Category Archives: Raplon Organon Dr. Feldstein Schering criminal matter Q

Organon’s Raplon Qui Tam/False Claims Act matter — "Why so long under seal?"

All of this was from an era when Organon was in pre-acquisition-by-Schering mode, but it still belongs here, because it is likely to have continuing ramifications for Schering-Plough, on a “going-forward” basis — settlements, damages, possible consent-decrees, and the rather pedestrian distraction of having to defend it.

So, earlier I had said I would look into why this case was under seal for so long. It seems that the Claimant/Relator [or his counsel], put himself a bit of a bind, back in 2004. It seems that a state-court-wrongful-discharge claim filed by the Claimant, on very-similar facts, was on the verge of settling when — in the midst of making written assurances that no other proceedings alleging the same facts were pending, before any other court — it all broke down.

There was this “Star ChamerQui Tam proceeding, you see. . . . and, at least insofar as the record reflects, the Relator/Claimant believed he was prohibited from even disclosing the existence of the Qui Tam matter, to Organon, prior to that settlement.

Several courts have ruled against the Claimant, since then, on this notion, leaving him with effectively only a False Claims Act claim against Organon, it would seem.

So, if it is true that all criminal investigations into this matter have been closed, it would make logical sense to “unseal” the proceedings, and allow the Claimant to move forward with serving his complaint, and discovering his case.

That is pretty much the way it looks now. . . . I’ll report back, if I see something contrary, here, over time.

Advertisements

Organon’s Raplon Qui Tam/False Claims Act matter — "Why so long under seal?"

All of this was from an era when Organon was in pre-acquisition-by-Schering mode, but it still belongs here, because it is likely to have continuing ramifications for Schering-Plough, on a “going-forward” basis — settlements, damages, possible consent-decrees, and the rather pedestrian distraction of having to defend it.

So, earlier I had said I would look into why this case was under seal for so long. It seems that the Claimant/Relator [or his counsel], put himself a bit of a bind, back in 2004. It seems that a state-court-wrongful-discharge claim filed by the Claimant, on very-similar facts, was on the verge of settling when — in the midst of making written assurances that no other proceedings alleging the same facts were pending, before any other court — it all broke down.

There was this “Star ChamerQui Tam proceeding, you see. . . . and, at least insofar as the record reflects, the Relator/Claimant believed he was prohibited from even disclosing the existence of the Qui Tam matter, to Organon, prior to that settlement.

Several courts have ruled against the Claimant, since then, on this notion, leaving him with effectively only a False Claims Act claim against Organon, it would seem.

So, if it is true that all criminal investigations into this matter have been closed, it would make logical sense to “unseal” the proceedings, and allow the Claimant to move forward with serving his complaint, and discovering his case.

That is pretty much the way it looks now. . . . I’ll report back, if I see something contrary, here, over time.

Organon’s Raplon Qui Tam/False Claims Act matter — "Why so long under seal?"

All of this was from an era when Organon was in pre-acquisition-by-Schering mode, but it still belongs here, because it is likely to have continuing ramifications for Schering-Plough, on a “going-forward” basis — settlements, damages, possible consent-decrees, and the rather pedestrian distraction of having to defend it.

So, earlier I had said I would look into why this case was under seal for so long. It seems that the Claimant/Relator [or his counsel], put himself a bit of a bind, back in 2004. It seems that a state-court-wrongful-discharge claim filed by the Claimant, on very-similar facts, was on the verge of settling when — in the midst of making written assurances that no other proceedings alleging the same facts were pending, before any other court — it all broke down.

There was this “Star ChamerQui Tam proceeding, you see. . . . and, at least insofar as the record reflects, the Relator/Claimant believed he was prohibited from even disclosing the existence of the Qui Tam matter, to Organon, prior to that settlement.

Several courts have ruled against the Claimant, since then, on this notion, leaving him with effectively only a False Claims Act claim against Organon, it would seem.

So, if it is true that all criminal investigations into this matter have been closed, it would make logical sense to “unseal” the proceedings, and allow the Claimant to move forward with serving his complaint, and discovering his case.

That is pretty much the way it looks now. . . . I’ll report back, if I see something contrary, here, over time.

Organon’s Raplon Qui Tam/False Claims Act matter — "Why so long under seal?"

All of this was from an era when Organon was in pre-acquisition-by-Schering mode, but it still belongs here, because it is likely to have continuing ramifications for Schering-Plough, on a “going-forward” basis — settlements, damages, possible consent-decrees, and the rather pedestrian distraction of having to defend it.

So, earlier I had said I would look into why this case was under seal for so long. It seems that the Claimant/Relator [or his counsel], put himself a bit of a bind, back in 2004. It seems that a state-court-wrongful-discharge claim filed by the Claimant, on very-similar facts, was on the verge of settling when — in the midst of making written assurances that no other proceedings alleging the same facts were pending, before any other court — it all broke down.

