![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by garnet71 on June 7, 2009, at 3:41:08
So I've heard some things about this in the past, but did not know Elliott Spitzer was involved in going after the medical-industrial complex too...He went after the banking system...No wonder he was targeted by the Justice Department-the arm of U.S. government corruption utilized by the White House. For this and other reasons, it's quite obvious his fall had nothing to do with soliciting a prostitute.
But where does the $3.1 billion to the IRS fit in? Anyone have ideas? Was this some sort of deal?
_______________________________On 12 September 2006 GSK settled the largest tax dispute in IRS history agreeing to pay $3.1 billion...
On 22 December 2006, a US court decided in Hoorman, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp that individuals who purchased Paxil(R) or Paxil CR(TM) (paroxetine) for a minor child may be eligible for benefits under a $63.8 million Proposed Settlement.[29] The lawsuit stemmed from a consumer advocate protest against Paroxetine manufacturer GSK. Since the FDA approved paroxetine in 1992, approximately 5,000 U.S. citizens and thousands more worldwide have sued GSK. Most of these people feel they were not sufficiently warned in advance of the drug's side effects and addictive properties.
According to the Paxil Protest website,[30] hundreds more lawsuits have been filed against GSK. The original Paxil Protest website was removed from the internet in 2006. It is understood that the action to take down the site was undertaken as part of a confidentiality agreement or 'gagging order' which the owner of the site entered into as part of a settlement of his action against GlaxoSmithKline. (However, in March 2007, the website Seroxat Secrets[31] discovered that an archive of Paxil Protest site[32] was still available on the internet via Archive.org)
The fact that it can cause intolerable withdrawal symptoms of the kind that could lead to dependence is enormously important to patients, doctors, investors, and the company. GlaxoSmithKline has evaded the issue since it was granted a licence for paroxetine over 10 years ago, and the drug has become a blockbuster for them, generating about a tenth of their entire revenue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline
On August 26, 2004, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office announced it had settled legal action against GlaxoSmithKline. The settlement required GSK to post a registry which would include much more information about pretrial and clinical drug study results than what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other pharmaceutical companies had thus far been willing to make public. Attorney General Spitzer hailed the settlement as "transformational in that it will provide doctors and patients access to the clinical testing data necessary to make informed judgments." This part of the settlement was the main objective of the New York AG and Rose Firestein, who worked in the office of the AG and initially argued the case should be undertaken. As for the monetary compensation, both sides finally agreed to $2.5 million. On August 3, 2004, shortly before the settlement, Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa sent a letter to GSK, stating that he was concerned that "some drug companies" may not have provided the FDA with all the information at their disposal. His letter was spurred by statements earlier in 2008 by Dr. Andrew Mosholder, an FDA official, who had told senators at a February 2, 2004 hearing that "GlaxoSmithKline, in his opinion, was attempting to 'sugar-coat' the adverse effects of Paxil on children by 'miscoding' suicidal ideations and/or suicidal behavior." Glaxo officials never commented on whether there was any connection between Senator Grassley's letter and their decision to pursue a settlement with the New York State attorney general's lawsuit.[23]
On 12 September 2006 GSK settled the largest tax dispute in IRS history agreeing to pay $3.1 billion. At issue in the case were Zantac and the other Glaxo Group heritage products sold from 19892005. The case was about an area of taxation dealing with intracompany "transfer pricing"determining the share of profit attributable to the US subsidiaries of GSK and subject to tax by the IRS. Taxes for large multi-divisional companies are paid to revenue authorities based on the profits reported in particular tax jurisdictions, so how profits were allocated among various legacy Glaxo divisions based on the functions they performed was central to the dispute in this case.[24]
Posted by Phillipa on June 7, 2009, at 12:35:00
In reply to GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by garnet71 on June 7, 2009, at 3:41:08
I took paxil l0mg with benzos for over two years and didn't have trouble withdrawing just took a bit less daily. So is it just kids? Phillipa ps first ad I ever took.
Posted by TriedEveryDrug on June 7, 2009, at 21:06:38
In reply to GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by garnet71 on June 7, 2009, at 3:41:08
I'm actually surprised Sptizer didn't perish in a "tragic" accident.
