In this article featured in Bloomberg Law, Perkins Coie attorneys explain how China’s new data security laws and use of third-party apps by Chinese employees create significant obstacles for companies conducting internal investigations in the country. Click here to read the full story.
JurorSearch CEO and Co-Founder Dan Johnson sits down with Perkins Coie White Collar & Investigations Partner Markus Funk to discuss some of the latest developments in jury selection. They talk about how customized software solutions can help prosecutors, civil litigators, and jury consultants collect and organize attorneys’ comments in real time while selecting jurors so
The US Supreme Court in Ruan sided with doctors seeking a burden of proof higher than mere negligence in prosecutions for unlawful distribution of controlled substances. The decision represents a significant win for those worried about overcriminalization and the associated risk of losing the criminal law’s critical stigmatic impact, write Perkins Coie attorneys T. Markus
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue what could be a monumental decision in the Court’s Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) jurisprudence as applied to the nation’s opioid epidemic. At issue in Ruan v. United States is the requisite intent the government must prove to convict a physician under the CSA for the unlawful distribution of controlled substances.
The outcome in Ruan could have significant implications for prescribers, including whether their risk of criminal liability is actually higher than a narcotics trafficker distributing heroin or cocaine. More specifically, to convict a drug trafficker, federal prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the trafficker knowingly and intentionally manufactured, transported, or distributed narcotics. If the government prevails in Ruan, the government would de facto have to show only that a prescribing physician was negligent in misprescribing opioids.
Concerns about ever-expanding prosecutorial discretion and the erosion of the criminal law’s traditional “guilty mind” requirement have focused significant attention on the case.
A Mini Survey of the CSA’s Statutory Scheme
Per the implementing regulations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), a physician may lawfully prescribe controlled substances only if they are prescribed for “a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” Even a first-time offender could face decades in prison for misprescribing a Schedule II controlled substance, such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, or fentanyl, in violation of the CSA.
The Government’s Case Against Dr. Ruan
In 2016, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Dr. Xiulu Ruan, a Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”)-registered pain management physician, with, among other things, “knowingly and unlawfully distribut[ing] and dispens[ing] . . . Schedule II Controlled Substances . . . outside the usual course of professional medical practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).”
The government at trial presented evidence that Dr. Ruan and his business partner issued nearly 300,000 controlled substance prescriptions in a four-year period. Some of these prescriptions allegedly were signed without Dr. Ruan even seeing the patient. The government also presented evidence that Dr. Ruan increased prescriptions of a biopharma company’s fentanyl drug a hundredfold after he and his business partner invested in it.
Following up on a recent Public Chatter blog in a series about internal investigations, note that Federal Rule of Evidence 502(g) states:
(1) “Attorney-client privilege” means the protection that applicable law provides for confidential attorney-client communications; and
(2) “Work-product protection” means the protection that applicable law provides for tangible material (or its intangible equivalent) prepared
Chelsea Curfman and Markus Funk are joined by Professor Mike Koehler, better known as the “FCPA Professor.” In 2009, Koehler launched his “FCPA Professor” blog, described as “the Wall Street Journal concerning all things FCPA-related.” During the conversation he reflects on his professional road to becoming “The FCPA Professor,” tracks the evolution of the blog,
Antitrust lawyers Jon Jacobs and Kevin Schock join host Markus Funk to discuss the fundamental legal principles applicable to no-poach and wage-fixing agreements, explore current government enforcement priorities related to these types of agreements, and evaluate examples of recent enforcement activity in the no-poach and wage-fixing space.
This episode’s guest is Cam Simpson. Cam is an award-winning writer and investigative journalist who has focused on supply chain, corruption, and forced labor and trafficking issues. He is the senior international correspondent for Bloomberg Businessweek in London and Bloomberg News. Previously, he worked for The Wall Street Journal, with posts in the Middle East
In this episode, we discuss management’s view of compliance and legal functions with Jim Stutelberg, president of primary products at Tate & Lyle, PLC, a U.K.-headquartered, global supplier of food and beverage ingredients. Partners Markus Funk and Gina LaMonica talk to Jim about his experience at Tate & Lyle and discuss how white collar practitioners
Markus Funk and Kevin Feldis speak with Corey Norton, Vice President for Supply Chain Legality at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), about the important role that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can play in corporate supply chain compliance. NGOs have both outside credibility and an insiders on-the-ground understanding of local supply chain issues that can be invaluable