Comments on: Bayer Pays $97.5M To Settle Kickback Charges

By: jdav

jdav — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:46:32 +0000

what happened to the companies that accepted the kickbacks as this is illegal also ?

By: Anne PME

Anne PME — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:09:11 +0000

CIA’s have been fewer and farther between these last few years. Maybe that will change. Let’s hope so.

One of the things that would likely make companies comply with CIA’s is if the company that signed the agreement was required to properly disclose and disseminte CIA agreement info to stockholders and analysts, and if board members were interviewed by members of the financial press and questioned about how they will help the company comply with the CIA.

I don’t know about any of you, but I am getting too old to read about CIA’s in the fine print of Q (or K) footnotes or buried in a line in the legal proceedings section…wouldn’t SEC filings would be a lot more fun to read if Ed wrote summaries of them?

By: Dan A.

Dan A. — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:07:05 +0000

Some companies have multipile CIAs, and I don’t think it alters their tactics. Bayer has at least two. Think Schering has three CIAs.

By: Former SP

Former SP — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:23:07 +0000

In cases I’ve seen, it doesn’t even make a difference in the short-term. Companies continue to disregards rules and regulations and hope they don’t get caught. It’s business as usual for Big Pharma. Is it any wonder that nobody trusts them anymore?

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:32:34 +0000

In a statement, Bayer maintains a deal was struck to “avoid the time, uncertainty, and expense of litigation” and that “compliance processes have undergone continuous improvement”…..yadayadayada.

Has anyone ever seen a corporate integrity agreement make a significant difference beyond the short term?