Comments on: The Paxil Legal Bill: Glaxo Spends $1B, So Far

By: Lisa Van Syckel

Lisa Van Syckel — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:30:25 +0000

Condor,.. Google Paxil Money Bag, a picture can paint a thousand words. While you are at it check out how GSK portrays women in their sales pitch.

By: Condor

Condor — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:23:30 +0000

I think Peter means that Glaxo may have been covered by insurance for some of this — if it was still able to obtain products liability insurance, at the time of the injuries.

Namaste

By: Condor

Condor — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:22:20 +0000

Honestly, I really haven’t followed Paxil very closely.

I’ll go do some poking around, but (as ever) proving specific intent to injure — or calluous, knowing indifference to safety of human lives — all of which must be proved to a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt“, in order to win a conviction, on the putative-felony counts. . .

. . .is often a very tall order, especially if the conviction is sought from the executive “C” suite-dwellers — with all those “insulating” layers of lower management.

Namaste

By: patrons99

patrons99 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:13:15 +0000

Covered by insurance? You bet. The injury to the federal fisc has to be enormous. We should hope that DOJ is all over this one using, among other legal tools, the False Claims Act Correction Act of 2009. Condor might wish to weigh in on this one. Is the burden of proof met for a criminal conviction?

By: Lisa Van Syckel

Lisa Van Syckel — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:34:42 +0000

A prison sentence would have been more appropriate….. YES?

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:09:25 +0000

I wonder if any of this was not covered by insurance?