2centsworth.info

Another fascinating article on the front page of today’s New York Times (24 March 2007): Fraud Inquiry Looks at Lawyers in Diet-Drug Case. In what experts are describing as one of the biggest and most brazen frauds in legal history, the lawyers who settled the fenphen diet-drug lawsuit on behalf of 440 clients for $200 millions kept most of the money for themselves. The three lawyers involved are William J. Gallion, Shirley A. Cunningham, and Melbourne Mills, Jr. Mr. Mills lawyer said that he denies any criminal wrong-doing… “He may be liable for a little money if he was overpaid.”

Given the original agreement between the three lawyers and their clients, the clients should have received $135 million dollars from the settlement. Instead they only received $74 million. $106 million went to the lawyers and $20 million went to a “charitable fund.”

But wait, you say… Settlements have to be approved by the judge. Why did he approve this bogus settlement? Well that’s where the “charitable fund” came in…. It turns out that the judge, the “honorable” Joseph F. Bamberger ended up as a director of the “charitable fund” and was paid $5,000 a month for all his hard work on its behalf.

I suppose we have all become rather numb to rampant greed but I’d like to point out that these lawyers could have perfectly legally divided $65 million between themselves… Unless my calculator’s broken that’s nearly $22 million each.

It’s hard to decide which Federal agency is the most corrupt these days but Interior is certainly in the running for that prize.

Today’s New York Times (24 March 2007) has a front page article Ex-Interior Aide is Guilty of Lying in Lobbying Case. The second highest official in the Dept. of Interior, J. Steven Griles, pleaded guilty to lying before a Senate committee about his ties to Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist who is now in prison.

According to the article, Mr. Griles told the Senate committee he had “no special relationship” with Jack Abramoff even though Abramoff routinely sought and received advice from Mr. Griles. He also failed to mention that he had a sexual relationship with one Italia Federici. Ms. Federici is the president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy which received $500,000 from Mr. Abramoff. As Mr. Giles may have said, “Advocate this, honey!”…

The article also mentions that Mr. Griles had teamed up with a top ConocoPhillips lobbyist to buy a $980,000 vacation home. This purchase was approved by Sue Ellen Wooldridge, a top official in the Dept. of the Interior at the time. She also ended up as a co-owner of the vacation home. Conflict of Interest? What conflict of interest? Ms. Wooldridge is now, erh, “living in sin” with Mr. Griles in Falls Church, VA. (I know, I know… nobody gets married these days but heck, these are Republicans! Where’s their family values!?)

Ms. Wooldridge a former solicitor (No, not that kind!… a lawyer!) and senior aide to Secretary of the Interior, Gail Norton, ended up as a lawyer at the Justice Dept. prosecuting environmental cases… Including one against Conoco Phillips which she, erh, dropped.

Just how does the Food and Drug Administration decide what drugs or devices to approve for use by the public?

These decisions are made by FDA Advisory Committees made up of experts in the field.

Today’s New York Times (22 March, 2007) has an article F.D.A. Rule Limits Role of Advisors Tied to Industry which says that advisory committee members will (for the first time) be barred from voting on approval for a company’s product if they have received money from that company or a competitor. And if they have received more than $50,000 from that company or a competitor within the last 12 months then they cannot serve on a committee judging that company’s products (less than $50k is just hunky dory ).

FDA Acting Deputy Commissioner Randall W. Lutter stated that a “signficant number” of the agency’s current advisers would be affected by this policy.

What that means, of course, is that up until now, many of the people responsible for approving drugs and medical devices have been routinely accepting tens of thousands of dollars a year from the company’s whose products they were approving. Smells a just a bit, don’t you think?

The article describes a situation in 2005 where 10 of the advisers who voted for Bextra to remain on the market and Vioxx to return to the market had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from the manufacturers. If the tainted advisors had not been allowed to vote, the products would not have been allowed back on the market since the majority of advisers who had not accepted money had voted against approval.

Other little tidbits from the article; under FDA rules an adviser cannot vote if they hold more than $100,000 in stock in the manufacturer (but holding $99,000 or less is hunky dory ).

One needs to remember that the previous FDA Commissioner, Lester Crawford, recently pleaded guilty to charges of filing false financial disclosure forms and conflicts of interest. The government had charged that Crawford and his wife owned stock in several companies that fell under FDA regulation, and failed to fully disclose that information as required by federal law. The court papers also charge that Crawford assured federal ethics officers that he and his wife had sold stock in those companies, when they had not.

Crawford’s attorney, Barbara Van Gelder, said that under a plea agreement, her client would not dispute the government’s charges, and would likely face fines and a possible prison term of up to two years.

Click here to read the Department of Justice news release on the case’s outcome.