Novartis milestones be proud ! Management take a bow !

[Tasigna Lawsuit]

Tasigna Lawsuits Mount, as Plaintiff in Washington State Accuses Novartis of Failing to Warn that Leukemia Drug Had Been Linked to Atherosclerosis-Related Conditions, Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reports

Bernstein Liebhard LLP
12:32 ET

NEW YORK, March 28, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- A man from Vancouver, Washington has filed a new Tasigna lawsuitaccusing Novartis AG of failing to warn patients and doctors that the leukemia drug had been linked to severe, accelerated and irreversible atherosclerosis-related conditions.


According to a complaint filed on February 26th in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, the Plaintiff had been taking Gleevec (imatinib) to treat Chronic Myeloid Leukemia but was switched to Tasigna by his oncologist, even though he had achieved remission. At the time of the switch, the Plaintiff suffered from no atherosclerosis-related conditions. He subsequently suffered a stroke at the age of 66 and alleges that his use of Tasigna caused him to develop rapidly progressing atherosclerosis in his carotid arteries. (Case No. Case 3:18-cv-05149)

"Our Firm has heard from a number of patients who allegedly experienced similar complications following the initiation of Tasigna therapy. We will be monitoring this growing litigation closely," says Sandy A. Liebhard, a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The firm is offering free legal reviews to individuals who were diagnosed with arteriosclerosis or related conditions following the initiation of Tasigna treatment.

Tasigna and Arteriosclerosis

Tasigna (nilotinib) was approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in 2007 to treat patients suffering from Philadelphia chromosome-positive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (Ph+ CML). The medication belongs to a class of drugs called tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), which block a protein called Bcr-ABl to stop the growth of cancer cells.

Since its approval, several studies have suggested that patients treated with Tasigna may be more likely to develop arteriosclerosis-related condition. For example, a 2016 study published in the American Journal of Hematology linked Tasigna to an increased risk for peripheral artery disease and sudden death.

In 2013, researchers writing in Leukemia reported that patients treated with Tasigna had higher rates of arterial disease compared to those prescribed imatinib.

The Canadian label for Tasigna was updated in 2013 to note a potential risk of arteriosclerosis, after a review revealed that 277 reports of the condition had been logged with the Novartis global safety database between January 1st, 2005 and January 31, 2013. Canadian doctors were advised to closely monitor their Tasigna patients for signs of the life-threatening artery disease.

In March 2016, what appears to have been the nation's first Tasigna lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, on behalf of a man who died from complications related to arteriosclerosis shortly after he began taking the drug in 2012. According to the complaint, the Decedent was diagnosed with peripheral artery disease in September 2013, with 90-100% blockages in his legs. He died due to complications in March 2014, even though his physician had prescribed an alternative treatment after reading about the possible association between Tasigna and arteriosclerosis in a medical journal. (Case No. No. 16-393)

Tasigna patients who were diagnosed with arteriosclerosis while using this medication, or their surviving family members, may be entitled to compensation for their medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, wrongful death, and more. To learn more about filing a Tasigna lawsuit, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website, or call 800-511-5092 to arrange for a free, no obligation case review.

 

[anonymous]

Tasigna Lawsuits Mount, as Plaintiff in Washington State Accuses Novartis of Failing to Warn that Leukemia Drug Had Been Linked to Atherosclerosis-Related Conditions, Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reports

Bernstein Liebhard LLP
12:32 ET

NEW YORK, March 28, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- A man from Vancouver, Washington has filed a new Tasigna lawsuitaccusing Novartis AG of failing to warn patients and doctors that the leukemia drug had been linked to severe, accelerated and irreversible atherosclerosis-related conditions.


According to a complaint filed on February 26th in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, the Plaintiff had been taking Gleevec (imatinib) to treat Chronic Myeloid Leukemia but was switched to Tasigna by his oncologist, even though he had achieved remission. At the time of the switch, the Plaintiff suffered from no atherosclerosis-related conditions. He subsequently suffered a stroke at the age of 66 and alleges that his use of Tasigna caused him to develop rapidly progressing atherosclerosis in his carotid arteries. (Case No. Case 3:18-cv-05149)

"Our Firm has heard from a number of patients who allegedly experienced similar complications following the initiation of Tasigna therapy. We will be monitoring this growing litigation closely," says Sandy A. Liebhard, a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The firm is offering free legal reviews to individuals who were diagnosed with arteriosclerosis or related conditions following the initiation of Tasigna treatment.

