Top Articles

Federal District Judge Ruben Castillo denied Arrow Financial Services' motion for summary judgment by way of a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 15

According to USFDA, a combination product is one composed of any combination of a drug and device; biological product and device; drug and biological product

, 2006. Schutz versus Arrow Financial Services is a class action lawsuit which involves allegations that Arrow Financial Services LLC and True Logic, a se

; or drug, device, and biological product and fixed dose combination would include two or more combinations of drug.

Examples of combination products may in

cond party collection agency, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The basis of the action is allegations that True Logic made material

lude drug-coated devices, drugs packaged with delivery devices in medical kits, and drugs and devices packaged separately but intended to be used together.

misrepresentations by way of debt collection letters mailed by TrueLogic. According to the written decision, Arrow Financial Services LLC (hereafter “Arrow”

here is enormous increase in the number of combination products entering the market in the recent years. Combination products have proven advantages but fixe

) purchased the plaintiff’s delinquent debt and then assigned the debt to True Logic, a second party non attorney bill collector. True Logic then mailed the

d dose combinations are still in the process of convincing regulatory authority on their advantages over the single ingredient formulations.

Combination pro

plaintiff several debt settlement offers which allegedly were in violation of the FDCPA.

Arrow Financial attempted to escape liability by arguing that it h

ucts have become life saving products for the pharmaceutical companies who doesn’t have many innovative molecules in their product pipeline and have been inc

ad no responsibility for True Logic’s actions. Under current case law a first party collection agency is liable for any FDCPA violations committed by second

easingly used in the product life cycle management. Even the companies having product patents are trying to extend their product life cycle through the combi

party attorneys. However, this case fell into an area without much guidance from the appellate courts. Few courts have addressed whether a collection agen

nation products and maximize the revenues. But the companies involved in this practice are overlooking that they are burdening the patients both economically

cy, like Arrow, could be held vicariously liable for a second party non-attorney collection agency. Since True Logic was simply a collection agency as

and physically. They need to rightly judge the benefits of the combination products and they have to even look at the risks involved when combining the produ

opposed to an attorney, the Court sought direction from the Third Circuit case of

Pollice versus National Tax Funding, L.P., which decided the issu

ts. Some of the combination products were well accepted by physicians while others suffered. Companies involved in development of combination products are fi

e against the first party collection agency.

Here, Judge Castillo ruled that it would simply be “incongruous” to hold collection agencies that employ att

ding difficulty in defining their combination products and facing various challenges from selecting a combination to marketing it.

Following aspects would a

orney debt collectors liable for violations to a greater extent than collection agencies that employ non-attorney debt collectors. The court supp

dd to the challenges in developing combination products:

Which markets to tap where the combination products can do fairly well?
Which combination prod

orted its ruling by stating the purpose of vicarious liability is to provide equal relief to those victimized by attorney debt collectors as well as those vi

cts are meaningful and rational?
Which therapeutic categories to select?
Which Combinations can address unmet needs of the patients?
Do combin

ctimized by non-attorney debt collectors.

In addition to finding vicarious liability, the Court ruled that there were enough facts to find a principal-agent

tions increase the patient compliance?
What would be the developing cost?
How to tackle the risks encountered during combination product developmen

relationship between Arrow and True Logic. Arrow exercised a fair amount of control over TrueLogic’s debt collection activities. Specifically, Arrow had th

t?

As combination products don't fit into the traditional categories of drugs, medical devices, or biological products, the USFDA is in the process of devel

e right to control the content of the debt collection letters and the right to monitor True Logic’s compliance with the law through audits, summaries of test

ping new procedures for reviewing their safety, efficacy and quality.

Professional from academic institutions, pharmaceutical industries, health care indust

results, and other evaluations.

In sum, the Court ruled that a principal-agent relationship exists between Arrow and True Logic and that Arrow may be held

y and representatives from various regulatory agencies are working out to design the regulatory requirements for manufacture and sale of combination products

vicariously liable for potential violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Upon issuing this decision the Court urged the parties to reevaluate t

.

As there is an increasing trend of the combination products companies manufacturing such products should be able to tackle the problems involved in the de

heir settlement positions.

This decision further reinforces the idea that collection agencies cannot simply hire non attorney bill collectors and then turn

elopment. They need to be wiser in analyzing the market trends and the regulatory requirements.

Companies that provide selfless information through particip

a blind eye towards their collection activity. Collection agencies may now be forced to exercise more caution when shopping for second party bill collectors

tion in industry events and feedback to regulatory authorities would be able to face the challenges and will be successful in developing combination products

HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.toparticles.org.ua/article/131253/toparticles-Arrow-Financial-Services-Found-Liable-for-Potential-Violations.html">Arrow Financial Services Found Liable for Potential Violations</a>

BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.toparticles.org.ua/article/131253/toparticles-Arrow-Financial-Services-Found-Liable-for-Potential-Violations.html]Arrow Financial Services Found Liable for Potential Violations[/url]

Quick autoresponders can be used to create more profit by using these 4 simple ways. Publish a newsletter, write reviews: One of the best ways of creating more profit with autoresponders is...

I learned from a very respected website traffic expert that you get 80% of your results in your site traffic drive from 20% of your efforts. If this is true (and it is true), won't it be a great idea to get to know what your current 20% is so you can forget about the less beneficial 80% and concentrate on what drives most of your results?

The borrower needs to compare various offers of secured loans based on a number of variables in order to get an economical deal. These variables are interest rate, various costs and fees, penalty fees, loan length and loan amount.

Tags

Links

Top Articles - Arrow Financial Services Found Liable for Potential Violations

Related Articles: