In an apparent case of first impression, a Philadelphia judge has ruled that two pharmaceutical companies may have a legal duty to class members for money spent on the generic version of the companies' name-brand drug allegedly marketed by the companies for uses not approved by federal regulators. The generic drug in the case was produced by a third-party manufacturer.
March 24, 2008 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
In an apparent case of first impression, a Philadelphia judge has ruled that two pharmaceutical companies may have a legal duty to class members for money spent on the generic version of the companies’ name-brand drug allegedly marketed by the companies for uses not approved by federal regulators.
The generic drug in the case was produced by a third-party manufacturer.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