Tasigna and Arteriosclerosis

Tasigna (nilotinib) was approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in 2007 to treat patients suffering from Philadelphia chromosome-positive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (Ph+ CML). The medication belongs to a class of drugs called tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), which block a protein called Bcr-ABl to stop the growth of cancer cells.

Since its approval, several studies have suggested that patients treated with Tasigna may be more likely to develop arteriosclerosis-related condition. For example, a 2016 study published in the American Journal of Hematology linked Tasigna to an increased risk for peripheral artery disease and sudden death.

In 2013, researchers writing in Leukemia reported that patients treated with Tasigna had higher rates of arterial disease compared to those prescribed imatinib.

The Canadian label for Tasigna was updated in 2013 to note a potential risk of arteriosclerosis, after a review revealed that 277 reports of the condition had been logged with the Novartis global safety database between January 1st, 2005 and January 31, 2013. Canadian doctors were advised to closely monitor their Tasigna patients for signs of the life-threatening artery disease.

In March 2016, what appears to have been the nation's first Tasigna lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, on behalf of a man who died from complications related to arteriosclerosis shortly after he began taking the drug in 2012. According to the complaint, the Decedent was diagnosed with peripheral artery disease in September 2013, with 90-100% blockages in his legs. He died due to complications in March 2014, even though his physician had prescribed an alternative treatment after reading about the possible association between Tasigna and arteriosclerosis in a medical journal. (Case No. No. 16-393)

Tasigna patients who were diagnosed with arteriosclerosis while using this medication, or their surviving family members, may be entitled to compensation for their medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, wrongful death, and more. To learn more about filing a Tasigna lawsuit, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website, or call 800-511-5092 to arrange for a free, no obligation case review.

277 reports out of how many Canadian patients between 2005-13?

And which one of you pitched Tasigna as legitimate maintenance therapy following a positive Gleevec response?

Doesn't smell like approved use, but what do we know...

Maybe it was the stupid fucking doctor this time.

 

[OPEN da Books!]

Prosecutor in Novartis probe orders opening of bank account

A corruption prosecutor investigating the Novartis bribery case ordered on Tuesday the opening of ten bank accounts and disclosure of other assets belonging to the prominent politicians named in the case file.

In a document sent to Greek banks and the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, Eleni Touloupaki is requesting information on bank deposits, deposit boxes, stocks and other assets linked to the politicians as well as their families, as part of the probe into possible money laundering.

The request concerns former prime ministers Antonis Samaras and Panagiotis Pikrammenos, former ministers Evangelos Venizelos, Andreas Loverdos, Dimitris Avramopoulos, Andreas Lykouretzos, Yannis Stournaras, Adonis Georgiadis, Marios Salmas and Giorgos Koutroumanis, as well as 28 other people. Similar orders have been issued for non-politicians and state employees included in the case file.

The investigation concerns allegations that the Swiss drugmaker bribed Greek doctors and public officials to increase its access to the Greek market and sell its products at inflated prices.
al rivals.

 

[bribery probe]

Novartis bribery probe: Bank of Greece governor sues witnesses
AFP
news@thelocal.ch
@thelocalswitzer
4 April 2018

Greece's central bank governor on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against two witnesses who reportedly claimed he was among several senior politicians who received illicit perks from embattled Swiss pharma giant Novartis.
Yannis Stournaras' office said in a statement the two protected witnesses, known only under their aliases, should be punished for perjury and defamation.

He also called on the Greek Supreme Court to examine whether a decision to withhold the witnesses' identities was lawful.

Stournaras is one of several senior politicians, including former prime minister Antonis Samaras and EU migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos, who were allegedly involved in helping Novartis to build a commanding position in the Greek health market.

The Swiss giant is suspected of having bribed decision-makers and doctors between 2006 and 2015 to secure inflated prices for its products even though cheaper alternatives were available.

The kickbacks were usually hidden in overpriced company invoices for medical congresses and trips, but money is suspected to have also occasionally been given directly, witnesses said.