Posted by yxibow on June 8, 2009, at 4:18:44
In reply to GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by garnet71 on June 7, 2009, at 3:41:08
This is the same Spitzer that was part of a prostitution scandal?
I don't know.... there are always "class action" lawsuits against drug companies... just look up a recent drug on Google and you'll probably find the ambulance chasers' web site prominently.
Not that I care for people who may or may not have paid taxes or drug companies, but sometimes its grandstanding in attorney general and district attorney offices.
-- Jay
Posted by desolationrower on June 8, 2009, at 5:40:30
In reply to Re: GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by yxibow on June 8, 2009, at 4:18:44
while i'm quite sure there was some behind the scenes machinations with the prostitution thing, the other point is that well adjusted and moral people don't do the kind of thing you almost always need to do to get enough power to make a large positive impact. you know, all the sayings about power being a sword that cuts the wielder too, etc. morality for normal social interaction and for leading large groups isn't really the same.
i think the tax thing was just typical accounting trickery to avoid paying taxes, not really related to them being a drug company..
-d/r
Posted by garnet71 on June 8, 2009, at 14:04:11
In reply to Re: GSK - Paxil lawsuits » garnet71, posted by TriedEveryDrug on June 7, 2009, at 21:06:38
Well they couldn't use that approach all the time because then people would start to become too suspicious.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2009, at 18:53:12
In reply to GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by garnet71 on June 7, 2009, at 3:41:08
Oh, his fall was pre-ordained. Call it hubris. Spitzer had quite a reputation for making his legal forays very personal. As Attorney General, he was as likely to make his points in the press as he was in the courts, which completely denigrates that office. IMHO, his motive was not justice, it was power.
His main tool was New York's Martin Act (1921).
'Writing in Legal Affairs, Nicholas Thompson explained that the Martin Act empowers the New York attorney general to subpoena any document he wants from anyone doing business in the state. . . People called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. . . . To win a case, the AG doesnt have to prove that the defendant intended to defraud anyone, that a transaction took place, or that anyone actually was defrauded. Plus, when the prosecution is over, trial lawyers can gain access to the hordes of documents that the act has churned up and use them as the basis for civil suits.'
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/03/11/power-corrupts-elliot-spitzers-record-as-ny-attorney-general/From wiki's biography of Spitzer, 'In January 2005, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described Spitzer's approach as "the most egregious and unacceptable form of intimidation we've seen in this country in modern times."'
Those are hardly glowing reflections on his conduct. His downfall was triggered when his bank notified authorities of irregular transactions in his accounts, possibly indicating bribes were taking place. It turned out to be call girls. Hubris.
With regards to the Spitzer suit against GSK, it was settled for $2.5 million, essentially to cover New York's costs. GSK had already begun the process of giving full public access to its clinical trial database. Spitzer's suit was a PR stunt, IMHO.
As to the tax ruling, there's always a conflict between multinational corporations' attempts to avoid the most punitive tax regimes, and those same tax regimes' attempts to collect those taxes. For example, if GSK manufacturers all of the world supply of Zantac in one factory in Singapore, it might make more sense to mark up the U.S. supply at source, before exporting to the U.S., if Singapore's corporate taxes are less onerous. That supply would then be further marked up for sale in the domestic American market. The issue is simply who has the right to determine what the fair value of that Zantac, at the time of import, really is. The U.S. asserted its authority, and it really isn't about who's right. GSK likes doing business in the U.S., so they make some concessions here or there along the way. And I'm sure they re-filed their taxes back in Singapore (or wherever), thereafter.
That's how I see it.
Lar
Posted by garnet71 on June 9, 2009, at 23:55:23
In reply to Re: GSK - Paxil lawsuits » garnet71, posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2009, at 18:53:12
That puts an interesting spin on things, Lar.
Not so sure I agree with it all.
"January 2005, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described Spitzer's approach as "the most egregious and unacceptable form of intimidation we've seen in this country in modern times."
Well the Chamber of Commerce is like a mini-mafia arm for business, so they don't have too much credibility there imo.
