Legal News

The AM Roundup: Hsu Drops, A Win for Pot Smokers, More . . .

By Ashby Jones

The roundup of the morning’s legal news:

Norman Hsu Found Guilty: Norman Hsu, a former top fundraiser for the Democratic Party and convicted Ponzi scheme operator, was found guilty Tuesday of illegally funneling tens of thousands of dollars to candidates for federal office by pressuring investors to donate to his favored candidates.

Earlier this month, Hsu pleaded guilty to wire fraud and mail fraud charges in a Ponzi scheme that prosecutors said raised at least $60 million and swindled investors out of at least $20 million. He faces up to 20 years in prison on each fraud count. Sentencing on all of the charges is set for Aug. 19.

A Golden State Win for Pot Smokers: The U.S. Supreme Court — or should we say (cue Jeff Spicoli laugh) “High Court” — rejected appeals from two hold-out counties in Southern California that objected to the state’s 13-year-old medical marijuana law and claimed it should be struck down as violating the federal drug control act. Without comment, the court turned down the pair of appeals. The action probably will clear the way for patients in San Diego and San Bernardino counties to seek county-issued identification cards that show they are eligible to possess and use marijuana. LAT; San Fran Chron.

Government Joins Wyeth Qui Tam: The Justice Department and 16 states joined two whistleblower lawsuits alleging that Wyeth defrauded the government by offering discounts to hospitals on two of its drugs that it didn’t offer to Medicaid. The lawsuits, filed in federal District Court in Massachusetts, claim that Wyeth avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates to state Medicaid programs for its Protonix Oral and Protonix IV acid-reflux drugs. Wyeth spokesman Doug Petkus said the company believes its pricing calculations were correct and “intends to vigorously defend itself in these actions.” WSJ

Correction: An earlier version of this incorrectly stated that the marijuana ruling was made by the California Supreme Court.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on May 19, 2009 (boomark / email).