That $647m should then constitute the bulk
of the monies the DOJ expect to retrieve from INDV.
As INDV state in their website the action is for years
“almost exclusively for years prior to Indivior becoming an independent company in 2014.
This being the case, then INDV should expect to pay
for the years of independence only.
On a pro rata basis this could be be less than half of
This assumption makes just for common sense but
the law does not always work that way, unfortunately...
Unseen normal circumstances I would say the
good results are already factored into the SP.
However, as the SP rose once the projections were
announced and went back again I feel they were factored in and then factories out of that makes
some sort of sense, so potentially the numbers will
have the desired effect..
Yea JDere says “media” infers their own generic
However, would be interesting for see the agreement because I was thinking it was maybe just a penalty payment to whichever authority for them to make the purchases, which would make more sense...
Don't think the time taken to announce the outcome gives any indication
as to the decision.
I would imagine the decision was made fairly rapidly after the hearing as the
arguments will be fairly standard and governed by legal precedents.
The system causes the delay as it appears each party is offered the option
for redactions to the wording of the decision in case it contains anything either
party feels is confidential or may prejudice their case going forward...
This all takes time....so nothing to read in the delay.
Personally I am not confident in the outcome being in our favour but it
is one step nearer settlement, especially if there are any positive vibes in the
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”
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 )
) 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
Rather than me out my own slant on things here is the Court’s statement... not too sure if redactments are requested within the 7 day period of the 99 day publication still applies.
“TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Indivior Inc., Indivior PLC for Conference Call held on 5/23/2019 before Judge Sargent. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Mary J. Butenschoen, Telephone number 540-857-5100 Ext. 5312 NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS:The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on our website at www.vawd.uscourts.gov Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER unless a Redacted Transcript has been filed. Redaction Request due 10/31/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/12/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/8/2020. (mb)”
The Court allows both parties to redact parts of the
transcript before making them public so no-one can report until then which is I believe is 7 days.
Following that the papers are made public after 90 days.
So we have a long time to wait unless the Court allows earlier publication.