Well most people know banks have to report any transaction over $10,000 from any individual; it's hard to believe an Attorney General would be that naive. That's puzzling. Plus, I have no clue but I can't imagine there is a govt. employee looking at every single Form 8300 submitted by a bank. But if the transactions were under $10,000, does the bank have the right to target him? Or were they digging into his accounts in a way that was not common? Would they rummage through the accounts of legislatures that produced bank-friendly legislation? Of course not. It seems many were finding ways to go after him, when there are others doing similar things. That's really the point; there is tons of govt. and business corruption-but who is chosen to be targeted for investigating and why? That's what I'm interested in. I would only be able to "guess" the D O J has a list of other politicians who have used call girl services, probably the same one Spitzer was using, but waiting for the right time to let it out; it's matter of who is chosen for prosecution. My "guess" is actually a bit more than just guessing though....
Same with GSK; many companies use creative accounting, that's why business schools have creative accounting classes. I spent 16 hours last weekend analyzing the financials/annual report of a very shady corporation that was never 'targeted'. I do wonder how many others there are. And most companies hide things w/in their financials. They are burried.
Also, it is a fact that the F B I has had a huge shortage of accountants for a number of years. They have to pick and choose which corps. to investigate. Sometimes I think the Enrons were just an example to curb corporate fraud because they did not have the resources - or will - to go after every company who does such things. it was a way to send a message to corps.: "don't be too greedy now". I guess $3 billion is a pretty damn good incentive too.
I really don't know enough about his approach, with the subponea of documents to comment on that, though it sounds interesting.
Motives, to me, are often more important than the acts themselves when it comes to government.
U.S. Senator Arlen Spector, PA, recently switched from a Republican to a Democrat. All of the sudden, he was investigated for a questionable business transaction that occurred like 30 years ago.
It's just interesting to think about whether things are just conincidences or if there is a link between events. Actually, I think I hate politics at this point. But at the same time, I realized I am really starting to like accounting. I never thought in a million years I would like something like that.
There are some good businesses out there. It just sux there has been a massive shift in wealth to the top 2%, while the middle class is deteriorating. I worked in govt. for 12 years now and am a bit jaded too, I suppose.
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 15, 2009, at 7:13:21
In reply to Re: GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by garnet71 on June 9, 2009, at 23:55:23
> That puts an interesting spin on things, Lar.
I'm trying to remove the spin, actually.
> Well most people know banks have to report any transaction over $10,000 from any individual; it's hard to believe an Attorney General would be that naive.Well, he was that naive. It's all fully referenced on its own wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal
> That's puzzling. Plus, I have no clue but I can't imagine there is a govt. employee looking at every single Form 8300 submitted by a bank.
The IRS is supposed to, but these transactions sat unnoticed for months until they happened to be noted as payments made to a shell corporation that was under active investigation by the FBI, which sought the information held by the IRS. It was not a witch-hunt. He was stupid. And a hypocrite. He was using the service at a time his office issued the following news release about busting a high-end prostitution ring: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2004/apr/apr7a_04.html
And further to the concern that he was being targetted by this investigation, although he was likely guilty of federal charges (i.e. the Mann Act), he was never indicted.
> But if the transactions were under $10,000, does the bank have the right to target him? Or were they digging into his accounts in a way that was not common?
No. Nobody did that. It wasn't a conspiracy, or a targetted investigation. It all fully referenced on that wiki page. I read the references, too.
My main concern with Spitzer was his violation of the fundamental right of presumed innocence, and of due process. I am decidely, definitely, not an advocate for 'the ends justifies the means' jurisprudence.