On Tuesday, a Greek anti-corruption prosecutor requested bank and other asset information for bribery checks on the ten politicians.

The case is also under examination by a parliamentary commission of inquiry, as well as by the US authorities.

Stournaras, a former finance minister under Samaras, was named because his wife's PR company organised congresses sponsored by Novartis.

An economics professor, Stournaras has said he had also received payment from Novartis to give "two or three" presentations on the economy – but only before becoming minister.

Avramopoulos, who was Greek health minister in 2006-2009, has also sued the witnesses.

The alleged witness testimony, parts of which have been leaked to the press, faults Avramopoulos' handling of a blood screening contract and a large order of avian flu vaccine.

Novartis has said it is cooperating with US and Greek authorities whilst conducting an internal audit of its own.

The Swiss giant has already paid multi-million dollar fines in the United States, China and South Korea to settle corruption cases.

 

[& yet more kickbacks]

Novartis, still embroiled in Greek probe, faces kickback allegation in China—again
by Angus Liu |
Apr 6, 2018 9:58am

A self-proclaimed former employee at Novartis’ Beijing office accused the Swiss drugmaker of expensing fake academic events to offer kickbacks to doctors.

As Novartis fights allegations that it bribed Greek government officials in exchange for increased use of its drugs, the company faces new accusations of bribery in China.

A whistleblower who claimed to be a recent employee at Novartis’ Beijing office accused the Swiss drugmaker of expensing fake academic events to offer kickbacks to doctors. Self-identified by the name Zhang Han (along with a national ID number), the purported sales rep detailed the allegations in an open letter posted on Zhihu, China’s Quora-like platform.

The original letter has already been deleted, but FiercePharma obtained several copies circulating online. In the letter, Zhang said (s)he was speaking up because (s)he had been unfairly treated at the company since she joined its staff in January.

According to the letter, Zhang was asked to act as a doctor at fake conferences, where Novartis employees would buy receipts from the venue and submit them as company expenses. Those expense reimbursements were then used to offer kickbacks to doctors for increasing prescriptions of drugs such as Diovan and Exforge. A doctor could collect 1 ($0.16) to 2 Chinese yuan for every box of Diovan or Exforge prescribed and 20-40 Chinese yuan for each new patient signed up, the letter stated.

Novartis’ Chinese unit immediately responded Monday in a statement (Chinese) posted on its official account on WeChat, a popular social media platform in China. The company has started an internal investigation, and “if any wrongdoing or violation of the laws and regulations or Novartis values is found, the company will take serious actions without hesitation," the statement said.

RELATED: Greek prosecutor ratchets up inquiries in Novartis bribery probe: report

It's not the first time Novartis has faced similar bribery allegations. Previously, an SEC investigation found the company’s Chinese subsidiaries had recorded legitimate payments for travel, conferences, lecture fees, and so on, which were instead spent on different forms of bribes to doctors to boost sales of Novartis products. Novartis didn’t admit any wrongdoing but agreed to pay$25 million to settle the charges in March 2016. The company said at the time that the issues “pre-date many of the compliance-related measures introduced by Novartis across its global organization in recent years.”


The timing, however, couldn’t be worse. Novartis is entangled in a high-profile bribery probe in Greece, which involves allegations that it paid top Greek government officials bribes in the millions of euros in exchange for fixing drug prices and other favors.

It also came just days after newly minted CEO Vas Varasimhan laid out his Chinese ambitions with Bloomberg while attending the China Development Forum in Beijing. Citing recent favorable regulatory changes, Varasimhan said he aims to more than double sales in China over the next five years. Novartis hopes to bring new drugs to the market more quickly, he said, and is including China in all late-stage trials, hoping to take advantage of new rules allowing data from multicenter trials to flow directly into new drug applications.

 

[anonymous]

Novartis, still embroiled in Greek probe, faces kickback allegation in China—again
by Angus Liu |
Apr 6, 2018 9:58am

A self-proclaimed former employee at Novartis’ Beijing office accused the Swiss drugmaker of expensing fake academic events to offer kickbacks to doctors.

As Novartis fights allegations that it bribed Greek government officials in exchange for increased use of its drugs, the company faces new accusations of bribery in China.

