Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

GSK - Paxil lawsuits

Posted by garnet71 on June 7, 2009, at 3:41:08

So I've heard some things about this in the past, but did not know Elliott Spitzer was involved in going after the medical-industrial complex too...He went after the banking system...No wonder he was targeted by the Justice Department-the arm of U.S. government corruption utilized by the White House. For this and other reasons, it's quite obvious his fall had nothing to do with soliciting a prostitute.

But where does the $3.1 billion to the IRS fit in? Anyone have ideas? Was this some sort of deal?
_______________________________

On 12 September 2006 GSK settled the largest tax dispute in IRS history agreeing to pay $3.1 billion...

On 22 December 2006, a US court decided in Hoorman, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp that individuals who purchased Paxil(R) or Paxil CR(TM) (paroxetine) for a minor child may be eligible for benefits under a $63.8 million Proposed Settlement.[29] The lawsuit stemmed from a consumer advocate protest against Paroxetine manufacturer GSK. Since the FDA approved paroxetine in 1992, approximately 5,000 U.S. citizens and thousands more worldwide have sued GSK. Most of these people feel they were not sufficiently warned in advance of the drug's side effects and addictive properties.

According to the Paxil Protest website,[30] hundreds more lawsuits have been filed against GSK. The original Paxil Protest website was removed from the internet in 2006. It is understood that the action to take down the site was undertaken as part of a confidentiality agreement or 'gagging order' which the owner of the site entered into as part of a settlement of his action against GlaxoSmithKline. (However, in March 2007, the website Seroxat Secrets[31] discovered that an archive of Paxil Protest site[32] was still available on the internet via Archive.org)

The fact that it can cause intolerable withdrawal symptoms of the kind that could lead to dependence is enormously important to patients, doctors, investors, and the company. GlaxoSmithKline has evaded the issue since it was granted a licence for paroxetine over 10 years ago, and the drug has become a blockbuster for them, generating about a tenth of their entire revenue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline

On August 26, 2004, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office announced it had settled legal action against GlaxoSmithKline. The settlement required GSK to post a registry which would include much more information about pretrial and clinical drug study results than what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other pharmaceutical companies had thus far been willing to make public. Attorney General Spitzer hailed the settlement as "transformational in that it will provide doctors and patients access to the clinical testing data necessary to make informed judgments." This part of the settlement was the main objective of the New York AG and Rose Firestein, who worked in the office of the AG and initially argued the case should be undertaken. As for the monetary compensation, both sides finally agreed to $2.5 million. On August 3, 2004, shortly before the settlement, Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa sent a letter to GSK, stating that he was concerned that "some drug companies" may not have provided the FDA with all the information at their disposal. His letter was spurred by statements earlier in 2008 by Dr. Andrew Mosholder, an FDA official, who had told senators at a February 2, 2004 hearing that "GlaxoSmithKline, in his opinion, was attempting to 'sugar-coat' the adverse effects of Paxil on children by 'miscoding' suicidal ideations and/or suicidal behavior." Glaxo officials never commented on whether there was any connection between Senator Grassley's letter and their decision to pursue a settlement with the New York State attorney general's lawsuit.[23]

On 12 September 2006 GSK settled the largest tax dispute in IRS history agreeing to pay $3.1 billion. At issue in the case were Zantac and the other Glaxo Group heritage products sold from 19892005. The case was about an area of taxation dealing with intracompany "transfer pricing"determining the share of profit attributable to the US subsidiaries of GSK and subject to tax by the IRS. Taxes for large multi-divisional companies are paid to revenue authorities based on the profits reported in particular tax jurisdictions, so how profits were allocated among various legacy Glaxo divisions based on the functions they performed was central to the dispute in this case.[24]

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:garnet71 thread:899784
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090531/msgs/899784.html