Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Solucorp Industries (SLUP - OTCBB) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hawkeye who wrote (3595)	4/7/2000 1:31:00 AM
From: hawkeye	Respond to of 3679

"Following an investigation by my office, the following facts have been established. The first U.S. Attorney in charge of the case Samuel Skinner did not convene a grand jury. A year after he was initially informed of FDA's interest in prosecuting Searle, and two months after he received the agency's formal request for grand jury action, he "recused" himself from the case, citing preliminary employment discussions with the law firm of Sidley and Austin, the firm which was then defending Searle in the investigation. He asked his subordinates to keep his discussions confidential "to avoid any undue embarrassment upon the firm of Sidley and Austin." (emphasis supplied).Doc#10). Mr. Skinner joined Sidley and Austin four months later. Sidley and Austin requested a meeting with Mr. Skinner "prior to the submission to the grand jury of any matters relating to this company." (Doc#6) When the meeting was held, Mr. Newton Minow attended (Doc.#7) Mr. Minow is the partner at Sidley and Austin who offered Mr. Skinner his job with the firm (Doc#8). The meeting was held a month prior to Mr. Skinner "recusing" himself from the case. In his recusal letter, Mr. Skinner stated his understanding that the decision as to whether or not a grand jury investigation should be conducted would await the arrival of a new U.S. Attorney. (A period which lasted four months). (Doc.#11). However, no grand jury action was taken before the appointment of a new U.S. Attorney. This four month delay in the grand jury investigation took place at a time when nearly four and a -half years of a five year statute of limitations on the NutraSweet tests cited by the FDA had already expired. Shortly after the appointment of the new U.S. Attorney, Mr. Thomas Sullivan, the FDA wrote to Justice noting the delays which had occurred in the case and urged the U. S. Attorney, to " proceed expeditiously." The FDA also cited additional problems they had discovered with a key NutraSweet safety test and noted "further criminal culpability-- the failure to report these problems to the FDA-- may also be revealed which could require submission to the grand jury." (Doc#16). The Justice Department also wrote to Mr. Sullivan a month after he assumed office complaining about the amount of time which had transpired on the case. Letter states Justice knows of no reason why "grand jury should not at least investigate." (Doc#17). By the time any case agianst Searle was presented to the grand jury, NutraSweet was dropped from the investigation. This means the issue of whether tests on NutraSweet were fraudulent, which was raised by the 1976 task Force Report, was never put to the grand jury. We have been informed by Justice there is no record of the U.S. Attorney writing to the FDA to inform the agency that the investigation would proceed on Aldactone alone.. According to a Justice Department memo, (Doc#21), Mr. William Conlon, the Senior Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the Searle case "reduced or ended" his involvement in the investigation eighteen months after first being assigned to the case. One year later he accepted a position with Sidley and Austin, the firm which represented Searle in the investigation. (DOC#28). EXCERPT FROM METZENBAUM LETTER IN PRIOR POST