A whistleblower who claimed to be a recent employee at Novartis’ Beijing office accused the Swiss drugmaker of expensing fake academic events to offer kickbacks to doctors. Self-identified by the name Zhang Han (along with a national ID number), the purported sales rep detailed the allegations in an open letter posted on Zhihu, China’s Quora-like platform.

The original letter has already been deleted, but FiercePharma obtained several copies circulating online. In the letter, Zhang said (s)he was speaking up because (s)he had been unfairly treated at the company since she joined its staff in January.

According to the letter, Zhang was asked to act as a doctor at fake conferences, where Novartis employees would buy receipts from the venue and submit them as company expenses. Those expense reimbursements were then used to offer kickbacks to doctors for increasing prescriptions of drugs such as Diovan and Exforge. A doctor could collect 1 ($0.16) to 2 Chinese yuan for every box of Diovan or Exforge prescribed and 20-40 Chinese yuan for each new patient signed up, the letter stated.

Novartis’ Chinese unit immediately responded Monday in a statement (Chinese) posted on its official account on WeChat, a popular social media platform in China. The company has started an internal investigation, and “if any wrongdoing or violation of the laws and regulations or Novartis values is found, the company will take serious actions without hesitation," the statement said.

RELATED: Greek prosecutor ratchets up inquiries in Novartis bribery probe: report

It's not the first time Novartis has faced similar bribery allegations. Previously, an SEC investigation found the company’s Chinese subsidiaries had recorded legitimate payments for travel, conferences, lecture fees, and so on, which were instead spent on different forms of bribes to doctors to boost sales of Novartis products. Novartis didn’t admit any wrongdoing but agreed to pay$25 million to settle the charges in March 2016. The company said at the time that the issues “pre-date many of the compliance-related measures introduced by Novartis across its global organization in recent years.”


The timing, however, couldn’t be worse. Novartis is entangled in a high-profile bribery probe in Greece, which involves allegations that it paid top Greek government officials bribes in the millions of euros in exchange for fixing drug prices and other favors.

It also came just days after newly minted CEO Vas Varasimhan laid out his Chinese ambitions with Bloomberg while attending the China Development Forum in Beijing. Citing recent favorable regulatory changes, Varasimhan said he aims to more than double sales in China over the next five years. Novartis hopes to bring new drugs to the market more quickly, he said, and is including China in all late-stage trials, hoping to take advantage of new rules allowing data from multicenter trials to flow directly into new drug applications.

You know what this means...The Chinese are bluffing on the tariffs. MAGA!!!!

 

[Pay 2 Play]

Physician payments linked to scripts for cancer drugs from Novartis, Pfizer and more: study
by Arlene Weintraub |
Apr 10, 2018 12:06pm

Oncologists who received any payment from a pharma company in 2013 had twice the odds of prescribing that company’s drug.

Many lawmakers worry that when pharma companies pay physicians—for speaking engagements, say, or hotel rooms at conferences—those on the receiving end are more likely to prescribe products from drugmakers that dole out the money.

That concern even sparked a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires drug and device companies to disclose any physician payment greater than $10.

Researchers led by the University of North Carolina scoured the federal database where those financial disclosures are stored, called Open Payments, and discovered a troubling trend: Oncologists who treat metastatic kidney cancer or chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) were more likely to prescribe drugs made by companies that paid them in 2013. Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer and Bristol-Myers Squibb topped the list of companies benefiting from their largesse to the oncology community.

The biggest association between physician payments and prescribing practices was seen in kidney cancer. The researchers found that physicians who received any industry payment had twice the odds of prescribing that company’s drug, according to the paper, which was published in Jama Internal Medicine.

Of the 354 physicians in the database who prescribe kidney cancer drugs, 89 took pharma money for consulting, meals, travel and other activities. Those payments seemed to track with a boost in prescriptions for Bayer’s Nexavar and Pfizer’s Sutent, though the researchers did state that the study was not designed to prove a direct cause and effect.

A spokeswoman for Bayer said the company complies with U.S. disclosure rules on physician payments and "we continuously review and update relevant business processes to comply with the law, in order to ensure that all necessary data is collected, recorded, assessed and transmitted in good time, completely and accurately." Pfizer did not immediately provide a response to the study when contacted by FiercePharma.