There was this “Star ChamerQui Tam proceeding, you see. . . . and, at least insofar as the record reflects, the Relator/Claimant believed he was prohibited from even disclosing the existence of the Qui Tam matter, to Organon, prior to that settlement.

Several courts have ruled against the Claimant, since then, on this notion, leaving him with effectively only a False Claims Act claim against Organon, it would seem.

So, if it is true that all criminal investigations into this matter have been closed, it would make logical sense to “unseal” the proceedings, and allow the Claimant to move forward with serving his complaint, and discovering his case.

That is pretty much the way it looks now. . . . I’ll report back, if I see something contrary, here, over time.

Organon’s Raplon Qui Tam/False Claims Act matter — "Why so long under seal?"

All of this was from an era when Organon was in pre-acquisition-by-Schering mode, but it still belongs here, because it is likely to have continuing ramifications for Schering-Plough, on a “going-forward” basis — settlements, damages, possible consent-decrees, and the rather pedestrian distraction of having to defend it.

So, earlier I had said I would look into why this case was under seal for so long. It seems that the Claimant/Relator [or his counsel], put himself a bit of a bind, back in 2004. It seems that a state-court-wrongful-discharge claim filed by the Claimant, on very-similar facts, was on the verge of settling when — in the midst of making written assurances that no other proceedings alleging the same facts were pending, before any other court — it all broke down.

There was this “Star ChamerQui Tam proceeding, you see. . . . and, at least insofar as the record reflects, the Relator/Claimant believed he was prohibited from even disclosing the existence of the Qui Tam matter, to Organon, prior to that settlement.

Several courts have ruled against the Claimant, since then, on this notion, leaving him with effectively only a False Claims Act claim against Organon, it would seem.

So, if it is true that all criminal investigations into this matter have been closed, it would make logical sense to “unseal” the proceedings, and allow the Claimant to move forward with serving his complaint, and discovering his case.

That is pretty much the way it looks now. . . . I’ll report back, if I see something contrary, here, over time.

Organon’s Raplon Qui Tam/False Claims Act matter — "Why so long under seal?"

All of this was from an era when Organon was in pre-acquisition-by-Schering mode, but it still belongs here, because it is likely to have continuing ramifications for Schering-Plough, on a “going-forward” basis — settlements, damages, possible consent-decrees, and the rather pedestrian distraction of having to defend it.

So, earlier I had said I would look into why this case was under seal for so long. It seems that the Claimant/Relator [or his counsel], put himself a bit of a bind, back in 2004. It seems that a state-court-wrongful-discharge claim filed by the Claimant, on very-similar facts, was on the verge of settling when — in the midst of making written assurances that no other proceedings alleging the same facts were pending, before any other court — it all broke down.

There was this “Star ChamerQui Tam proceeding, you see. . . . and, at least insofar as the record reflects, the Relator/Claimant believed he was prohibited from even disclosing the existence of the Qui Tam matter, to Organon, prior to that settlement.

Several courts have ruled against the Claimant, since then, on this notion, leaving him with effectively only a False Claims Act claim against Organon, it would seem.

So, if it is true that all criminal investigations into this matter have been closed, it would make logical sense to “unseal” the proceedings, and allow the Claimant to move forward with serving his complaint, and discovering his case.

That is pretty much the way it looks now. . . . I’ll report back, if I see something contrary, here, over time.

Organon’s Raplon Qui Tam/False Claims Act matter — "Why so long under seal?"

All of this was from an era when Organon was in pre-acquisition-by-Schering mode, but it still belongs here, because it is likely to have continuing ramifications for Schering-Plough, on a “going-forward” basis — settlements, damages, possible consent-decrees, and the rather pedestrian distraction of having to defend it.

So, earlier I had said I would look into why this case was under seal for so long. It seems that the Claimant/Relator [or his counsel], put himself a bit of a bind, back in 2004. It seems that a state-court-wrongful-discharge claim filed by the Claimant, on very-similar facts, was on the verge of settling when — in the midst of making written assurances that no other proceedings alleging the same facts were pending, before any other court — it all broke down.

There was this “Star ChamerQui Tam proceeding, you see. . . . and, at least insofar as the record reflects, the Relator/Claimant believed he was prohibited from even disclosing the existence of the Qui Tam matter, to Organon, prior to that settlement.

Several courts have ruled against the Claimant, since then, on this notion, leaving him with effectively only a False Claims Act claim against Organon, it would seem.

So, if it is true that all criminal investigations into this matter have been closed, it would make logical sense to “unseal” the proceedings, and allow the Claimant to move forward with serving his complaint, and discovering his case.

That is pretty much the way it looks now. . . . I’ll report back, if I see something contrary, here, over time.