We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
HH your wish has been granted!!
Nice UT to close a good day.....
GLA!
A mix of today's legal news and half year results out next week. Anyone on a short position on this share at the moment must be on opioids.
Shorts must be closing .....
GLA!
Personally I think the news that INDV have asked for the case to be thrown out is enough to justify this rise - the fact that they have also suggested ‘prejudice’ ups the anti considerably. If, as we believe, the DOJ’s case is weak or built upon misinformation given to the grand jury then either the DOJ will back off quietly or they will seek a very quick face saving settlement - again for INDV to let them off the hook this will be low 10’s of million - this is still a lot of money but nothing like the amounts that have previously been suggested. GLA
Agreed......News on a settlement?
Still rising....
GLA!
up 10% 48.44p something afoot here
This shows the conviction of the Management and Board that they are on a strong footing as they are no longer defending they are on the front foot, which adds a new dimension for the DOJ to consider and increases the likelihood of a settlement much more in favour of the Company than before. Results will be positive as witnessed by the RNS upgrade, and soon we will move away from these ridiculously low valuations given the cash on the balance sheet and continued highly cash generative business. At today’s price 47p it’s being valued as an utter basket case. Maintain my strong preference to give this a year or so to play out and not be consumed by short term gyrations amounting to very little by way of value attributed to the underlying business. I plan to take my capital off the table at £1.20 and leave the rest in for a few decades to see what transpires as there are smart people in this company
cheers Sky
Many Thanks Sky......Wow that would be a gamechanger...
The willfulness (or not) of the misconduct represented by the treatment of Doctor D cannot be fully understood in a vacuum from the rest of the grand jury proceeding," Indivior said. "The available record makes a strong case that the government's misconduct in this case was willful, but only a portion of that record has been disclosed to Indivior."
The company also took issue with the prosecutors' treatment of Indivior employees who pled the Fifth Amendment, as well as their questioning of grand jury witnesses in a portion of the brief with significant redactions.
The motion to dismiss comes less than a month after Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, which spun off Indivior in 2014, agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement with the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission over claims relating to a probe into the sales and marketing of Suboxone Film. The British pharmaceutical company denied all allegations of any wrongdoing, saying it settled to avoid further costs and uncertainty associated with continuing investigations.
A representative for Indivior declined to comment Monday. The DOJ didn't respond Monday to a request for comment.
The government is represented by Albert P. Mayer and Carol L. Wallack of the of the DOJ's Civil Division, and Garth W. Huston, Joseph S. Hall, Kristin L. Gray, Randy Ramseyer, Daniel P. Bubar, Janine M. Myatt of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia.
Indivior is represented by Thomas J. Bondurant Jr. and Jennifer S. DeGraw of Gentry Locke, and James M. Gross, James P. Loonam and Peter J. Romatowski of Jones Day.
Law360, London (July 23, 2019, 3:35 AM BST) -- Indivior has urged a federal judge to toss an indictment accusing it of misrepresenting the risk of abuse posed to children by its opioid-dependence treatment Suboxone Film, claiming federal prosecutors included inadmissible references to a doctor's health care fraud convictions and possibly even intentionally misled the grand jury.
In its motion to dismiss Friday, Indivior Inc. said that the U.S. Department of Justice seemed to have presented the grand jury inadmissible evidence about a doctor's health care fraud convictions, and effectively instructed the jury to apply them as a reason for charging the company with an alleged nationwide scheme to falsely promote Suboxodone Film as a more child-proof and less addictive version of the opioid addiction drug's tablet form.
Further, the references to the convictions were misleading since they had to do with insurance billing issues and had nothing to do with Indivior or the supposed nationwide scheme outlined in the indictment, the U.K.-based company argued.
"For each of these reasons, the indictment must be dismissed, and if there has been 'willful prosecutorial misconduct,' that dismissal must be with prejudice," Indivior said. "The record in this case strongly suggests that the prosecutors acted willfully in this instance."
The grand jury had returned the indictment in April, hitting Indivior with 28 felony counts involving mail, wire and health care fraud. Overall, the indictment said that Indivior falsely portrayed the dissolving-film version of its opioid-dependence drug Suboxone as less prone to abuse or inadvertent use by children than the tablet version.
But, according to Indivior, the indictment must be dismissed because it has three prejudicial errors relating to the doctor, referred to in the indictment as "Doctor D," who was allegedly enlisted by the company as part of the scheme. First, it committed a mistake "of constitutional dimension" by improperly using the conviction of an alleged co-conspirator, the company said.
Second, the DOJ essentially gave the grand jury flawed instructions, leading it to infer probable cause as to Indivior based on the doctor's convictions, the company asserted. And third, the federal government's "explicit and implicit misrepresentation" that the doctor's convictions related to Indivior warranted the indictment's dismissal, according to the company.
Indivior also argued that the grand jury proceedings had to be carefully reviewed for willful misconduct to determine whether the dismissal should be with prejudice. The company asked that all of the proceedings related to the doctor, referred to in the indictment as "Doctor D," be disclosed to it, as well as the prosecutors' summation of evidence, presentation of the indictment and instructions for the grand jury, among other things.