Oncologists who treat CML had 29% higher odds of prescribing drugs made by companies who paid them, the UNC researchers found. And when they drilled down into the individual drugs, they made one notable discovery about the Novartis drugs Gleevec and Tasigna. In 2013, as Gleevec was about to lose its patent protection, physician payments seemed to track with a drop in prescriptions for the drug.

That may have been because Novartis was actively trying to switch physicians to the newer drug, Tasigna, the researchers surmised. Indeed, prescribing of Tasigna grew 15.4% among physicians receiving payments from Novartis, vs. 12.5% among those who did not, according to the paper. Gleevec was once Novartis’s best-selling drug, with $4.65 billion in sales in 2015, so the UNC researchers’ suspicion that the company was heavily pushing Tasigna, its next-gen drug tor CML, does make sense.

A spokesperson for Novartis did not immediately respond to a request for comment from FiercePharma.

The UNC team also found a boost in prescribing for BMS’s Sprycel. Oncologists who received payments from the company were 13.8% more likely to prescribe the drug, while prescriptions among those who were not paid went up 11.4%—a statistically significant difference, the researchers said. A spokesperson for BMS did not immediately provide a response to Fierce Pharma.

The researchers examined payments made for research projects separately from funding for other activities and found that the link to prescribing practices was not so black and white. Research funding was more clearly associated with prescribing in kidney cancer but not CML, they concluded.

Nevertheless, some bioethics experts were disturbed when they saw the study. Payments by drug companies to physicians “cloud our ability to remain objective,” said Yoram Unguru from the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, in an interview with Reuters. He added that the payments could impede “the patient-provider relationship, in particular trust that physicians will place patients’ needs primary.”

 

[special prosecutor]

Maybe the US should follow Greece's lead

Greek lawmakers hand off probe of politicians accused of taking Novartis bribes: report
by Eric Sagonowsky |
Apr 19, 2018 10:30am

Greek lawmakers decided not to move forward with their Novartis bribery probe, instead handing the issue to a special prosecutor.

Less than two months into their probe of Novartis bribery allegations in Greece, lawmakers there decided to hand off the investigation to a special prosecutor.

In a case of 10 politicians accused of taking €50 million in bribes between 2010 and 2015, a parliamentary committee decided it wasn't able to handle the probe, the Financial Times reports. Going forward, a special prosecutor will take the lead.

Already, the prosecutor has requested access to the accused politicans' bank accounts, the International New York Times previously reported.

In response to the allegations, the politicians have denied wrongdoing and have said the case is brought by political opponents in an effort to discredit them before upcoming elections. For its part, Novartis has pledged to “accept responsibility” and act “decisively” if the allegations prove true.

The case cropped up early last year, when a Novartis manager in the country reportedly made suicide threats in an Athens hotel. Officials in the country raided a company office around the same time and disclosed the probe in January 2017.

As the case continues to play out in Greece, Novartis recently faced new allegations of bribery in China. In a letter that circulated online earlier this month, a person who claimed to be a former sales rep said the company fabricated medical events to bribe doctors in exchange for prescriptions. The company's China unit said it will take "serious actions without hesitation" if wrongdoing is found. In 2016, the company paid $25 million to U.S. authorities to settle bribery allegations in China.

In the U.S., the company has even more legal drama on the horizon as doctors and sales reps prepare to testify in a long-running bribery case. The government alleges the company was "essentially buying scripts" through thousands of fake educational events, but Novartis says the evidence isn't specific enough to support the allegations.

Aside from those issues, officials in South Korea last year ordered the company to pay a $50 million fine and temporarily suspended coverage on two drugs, again over bribery suspicions. That followed a Japanese scandal in 2014 and 2015 over failing to report side effects for leukemia meds Tasigna and Gleevec.

Amid all of the ongoing allegations, investigations and legal proceedings, the company recently named Shannon Klinger its chief ethics, risk and compliance officer. She'll join the company's executive committee and report directly to CEO Vas Narasimhan. She previously was the company's chief compliance and ethics officer, a role that wasn't on the executive committee.

 

[REJECTED]

Novartis: FDA has rejected Sandoz's biosimilar bid

Published: May 3, 2018 2:36 a.m. ET
By
DONATO PAOLO

Novartis (NOVN.EB) said late Wednesday that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had turned down its subsidiary Sandoz's rituximab biosimilar application.

