We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 182

Connecticut and Vermont Latest States to Pass Drug Pricing Transparency Bills
  • Cooley LLP
  • USA
  • June 8 2018

Following on the heels of several other states, including California, Nevada and Oregon, that have enacted drug pricing transparency bills


Using a company’s “intrinsic” value in defending securities fraud suits
  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • USA
  • October 28 2013

A recent securities class action lawsuit filed in a Connecticut federal court charges that Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its CEO and CFO


District court holds FDA disclaimer effectively “negates” qualified health claim and violates First Amendment
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2012

A federal court in Connecticut recently held that the FDA could not require a green tea manufacturer to include a disclaimer that altogether negated the manufacturer’s qualified health claim linking green tea to a reduction in the risk of breast and prostate cancers


Pharmacist and his pharmacy pay $1,115,000, and are excluded from participation in federal health programs for seven years, for their billing Medicare and Medicaid for fraudulent dispensing fees
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • May 4 2010

On March 30, 2010, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut announced that it had reached a civil settlement with Roy Katz and the pharmacy he owned, RG Pharmacy, concerning alleged violations of the False Claims Act


Medical device manufacturers may encounter artful pleading from plaintiffs seeking to avoid Connecticut Appellate Court decision following Riegel
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • November 20 2009

In Mullin v. Guidant Corporation, 114 Conn. App. 279 (2009), the Connecticut Appellate Court issued its first decision on federal preemption under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. 360c, et seq. ("MDA"), since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., __U.S.__, 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008


Appellate court follows Riegel
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • June 12 2009

In Mullin v. Guidant Corporation, 114 Conn. App. 279 (2009), the Connecticut Appellate Court issued its first decision on federal preemption under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. 360c, et seq. ("MDA"), since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc


Leah Roffman
  • Cooley LLP


Frank C. Morris, Jr.
  • Epstein Becker Green

Kathryn J. Russo
  • Jackson Lewis PC