United States v. Aegerion Pharm., Inc.
Decision Date | 20 November 2017 |
Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 17–10288–WGY |
Citation | 280 F.Supp.3d 217 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Kriss Basil, Young Paik, United States Attorney's Office MA, Boston, MA, Shannon Pedersen, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Joshua S. Levy, Patrick J. Welsh, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant.
Let's see if I've got this straight.1
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Aegerion") developed an effective medicine, called Juxtapid, to treat high cholesterol in people with a rare genetic disease. The treatment did not come cheap. Information, ¶ 19.
Thereafter Aegerion engaged in a series of unfair and deceptive acts, including outright fraud, which pervaded corporate management, all designed to increase the use of Juxtapid in circumstances where such treatment was not medically indicated. Aegerion wrongfully received a great deal of money from this corporate criminal conduct. Still more important, it appears that Aegerion knowingly induced the prescription of Juxtapid to many patients for which it would do no good, thus crowding out more promising therapies. Information, ¶ 37–39. Indeed, "[n]umerous HeFH, statin-intolerant, and diabetic patients, including elderly and pediatric patients suffered adverse events, including liver toxicity and gastrointestinal distress, and had to discontinue use of Juxtapid." Information, ¶ 39.
Facing two misdemeanor counts of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, Aegerion now seeks to plead guilty,2 pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (the " ‘C’ plea"). Under a "C" plea, the judge's choice at sentencing is limited to imposing the sentence agreed between the government and the offender or rejecting the plea altogether. Id. at 11(c)(3)(A). The judge, of course, is forbidden from engaging in the plea bargaining itself. Id. at 11(c)(1). These two requirements conflict whenever a court is inclined to reject a "C" plea since an unexplained rejection smacks of personal fiat and any explanation sounds like court interference in the parties' good faith bargaining. There is no easy course. Seeking to avoid this difficulty, this Court in United States v. Orthofix, Inc., 956 F.Supp.2d 316 (D. Mass. 2013), thoroughly considered the issues and explained its conclusion that the "C" plea has no place, save in the rarest circumstances, in the context of corporate criminal pleas. Id. at 331–37.
As this case illustrates, the issues presented by the "C" plea in the corporate context are more disquieting than I had originally thought.
To begin:
Here, there is much to commend the proffered plea; unfortunately much of it remains sealed so as not to compromise on-going criminal investigations. It suffices here to say that Aegerion's top management has undergone a near complete makeover and that its cooperation with the government's law enforcement efforts is truly extraordinary.
That said, in light of the larger issues discussed below, it is the duty of this Court candidly to explain the issues it has with this proffered "C" plea. This Court is not bargaining with the parties. None of these points—singly or together—is necessarily a deal breaker. Each one is a consideration—and perhaps I may well not yet have considered every relevant issue.
The Larger Issue—A Two–Tier Criminal Justice System
District judges throughout the United States play two vital roles in our constitutional polity. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yildirim v. Demoura
... ... CIVIL ACTION NO. 1611780DPW United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. Signed November ... ...
-
Shire LLC v. Abhai, LLC
...be well advised to take notice of this pervasive corporate unwillingness to play by the rules. See United States v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 280 F.Supp.3d 217 (D. Mass. 2017). The Clerk is therefore directed to send a certified copy of this opinion to the General Counsel of the FDA. ......
-
Coleman v. Alaska USA Fed. Credit Union
...how effective is compulsory consumer arbitration in stifling consumer claims altogether." United States v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 3d 217, 226 n.7 (D. Mass. 2017) (citing Arbitration Study Report to Congress, pursuant to Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protec......