

Florida Will Receive $3 Million from Settlement.

According to the Florida Attorney General (AG), Florida will receive more than $3 million as a result of the settlement. AG Pam Bondi stated that the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) will not allow Florida taxpayers to pick up the tab for pharmaceutical companies that manufacture, distribute and sell adulterated pharmaceutical drugs.

Click here to read the settlement agreement between the State of Florida and Ranbaxy.

Example of Florida’s Civil Forfeiture Act.

This is an example of Medicaid fraud through the use of adulterated and “counterfeit” drugs, as well as the use of Florida’s Civil Forfeiture Act in a Medicaid case. To learn more on civil forfeiture and defending against seizures of property, click here for a previous blog.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in DEA, DOH and FDA investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, administrative hearings, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of this settlement agreement? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Department of Justice. “Generic Drug Manufacturer Ranbaxy Pleads Guilty and Agrees to Pay $500 Million to Resolve False Claims Allegations, cGMP Violations and False Statements to the FDA.” Department of Justice. (May 13, 2013). From: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/May/13-civ-542.html

Meale, Jenn. “Attorney General Bondi Enters $350 Million National Settlement with Ranbaxy Resolving Adulterated Drug Claims” Florida Office of the Attorney General. (May 14, 2013). From: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/505E50CA109D827885257B6B006BA668

Settlement Agreement between the State of Florida and Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. Case No. 10-05-01. (May 14, 2013). From: http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/uploads/Ranbaxy%20Settlement%20agreement.pdf

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Generic Drug Labeling Change Proposed by FDA is Significant and Will Likely Negate Preemption of State Failure-to-Warn Claims in Generic Drug Cases

Guest Post: Alina Denis Jarjour, Esquire, Jarjour | Legal

Under current law, an individual can bring a product liability action for failure to warn against a brand name drug company, i.e., the NDA (New Drug Application) holder, but generally not against a generic manufacturer, the holder of an ANDA (Abbreviated New Drug Application).

Federal preemption stems from FDA regulations that do not permit the holder of an approved ANDA to change labeling to add new safety information the generic company becomes aware of until and unless the brand name company that holds the NDA for the reference listed drug (RLD) modifies the labeling. This interpretation was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 in the Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing case. The Court, however, left the door open when it added “Congress and the FDA retain the authority to change the law and regulations if they so desire.”

In November 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began the process to do just that when it published a proposed rule that will require generic drug companies to update the labeling of their drugs in light of new safety risks even though the RLD labeling for those products has different information on warnings, precautions, contraindications, adverse reactions and the like.

Under the proposed regulation, when the ANDA holder has “newly acquired information” that presents “sufficient evidence of a causal association” between the unlabeled warning and the approved generic drug, the generic manufacturer must submit a Changes Being Effected (CBE-0) supplement to its ANDA and immediately change its label. Also, the ANDA holder will be required to send the NDA holder both the labeling change and a copy of the information supporting the change. Any changes ultimately approved by FDA would affect both the generic label and the RLD holder’s labeling.

The FDA has noted that “if this proposed regulatory change is adopted, it may eliminate the preemption of certain failure-to-warn claims with respect to generic drugs.”

Interested parties wishing to provide input on the proposed rule must submit comments by January 13, 2014. The full text of the proposed rule is available at this link.

The Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011) decision is available at this link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-993.pdf.

About the Author: Alina Denis Jarjour is a business attorney, corporate governance / compliance professional and mediator. In addition to being a private practitioner, Alina has served in executive level legal, operational and governance/compliance roles within life sciences, telecommunications and technology companies. Her firm, Jarjour | Legal, works closely with clients engaged in the life sciences, tech / telecom, media, healthcare, consumer products and non-profit activities in and outside of the United States. Alina is an alumna of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, is bilingual (English/Spanish) and speaks frequently on business development, regulatory, compliance, conflict resolution and legal topics.

This article was originally published in the Florida Bar December 2013 Health Law Monthly Updates.