Search for: "Smithkline Beecham Corporation"
Results 21 - 40
of 83
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2013, 10:50 am
SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Slip Op.(3d Cir. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 8:38 am
An antitrust class action lawsuit against Valeant Pharmaceuticals Inc. and SmithKline Beecham Corp., doing business as GlaxoSmithKline and GlaxoSmithKline plc (jointly “GSK”) claimed that these corporations, the ones responsible for the production and marketing of Wellbutrin XL, worked to limit the availability of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL, far less expensive alternatives to the brand-name medication. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm
Because six of the appellee corporations are Pennsylvania-based, Pennsylvania can certainly be viewed as possessing a legitimate interest in ensuring that Pennsylvania companies do not manufacture or distribute hazardous products which cause injury. [read post]
3 Nov 2012, 8:44 am
SmithKline Beecham Corporation, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the “outside sales exemption” to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Federal law that requires employers to pay an overtime wage premium when employees work more than 40 hours in a week. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., the Court held that certain employees at a drug company did not qualify for overtime pay, in part because the Department of Labor had changed its mind on which employees should get overtime. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 6:13 am
Factual Background Defendant, SmithKline Beecham Corporation (“SmithKline”) is a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and sells prescription drugs. [read post]
1 Jul 2012, 5:44 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., there was no agency enforcement action. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 12:50 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corporation that found that pharmaceutical workers are not entitled to overtime pay, this issue is again in the spotlight. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 1:38 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corporation that pharmaceutical sales representatives are not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. [read post]
10 May 2012, 5:10 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 2:15 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corporation on the issue of the proper interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) outside sales representative exception to overtime, and, more importantly from this blog’s perspective, whether courts should defer to agency interpretations that appear only in amicus curiae briefs. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., a case about the “outside salesmen” exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 10:36 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 2012 WL 1057435 (E.D. [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 11:59 am
Here we go again. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 6:51 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., in which the Court will consider whether the “outside sales exemption” of the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives; Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy calls it “a case worth watching” for those interested in administrative law. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 1:21 pm
The crux of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in SmithKline Beecham is as follows: Because the products for which PSRs are responsible may be legally dispensed only with a prescription written by a licensed healthcare provider, the relevant purchaser is the healthcare provider, and thus PSRs make a “sale” when they obtain non-binding commitments from providers that they will write a prescription. 635 F.3d at 396. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 2:51 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.3d 387, 390 (7th Cir.2010). [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2010 WL 3119926, at *4 (E.D. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 2:00 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp., [855 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 1:59 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corporation (“Glaxo”) hired plaintiffs in 2003 to meet with physicians and encourage them to prescribe Glaxo pharmaceuticals. [read post]
