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.

Biotech / Medical : AngioDynamics - ANGO -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Lee who wrote (40)	11/5/2015 5:24:44 AM
From: Paul Lee	Respond to of 45

High Court Urged To Review $70M Biolitec Contempt Ruling By Kevin Penton Law360, New York (November 4, 2015, 5:39 PM ET) -- The U.S. Supreme Court should review a $70 million civil penalty against Biolitec AG and an arrest warrant for its CEO issued after it disregarded an order in a patent infringement case that barred a merger, the medical laser maker argued on Wednesday, because such serious fines should only be levied through the criminal process In assessing such “company-destroying” sanctions against Biolitec in a purported attempt to get it to comply with the initial order barring the merger, the First Circuit and a Massachusetts federal court did not follow United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, a 1994 high court decision that set boundaries between punitive criminal sanctions and coercive civil sanctions, the company said in its brief. AngioDynamics Inc. claimed in its Oct. 16 brief that the First Circuit followed decades of legal precedent with its March 11 ruling that upheld the coercive sanctions in a civil setting, as Biolitec could reverse the monetary penalty and the arrest warrant for its CEO, Wolfgang Neuberger, by simply undoing the merger, which was forbidden by a preliminary injunction in an underlying patent indemnification suit between the companies over a varicose vein treatment. Even in situations where sanctions are conditional, Bagwell requires that they follow a criminal process if they are "serious," Biolitec argued. The company noted that it could not legally appeal the appropriateness of the sanctions, including a challenge as to whether they were calculated in proper proportion to an actual harm, rather than to a perceived harm, until the case’s conclusion. “Most parties that are subject to abusive coercive sanctions have no choice but to comply, which generally makes a subsequent appeal moot,” Biolitec argued. “Because petitioners are foreign parties without assets in the U.S., they are in the unique position to appeal because the sanctions cannot be enforced against them.” The petition started the latest chapter in a case that dates to 2009, when AngioDynamics first sued Biolitec for allegedly failing to indemnify it in two patent infringement suits over a laser treatment for varicose veins that Biolitec licensed to the company. Afraid it wouldn’t be able to enforce a potential judgment if Biolitec completed a planned merger with a subsidiary and moved from Germany to Austria, AngioDynamics filed for a preliminary injunction, which the court granted. Despite a pending appeal of the injunction, Biolitec completed the merger, prompting the Massachusetts court to authorize the fines against Biolitec and the arrest warrant for Neuberger. The escalating fines ballooned at one point to $160 million, but were later capped at $70 million. In a separate decision, the First Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling that Biolitec pay AngioDynamics a $75 million judgment in the underlying case. AngioDynamics argued last month that Biolitec disregarded the lower court’s finding that the merger posed a “likelihood of harm” before it occurred and its determination that AngioDynamics was “seriously harmed” after the deal’s completion, as it complicated the company’s efforts to enforce judgments. "We believe that the district court and the court of appeals, in their multiple lengthy, thoroughly-researched and well-reasoned opinions in this case, correctly applied long-standing precedent," William E. Reynolds, an attorney for AngioDynamics, told Law360 on Wednesday. "There is no reason for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari." Edward Griffith, an attorney for Biolitec, declined to comment on Wednesday. Biolitec is represented by Michael K. Callan of Doherty Wallace Pillsbury & Murphy PC and Edward Griffith of the Griffith Firm. AngioDynamics is represented by William E. Reynolds of Nixon Peabody LLP. The case is Biolitec AG, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., case number 15-69, in the Supreme Court of the United States. --Additional reporting by Matthew Bultman, Vin Gurrieri and Kat Greene. Editing by Emily Kokoll. All Content © 2003-2015, Portfolio Media, Inc.