Federal Prosecutors Take Aim At Corporate Officers For FDCA Violations With Revived Use Of The Park DoctrineThursday, September 22nd, 2011
Although criminal sanctions against corporate officers for violations for the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) have been on the books since 1938, federal prosecutors have taken aim at corporate executives personally with renewed vigor through the use of the “responsible corporate officer doctrine,” better known as the Park doctrine.
As we previously reported here and here, the Park Doctrine is named after a Supreme Court case called United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975). In that case, Acme Markets, Inc. and Park, its president, in his personal capacity, were charged with violating § 301(k), now 21 U.S.C. § 331 (k), of the FDCA because interstate food shipments being held in Acme’s Baltimore warehouse were contaminated by rodents. At Parks trial, the trial court instructed the jury that, although Park need not have personally participated in the activity which cause the violation, he must have had “a responsible relationship to the issue” in order to be convicted. The jury convicted Park on all counts.
In affirming his conviction, the Supreme Court, noted that food and drug laws have historically been applied to persons by virtue of their managerial position if the person ultimately had the power to prevent the alleged unlawful act. Id. at 670-672. As a result, corporate executives have an affirmative duty to ensure the safety of their corporations products under the FDCA. Today, based on that decision, an executive may be criminally prosecuted for violations of the FDCA if he or she had, by reason of his or her position in the corporation, responsibility and authority to either prevent in the first instance, or promptly correct the violation.
The Park Doctrine does not require that the corporate officer be aware of wrongdoing within the company. Instead, these offenses are “strict liability” misdemeanors, and the government is only required to prove that the prohibited act occurred and that the executive had the authority to prevent or correct it. (More information on strict liability offenses can be found in our previous report here.) Additionally, should a corporate officer be convicted under the Park Doctrine, any subsequent violations of the FDCA are treated as felonies under 21 U.S.C. 333, even without proof that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud or mislead.
Initially used by the government in the 1960s and 1970s to regulate insanitary conditions in food warehouses, the Park Doctrine has reemerged as a tool for federal prosecutors in enforcement of misbranding and adulterated drug offenses. Although the FDAs position is that “misdemeanor prosecutions, particularly those against responsible corporate officials, can have a strong deterrent effect on the defendants and other regulated entities,” the practical effects of such prosecutions can be devastating. Indeed, a misdemeanor conviction can serve as a basis for exclusion from participation in numerous federal programs.
The Purdue Fredrick Co. case is an example of the potential collateral consequences of Park Doctrine prosecutions. In Purdue Fredrick, the corporation pled guilty to a felony count of misbranding OxyContin with the intent to defraud or mislead. Prosecutors alleged that the company falsely claimed that OxyContin was less addictive and less subject to abuse than other pain medications. Additionally, federal prosecutors sought Park Doctrine misdemeanor misbranding charges against the CEO, the general counsel, and the medical director of Purdue Fredrick. Ultimately, the three corporate officers pled guilty, were sentenced to probation, and disgorged millions of dollars of income.
However, soon after the officers entered their guilty pleas, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services excluded the three officers from any participation in federal health care programs for 12 years because their convictions were based on fraud and the unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance. HHSs decision was upheld by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and is currently on appeal. As a consequence of this exclusion, the corporate officers will be unable to engage any in business which participates in federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
The FDA and white collar criminal defense lawyers at Fuerst Ittleman are experienced in handling even the most complex cases where clients are facing allegations of criminal actions. Fuerst Ittleman attorneys have represented clients in a variety of FDA-related criminal investigations and prosecutions including violations of the FDCA under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331 and 333 as well as prosecutions of corporate officials for FDCA violations under the Park Doctrine. For more information regarding Fuerst Ittlemans white collar criminal defense practice, contact an attorney today at firstname.lastname@example.org.