1. AstraZeneca, Lilly, Sanofi, and others raise prices to start July — Merck gets a CRL from FDA on Keytruda for hepatocellular carcinoma — 2020 biotech IPOs continue to break records — See more on our front page news Stay updated with the latest pharma-related coronavirus news on our new page
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Please take our quick survey on how COVID-19 is impacting your job It will only take a minute or two to respond. The survey is confidential, and does not require registration. Thank you in advance for your participation. We will provide regular updates on results as responses accumulate.
    Dismiss Notice

Off label promotion

Discussion in 'Dermira' started by anonymous, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:53 PM.

  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    anyone else getting direction from management to push for off label use? Thinking of leaving the company because it is happening so much and crazy illegal. Wonder if upper management knows. They should really look into this because i know physicians are thinking of whistle blowing.
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Do you look good in orange? Not worth it!
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Do you really believe the poster? Lol

    What a dope.
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest


    Care to share the region?
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    northeast Ny,Ct
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    ConneticsSecurtiesLitigation.com


    Check this out. These thieves have "settled" in the class action settlement. No guilt admitted. But...
    - they let a VP who illegally traded CNCT shares stay on employment (until caught)
    - they stuffed wholesalers to achieve net sales targets from wall street (for multiple quarters) and finally had to restate earnings.
    - and misled everyone (including the FDA) on an key acne product clinical trial.
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest


    WoWwWwWwWw

    Lollllll
     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest


    This website didn’t work can you repost?
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Connetics Corporation Securities Litigation
    Case Status: SETTLED
    On or around 10/09/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

    Filing Date: September 18, 2006

    The original complaint charges Connetics and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Connetics is a specialty pharmaceutical company that engages in the development and commercialization of products for the medical dermatology market.

    Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false statements about the Company's most important new drug (Velac) concerning findings that would likely prevent FDA approval. Defendants also reported false financial results by failing to properly reserve for rebates. On May 3, 2006, Connetics announced it could not file its quarterly report on time due to a restatement of its financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements, Connetics' stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, which allowed defendants to reap millions of dollars in insider trading proceeds. However, after the May 3, 2006 announcement, the Company's shares collapsed 45% from their high. The stock now trades at $10-$11 per share, some 63% below the Class Period high of $29.92.

    According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the carcinogenicity study of Velac had indicated that 89 out of 160 mice treated with Velac developed tumors; (b) prior to the Class Period, Connetics had been informed by a panel of toxicology experts that they were unaware of any drug with similar results to Velac ever being approved by the FDA; (c) the Company's new Velac drug would be deemed unsafe by the FDA and would not provide the revenue and income promised by the Company; (d) the Company would not be able to achieve the operating results for 2006-2007 as projected due to its inability to launch Velac; and (e) the Company was falsifying its financials for at least 2005 and likely earlier due to improper accounting for rebates.
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Yup, I worked there when all that were down. It sunk the company and they had to sell to Stiefel at the time.