Moreover, his use of an archaic law, the Martin Act (1921), otherwise superceded by the federal SEC and other developments following the 1929 stock market debacle, is (IMHO) deplorable. In esence, this law permits the Attorney General for the State of New York to simply "go fishing", as the definition for civil fraud under the Act is: "all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty and all acts tending to deceive or mislead the public, whether or not the product of scienter or intent to defraud." (Sup. Ct. N.Y., 1998) See: http://www.dechert.com/library/FS_2004-04.pdf
And, because the law does not require him to convene a Grand Jury, he is never tested on even so much as the merit of bringing an action under this law in the first place. "... a Martin Act subpoena requires witnesses to either provide documents or appear in the Attorney General's office to be interviewed without any Grand Jury....Due to the dual civil and criminal aspects under the Martin Act the Attorney General may commence an investigation under such Act and provide the appearance of it being a civil investigation which may simply lead to fines or injunctions, when in reality the evidence collected may be used by the Criminal Division of the Attorney General's office to present evidence to a Grand Jury and criminally prosecute its targets based on the collection of evidence conducted under the Martin Act." http://www.smeissner.com/Martin-Act-Subpoena.html
But that wasn't enough for Spitzer. As AG, he can keep the proceedings private, or make any of the information obtained by the civil proceeding under the Martin Act public. And that's where, in my opinion, he really stepped over the line, selectively releasing information to the press, and to lawyers who would otherwise have had no access to the information he obtained. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
So, when I read public comments that denigrate his actions, I have to agree with them. I do not, as I say, accept that the ends justifies the means.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-eliot-spitzer-show-10975
"Spitzers campaigns against Wall Street came under angry criticism, on several grounds. Spitzer, it was said, had encroached on territory properly belonging to the federal government, exploiting a 1921 New York State law that gave him wide-ranging power. Moreover, rather than bringing cases to trial where the charges could be aired in open court, he often sought settlements and then dictated their terms without judicial oversight, as if, in the words of a Wall Street Journal editorial, he was the Lord High Executioner of Wall Street. Then, too, rather than returning settlement money to individual investors, he sometimes dispensed it at his own constituency-building discretion to institutions like law schools, the Police Athletic League, the Hispanic Federation, and various charities in upstate New York. When he did dare to take a case to trial, he usually lost, suggesting the charges were baseless to begin with. He also used bullying, abusive tactics, appearing on ABCs This Week to accuse Maurice Greenberg of fraud before filing any charges against him, and telling John Whitehead, a friend of Greenberg, that its now a war between us. . . . I will be coming after you. Finally, he had acted as an enabling force for trial lawyersas it happens, one of his main sources of campaign contributionswho followed up on each of his investigations with their own class-action lawsuits for which they stood to garner fees in the hundreds of millions of dollars."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120528114453028807.html
"Mr. Spitzer's main offense as a prosecutor is that he violated the basic rules of fairness and due process: Innocent until proven guilty; the right to your day in court. The Spitzer method was to target public companies and officials, leak allegations and out-of-context emails to a compliant press, watch the stock price fall, threaten a corporate indictment (a death sentence), and then move in for a quick settlement kill. There was rarely a trial, fair or unfair, involved.On the substance, his court record speaks for itself. Most of Mr. Spitzer's high-profile charges have gone up in smoke. A New York state judge threw out his case against tax firm H&R Block. He lost his prosecution against Bank of America broker Ted Sihpol (whom Mr. Spitzer threatened to arrest in front of his child and pregnant wife). Mr. Spitzer was stopped by a federal judge from prying confidential information out of mortgage companies. Another New York judge blocked the heart of his suit against Mr. Grasso. Mr. Greenberg continues to fight his civil charges. The press was foursquare behind Mr. Spitzer in all these cases, and in a better world they'd share some of his humiliation."
Lar
Posted by SLS on June 15, 2009, at 8:10:26
In reply to GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by garnet71 on June 7, 2009, at 3:41:08
As long as GSK remains solvent and keeps making Lamictal, that's what takes priority on my list of special interests at the moment.
It seems that there is currently an environment in which drug companies are being bashed from all directions, some of which is deserved and in the public interest to see those issues rectified. However, it is not in the public interest to award multi-million or billion dollar punitive judgments against drug companies so that they are encouraged to merge with one another or perhaps charge otherwise unconscionably high prices for their products to defray the costs of these judgments. We should encourage drug companies to operate with minimum overhead and with maximum oversight.
- Scott
Posted by Amelia_in_StPaul on June 16, 2009, at 12:06:26
In reply to Re: GSK - Paxil lawsuits, posted by desolationrower on June 8, 2009, at 5:40:30
very wise, indeed, d/r
> while i'm quite sure there was some behind the scenes machinations with the prostitution thing, the other point is that well adjusted and moral people don't do the kind of thing you almost always need to do to get enough power to make a large positive impact. you know, all the sayings about power being a sword that cuts the wielder too, etc. morality for normal social interaction and for leading large groups isn't really the same.
>
> i think the tax thing was just typical accounting trickery to avoid paying taxes, not really related to them being a drug company..
>
> -d/r
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.