The company said that biosimilars division Sandoz received a complete response letter from the FDA--the document the U.S. agency issues when it denies an application.

Rituximab is a cancer drug whose European and U.S. patents expired in 2013 and 2016 respectively. Biosimilars are medical formulations with properties similar to drugs that have already been licensed.

Novartis said Sandoz remains committed to further discussions with the FDA in order to bring the biosimilar to U.S. patients as soon as possible. It said it stands behind the body of evidence included in the regulatory submission and that it is evaluating the contents of the FDA's letter.

 

[400K Bribe to Cohen?]

Because Greece wasn't enough

• Four payments of just under $100,000 made by Novartis to Essential in late 2017 and early 2018. He noted reports that said Trump met with Novartis' CEO in January 2018. Novartis said it had no immediate comment.

Stormy Daniels’ lawyer: Novartis made $400K in “suspicious” payments to Trump attorney Michael Cohen

by john carroll — on May 8, 2018 08:03 PM EDT
Updated: 08:19


Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti has outlined a series of “suspicious financial transactions” involving close to $400,000 in payments Novartis made to the account of Essential Consultants, which was earlier used by Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to the adult film actress to keep her silent about allegations of an affair with the president.

Michael Avenatti

According to the report, Novartis $NVS made four wire payments of $99,980 each, just under the $100,000 mark, which Avenatti noted began last fall and were wrapped in early January of this year, just weeks before soon-to-be CEO Vas Narasimhan met with Trump in Davos.

A spokesperson for Novartis responded to a query I sent Tuesday night, saying: “Still chasing after this – but want to clarify for your information that any agreements with Essential Consultants were entered before our current CEO taking office in February of this year and have expired.”

 

[Mueller Questions NVS]

Mueller team questioned Novartis last year over Michael Cohen payments

By LORRAINE WOELLERT


05/09/2018 09:58 AM EDT


Federal investigators working for special counsel Robert Mueller questioned pharmaceutical giant Novartis last year about its relationship with Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, the company said Wednesday.

In November, lawyers from Mueller’s office asked for information about the company’s relationship with Essential Consultants, a shell company created by Cohen.


“Novartis cooperated fully with the Special Counsel’s office and provided all the information requested,” Novartis spokeswoman Sofina Mirza-Reid said in a statement. “Novartis considers this matter closed as to itself and is not aware of any outstanding questions regarding the agreement.”

The acknowledgment by Novartis suggests that Cohen has been drawn into the special counsel’s ongoing probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign. FBI agents in New York raided the Trump Organization lawyer's home and office last month following a "referral" from Mueller, but it was not known how closely he had scrutinized Cohen.

Novartis revealed its contact with Mueller’s office after the company was named in a document distributed by Michael Avenatti, a lawyer representing porn film actress Stormy Daniels. Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, is suing to be released from a contract, inked weeks before Election Day, that paid her $130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged sexual relationship with Trump.

Cohen made the payment to Daniels through Essential Consultants

“In February 2017, Novartis entered into a one year agreement with Essential Consultants shortly after the election of President Trump focused on US healthcare policy matters,” Novartis' Mirza-Reid said. “The terms were consistent with the market. The agreement expired in February 2018.”

“The engagement of Essential Consultants predated Vas Narasimhan becoming Novartis CEO. Dr. Narasimhan had no involvement whatsoever with this arrangement,” Mirza-Reid said.

 

[WHY?]

Untangling Trump’s lawyer’s ties to Novartis: Here are 6 unanswered questions


By ADAM FEUERSTEIN @adamfeuerstein, DAMIAN GARDE @damiangarde, and REBECCA ROBBINS @rebeccadrobbins

MAY 9, 2018 DOM SMITH/STAT

Thanks to Novartis, the investigations of President Trump and his minions now have a Big Pharma angle: The drug maker admitted to wiring monthly payments to a company controlled by the president’s lawyer — the same one that paid adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an extramarital affair with Trump.

But in exchange for what? And who thought this was a good idea?

We have some questions. Here are six.

1. Why?
It’s the glaring omission from Novartis’ statements to date. The Swiss pharma giant says it paid $1.2 million to a shell company set up by Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to discuss “U.S. healthcare policy.”

