Both CEO”s were charged with : “one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud;
one count of honest services wire fraud; one count of conspiring to violate the Travel Act;
and one count of conspiring to commit money laundering.
The charges together carry a maximum sentence of 65 years in prison.”
-Do you think it is a fair indictment?
The U.S. Attorney Berman described the CEO of Valeant as the “fox guarding the henhouse.”
While it was Tanner the one who provoked significant risks, it was thanks to the company’s own financing,
personnel and supervision department who further continued this fraud.
personnel and supervision department who further continued this fraud.
-Do you think the CEO had to go down in order for the company to remain active?
I think this ruling sets a strong precedent to other CEOs in the pharmaceuticals industry who have shady dealings. The amount of greed and corruption that is going on comes at the expense of its users. The story of John and his wife who had to deal with the increase from $30-$20,000/pill really shows the harsh reality of these dealings.
ReplyDeleteI’m with Viet on this one. I personally am on the side of CEOs being held accountable for their unethical actions
DeleteThey have so much power...someone has to keep them in check. It is for the overall benefit of society.
DeleteI agree with Viet, I think we need a strong precedent so that other companies are not incentivized to keep operating in illicit and immoral ways. I actually thought that they were not convicted with jail sentences, so I'm glad that the outcome was more just than I thought.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely have to do something. You can’t do what they did and get away with it. Can’t have another HSBC situation.
ReplyDeleteValeant wants to create a new business model by saving R&D costs, but the result is simply shifting the risk from the income statement to the balance sheet. And its strategy of raising profits by raising prices will only make the risk higher. Valeant did not reduce its risk, but instead increased unavoidable losses. Such reckless strategy is bound to allow the company to learn an expensive lesson.
ReplyDeleteI think for individual companies the CEOs have to be accountable. They are the ones in charge and ultimately responsible for the successes and downfalls of their respective organizations
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above. These people have to be held accountable for their immoral and unethical practices.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the executive officers of companies need to be held accountable for their actions. Companies should also include moral clauses in their policies to help curve this kind of behavior. Policies that include as example forfeiture of earnings and profit from the company.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Viet. These executives need to be held accountable for their actions. What they do in order to benefit themselves is very greedy and has to be checked .
ReplyDelete