“The bankruptcy trustee for defunct law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler contends the government has once again overstepped its bounds by trying to control additional assets that belonged to convicted fraudster Scott Rothstein. On Monday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a motion seeking a protective order be entered to preserve new assets, including four Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler bank accounts at TD Bank containing almost $120,000 and ‘all property, other than ‘funds’ voluntarily turned over to the government since news broke in late October that Rothstein was running a settlement scheme out of his law firm. But trustee Herbert Stettin argued that the government could not lay claim to assets that don’t belong to Rothstein and were not included for forfeiture in the original information, calling the motion ‘particularly egregious,’” according to Daily Business Review.

USA Today notes the Supreme Court “ruled 7-2 Tuesday to limit the grounds for some lawsuits brought by whistle-blowers claiming fraud in US health care, defense and other programs.” and that the “overall effect of the decision is likely to be narrow because Congress amended the disputed provision as part of the health care overhaul that became law March 23.” The paper describes the issue as, “the scope of the False Claims Act, first enacted during the Civil War to elicit help from ordinary citizens against contracting fraud. The new case and the recently passed legislation put a spotlight on whistle-blowers who uncover fraud through the help of state or local audits that normally would not come to the federal government’s attention.”

In the National Law Journal a more detailed analysis states that “[i]n Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District v. US ex rel. Wilson, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a 7-2 majority, held that whistle-blowers whose allegations are based on publicly disclosed information in state or local reports and investigations are barred from filing so-called qui tam lawsuits. The Court’s decision — which also drew the first dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor — said the act’s public disclosure bar was not limited to federal sources of information” but “as Stevens noted, both in his opinion and his summary on the bench, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, limits the public disclosure bar to federal sources of information. The new act, however, is not retroactive, so the Court’s decision will apply to claims filed before its effective date.” As put by Bloomberg News, “business trade groups had urged the Supreme Court not to expand the False Claims Act, saying the upshot would be new burdens on companies. Lawsuits under the False Claims Act have recovered more than $24 billion since Congress strengthened the law in 1986.”

James Temple of the San Francisco Chronicle blogs that Google’s departure from its usual iterative, customer attentive release philosophy has earned the company a class action lawsuit on top of widespread derision. “A class action complaint filed in San Jose federal court alleges that Google Inc. broke the law when its controversial Google Buzz service [answer to a question nobody asked] shared personal data without the consent of users,” Temple writes. The suit relies in part on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Up until now there have been Google and Gmail features that I celebrate, ones that I help improve and ones that I ignore. Buzz became the first that I loathe.

The CBS Evening News says the government “hit Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, with a record $2.3 billion in fines for violating federal drug marketing rules. Among other things, Pfizer was accused of promoting the pain medication Bextra [valdecoxib] for unapproved uses.” NBC Nightly News added that “[Pfizer is] admitting that the painkiller Bextra and 12 other drugs were promoted for what’s known as off-label use, which the FDA says put public health at risk in the process.” While ABC World News exclaimed “Bextra became a blockbuster, bringing in $1.2 billion a year, as sales reps assured doctors it could be used not just for arthritis, but for any acute pain.  In exchange for hearing company sales pitches, doctors were paid up to $1,500 to attend meetings, and were treated to conferences at lush resorts, given air fare, hotels, meals, even massages.”

In the Washington Post:

Officials at the departments of Justice and Health and Human Services called the agreement with Pfizer and one of its subsidiaries a cautionary example of their strategy to team up with states to police errant health-care businesses.

The Wall Street Journal:

The settlement disclosed on Wednesday was the largest ever by a drug maker accused of marketing wrongdoing. Pfizer said in January that it had recorded a $2.3 billion settlement-related charge in the fourth quarter.

Bloomberg:

The four-year investigation uncovered a range of practices, including kickback payments to doctors in the sale of nine other drugs, among them the impotence drug Viagra and cholesterol pill Lipitor, officials said. The agreement resolves all “material pending matters” with the Justice Department, Pfizer’s general counsel, Amy W. Schulman, said in a statement.

The Los Angeles Times:

The settlement reflects an emphasis by the Obama administration on holding U.S. healthcare corporations accountable for their activities, especially in trying to market drugs to patients and doctors for uses that have not been approved, Justice Department officials and legal experts said. They also noted that several states, and federal prosecutors in various jurisdictions, had been investigating Pfizer for much of the eight years of the Bush administration as well.

The New York Times:

Although the investigation began and largely ended during the Bush administration, top Obama administration officials held a news conference on Wednesday to celebrate the settlement, thank each other for resolving it and promise more crackdowns on health fraud.

USA Today:

As part of the settlement, Pfizer will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the USA for any matter, according to the Justice Department. Pharmacia & Upjohn must pay a $105 million criminal fine.

The Associated Press:

As part of its illegal marketing, Pfizer invited doctors to consultant meetings at resort locations, paying their expenses and providing perks, prosecutors said.

“They were entertained with golf, massages, and other activities,” said Mike Loucks, the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts.

Loucks said that even as Pfizer was negotiating deals on past misconduct, they were continuing to violate the very same laws with other drugs.

To prevent backsliding this time, Pfizer’s conduct will be specially monitored by the Health and Human Service Department inspector general for five years.

In an unusual twist, the head of the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder, did not participate in the record settlement, because he had represented Pfizer on these issues while in private practice.

The American Lawyer

Lawyers for whistle blowers have been working on the cases for about three years, according to Simmer and Barbara Bonar, name partner at the Kentucky-based litigation boutique B. Dahlenburg Bonar and another one of the whistle blower attorneys. Bonar represented Robert Liter, a former Pfizer salesman who marketed the anti-epilepsy drug Lyrica, she says. Once the federal government got involved in the whistle blower cases, Bonar says she focused primarily on obtaining information and passing it along to the government. Simmer says the whistle blower attorneys mostly focused on tracking down other Pfizer sales reps to corroborate their clients’ stories.

“Chrysler Group LLC said Thursday it will accept product liability claims in a broader number of cases than originally planned in its reorganization under bankruptcy protection. The automaker said it will now consider product-related lawsuits from consumers involved in accidents that occurred after Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy protection in June that involve vehicles manufactured by the old company.” Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, said Chrysler had “responded to pressure from injured victims and consumer groups and we commend them for taking this important step to protect public safety.”  The Associated Press.

Chrysler senior vice president for external affairs and public policy John Bozzella said, “While Chrysler Group still faces challenges, we are confident today that the future viability of the company will not be threatened if we assume these obligations. [Our] approach is now consistent with that taken by General Motors Co. as part of its bankruptcy process. But Chrysler will not accept liability for lawsuits filed for incidents filed before June 10.” The Detroit News.

Bloomberg reported that as part of the original bankruptcy agreement, Chrysler had “agreed to assume liability only for cars sold by the newly formed company.”

Additional articles on this topic are carried by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.