Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video 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.
This means early settlement a possibility
Inconsequential final lines that did not paste...
“crime had been committed by the accused based on the evidence before it. Certainty is not the standard, only probable cause must be findable by a reasonable set of grand jurors.
United States v. Mills, 995 F.2d 480, 489 (4th Cir. 1993). In the instant case, a reasonable grand jury could conclude, based on the evidence before it, that there was probable cause that a crime had been committed by Indivior. Accordingly, Indivior’s motion should be denied”
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL P. BUBAR
First Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for the United States, Acting Under Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515
/s/ Albert P. Mayer, VSB No. 86024 Randy Ramseyer
Kristin L. Gray
Joseph S. Hall
Garth W. Huston Janine M. Myatt Carol L. Wallack
I am of the opinion the Motion to Dismiss will be
more on legal and technical arguments in respect of the process as opposed to no case to answer toe basis for the indictment ...
Think this doc, albeit redacted, gave me this impression..
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ABINGDON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
INDIVIOR PLC
v.
) UNDER SEAL
INDIVIOR INC. (a/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.) and )
UNITED STATES’ SUR-REPLY REGARDING INDIVIOR’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT
The United States of America (“United States”) sur-replies to the “Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Compound Grand Jury Misconduct” (Doc. 134) (“Reply”) of Defendants Indivior Inc. (a/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.) and Indivior plc (collectively, “Indivior”) as follows.
Indivior’s assertion that “‘the grand jury’ that returned the purported ‘superseding indictment’ was not the . . . grand jury that returned the original
Indictment,” Reply at 4 (emphasis omitted), is inaccurate.
Indivior’s suggestion that the grand jury panel did not have “before it any of the evidence that the prosecutors collected by using the compulsory power of
other grand juries,” Reply at 3, is inaccurate.
)
)
)
Case No. 1:19-cr-00016
Case 1:19-cr-00016-JPJ-PMS Document 158 Filed 09/20/19 Page 1 of 5 Pageid#: 1349
Indivior’s contention that the United States played a “shell game . . . with grand juries in this District” by using them “interchangeably for years as a tool to gather evidence for the convenience and purposes of the government, all the while preventing any opportunity for any of [them] to consider independently whether that evidence supports or precludes an indictment,” Reply at 3-4, is inaccurate.
Case 1:19-cr-00016-JPJ-PMS Document 158 Filed 09/20/19 Page 2 of 5 Pageid#: 1350
Because Indivior’s argument is based on inaccuracies, its cases are not on-point. For instance, in United States v. Leeper, No. 06-cr-58A, 2006 WL 1455485, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. May 22, 2006), cited in Indivior’s Reply at 5, n. 7, the court addressed a situation in which, during a trial, the government presented a new grand jury panel with a superseding indictment, instructing the panel that its role was merely to correct an omission in paperwork, and providing it with minimal evidence. That is not analogous.
Indivior’s attempt to distinguish Mills is misguided. In Mills, the Fourth Circuit stated:
When viewed after a petit jury guilty verdict, all doubt vanishes about whether a reasonable grand jury could find probable cause that a crime was committed. . . . However, prior to submitting the case to the petit jury, the inquiry is admittedly less certain, but by no means unmanageable. When reviewing the evidence prior to a verdict, the court need not decide with certainty whether the accused is guilty or innocent. The court need only concern itself with whether a reasonable grand jury could have concluded a crime had been c
IMO...
Indv here is a win win investment with sp below 50p..
Dismissal means huge uplift in sp..
Settlement means big uplift in sp too as It doesn’t make sense for doj to impose a big penalty on a relatively small company trying to help opiates addiction in the usa and not long ago the USA government agencies awarded them grants to advance their research and progress in fighting addiction..
Current market is pricing Indv sp in the very worse scenario of over a billion fine!!
Holding strong here...
I don’t believe the judge seeks advice M they make a decision based on the facts of the case - let’s hope they see things as we do and I certainly believe they will. If they do not there would be no reason for the SP to fall other than from a quick wobble whilst people think it through. A decision in our favour now would see a massive lift, a decision against us suggesting that there is a case to answer would in my view lead to a quick settlement - the result of which would also see the SP rise significantly by how much would depend on the agreement. I am still hopeful of dismissal.
They have had a week now to take advice on the dismissal case,
so I expect news could land anytime ......be interesting to see if
there is any sudden change in trading before the news lands..
we have been very steady in the last week.....here's hoping
it goes our way! GLA!
I would imagine the ultimate “winner” claims the costs...that is usually how liability is determined.
Reported 27th Aug 2019
The $572 million in damages that an Oklahoma judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay on Monday for its role in the state's opioid crisis will most likely feel like a slap on the wrist for the major conglomerate. The fine amounts to just 3.7% of the company's net profit for 2018, according to SEC filings. In fact, the press around the fine seems to have had a positive effect on the company. After the fine was announced on Monday, J&J stock actually rose more than 5% in aftermarket trading. Judge Thad Balkman of the Cleveland County District Court in Norman, Oklahoma, sided with the state's attorney general, Mike Hunter, who argued that Johnson & Johnson's marketing practices fueled the opioid epidemic by flooding the market with painkillers.
.............................................
In my opinion the pharmaceutical companies have had enough, strong arguments are now being raised and I'm sure any judge delivering a verdict will be fully aware of possible backlash against their decisions. I guess if a judge's decision is upturned in an appeal it doesn't bode very well on their personal record. I'm not sure who is responsible for all the costs if a judge's decision is eventually over ruled by an appeal court.
GLA