2. Statement of the Problem: * Is the increase of the anti-AIDS drug Norvir by Abbott justifiable?
3. Statement of Relevant Facts from the Case i. The company (Abbott) raised its anti-AIDS drug Norvir by 400 percent unless the product is used in conjunction with other Abbott products where there will be no price increase. ii. Norvir is generally too toxic for safe use as a protease inhibitor however works well as a booster to increase the efficacy of other protease inhibitors however the price increase of Norivr does not apply when the product is used as a booster with another of Abbot’s protease inhibitor product Kaletra. iii. Price …show more content…
ii. Spitzer forced the CEO of Marsh & McLennan to resign and replaced him with a former work colleague. iii. Spitzer did not convict Marsh & McLennan for its wrongdoings because forcing a company to admit guilty would push it to the brink. iv. American International Group Inc. (AI) did a deferred prosecution agreement when it was charged by federal prosecutors. v. When a company is in a deferred prosecution, the corporation accepts responsibility, agrees not to contest the charges, agrees to cooperate, usually pays a fine and implements changes in corporate structure and governance to prevent future wrongdoing. vi. Companies are getting off the criminal hook with these agreements.
4. Statement of Alternative Courses of Actions a. Deferred Prosecution Agreement should be a onetime agreement with a span of time. b. Revise the Deferred Prosecution Agreement law to have more strict guidelines and should be give harsher punishments.
5. Evaluation of the Strengths and Weaknesses of each Alternatives (3 each)
Strengths of action a. i. This eliminates a company’s abuse of the use of the deferred prosecution agreement. ii. This would enable the company to be more cautious in its operations in the future. iii. The DPA would be more effective as most companies use it as an alternative to avoid prosecution, given that it is only a onetime