Posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2009, at 18:53:12
In reply to GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by garnet71 on June 7, 2009, at 3:41:08
Oh, his fall was pre-ordained. Call it hubris. Spitzer had quite a reputation for making his legal forays very personal. As Attorney General, he was as likely to make his points in the press as he was in the courts, which completely denigrates that office. IMHO, his motive was not justice, it was power.
His main tool was New York's Martin Act (1921).
'Writing in Legal Affairs, Nicholas Thompson explained that the Martin Act empowers the New York attorney general to subpoena any document he wants from anyone doing business in the state. . . People called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. . . . To win a case, the AG doesnt have to prove that the defendant intended to defraud anyone, that a transaction took place, or that anyone actually was defrauded. Plus, when the prosecution is over, trial lawyers can gain access to the hordes of documents that the act has churned up and use them as the basis for civil suits.'
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/03/11/power-corrupts-elliot-spitzers-record-as-ny-attorney-general/From wiki's biography of Spitzer, 'In January 2005, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described Spitzer's approach as "the most egregious and unacceptable form of intimidation we've seen in this country in modern times."'
Those are hardly glowing reflections on his conduct. His downfall was triggered when his bank notified authorities of irregular transactions in his accounts, possibly indicating bribes were taking place. It turned out to be call girls. Hubris.
With regards to the Spitzer suit against GSK, it was settled for $2.5 million, essentially to cover New York's costs. GSK had already begun the process of giving full public access to its clinical trial database. Spitzer's suit was a PR stunt, IMHO.
As to the tax ruling, there's always a conflict between multinational corporations' attempts to avoid the most punitive tax regimes, and those same tax regimes' attempts to collect those taxes. For example, if GSK manufacturers all of the world supply of Zantac in one factory in Singapore, it might make more sense to mark up the U.S. supply at source, before exporting to the U.S., if Singapore's corporate taxes are less onerous. That supply would then be further marked up for sale in the domestic American market. The issue is simply who has the right to determine what the fair value of that Zantac, at the time of import, really is. The U.S. asserted its authority, and it really isn't about who's right. GSK likes doing business in the U.S., so they make some concessions here or there along the way. And I'm sure they re-filed their taxes back in Singapore (or wherever), thereafter.
That's how I see it.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:899784
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090531/msgs/900048.html