But what does that mean?

Did Novartis want access to Trump? If so, it got it: Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan dined with the president in January 2018, three weeks after the company made the last of 12 monthly payments to Cohen’s company. Narasimhan’s predecessor, Joe Jimenez, met with Trump in the spring of 2017, the company said, months after Novartis’s one-year contract with Cohen began.

2. Why Cohen?
If Novartis had questions about “U.S. healthcare policy,” why pay Cohen, a lawyer with no known health care expertise? As Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti put it on Twitter Wednesday: “Wow — he’s a doctor as well!! Very talented guy this Mr. Cohen.”

And now Novartis claims they hired Mr. Cohen for “healthcare” matters (they paid him approx $1 Million). Wow - he’s a doctor as well!! Very talented guy this Mr. Cohen.

Moreover, Cohen has no official role in the Trump administration.

3. What did Novartis get for its money?
This whole story starts with Avenatti, who released a document Tuesday outlining payments to Essential Consultants, Cohen’s firm, from Novartis as well as AT&T and Korea Aerospace — dealings that Avenatti claims were suspicious.

At the time of the payments, AT&T was trying to merge with Time Warner, a deal the president had disparaged, and Korea Aerospace was seeking a multibillion-dollar defense contract. In each case, bending Trump’s ear could have been beneficial.

So what did Novartis need?

The company isn’t saying (and it has not been accused of any illegal activity). Novartis’ biggest recent dealing with the federal government involved a costly new cancer treatment. Kymriah, a Novartis therapy for a rare blood cancer, costs $475,000 for a course of a treatment, and in order to make any money on the product, the company needs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reimburse that cost.

In the middle of Novartis’ contract with Cohen’s firm, Kymriah won Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug and CMS struck a deal with the company to reimburse for the drug if patients respond to therapy after a month.

4. How did Novartis get involved with Cohen in the first place?
Did the company approach Trump’s attorney? Or was it the other way around? Did some third party make an introduction?

Novartis isn’t talking about the genesis of the deal, but the company has made very clear who’s not responsible. The contract with Cohen “predated Vas Narasimhan becoming Novartis CEO,” the company said in a statement, adding that “Dr. Narasimhan had no involvement whatsoever with this arrangement.”

That means it all happened under the leadership of Jimenez, who retired in January. (Jimenez could not be reached for comment).

5. What did Robert Mueller want from Novartis?
Robert Mueller, who is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into the Trump White House, asked Novartis in November for information on its dealings with Cohen, the company said. In a statement, Novartis said it “cooperated fully” with Mueller, “provided all the information requested,” and now “considers this matter closed.”

And that’s it. What remains a mystery is just what Mueller wanted. Furthermore, it’s unclear why Novartis didn’t disclose the Mueller probe to investors in its ensuing regulatory filings.

6. What on Earth was Novartis thinking?
Whatever Novartis’ goals were, the company must have known that a clandestine contract with Trump’s personal attorney/fixer would look suspicious if ever it became public knowledge. That perhaps explains why Novartis has been so vehement in reminding the world that Narasimhan, who has enjoyed a high profile since taking office, wasn’t the boss when Cohen came into the picture.

It also explains what Novartis spokesman Michael Willi told Reuters on Wednesday: “In hindsight, this must be seen as a mistake.”

 

[anonymous]

Untangling Trump’s lawyer’s ties to Novartis: Here are 6 unanswered questions


By ADAM FEUERSTEIN @adamfeuerstein, DAMIAN GARDE @damiangarde, and REBECCA ROBBINS @rebeccadrobbins

MAY 9, 2018 DOM SMITH/STAT

Thanks to Novartis, the investigations of President Trump and his minions now have a Big Pharma angle: The drug maker admitted to wiring monthly payments to a company controlled by the president’s lawyer — the same one that paid adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an extramarital affair with Trump.

But in exchange for what? And who thought this was a good idea?

We have some questions. Here are six.

1. Why?
It’s the glaring omission from Novartis’ statements to date. The Swiss pharma giant says it paid $1.2 million to a shell company set up by Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to discuss “U.S. healthcare policy.”

But what does that mean?

Did Novartis want access to Trump? If so, it got it: Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan dined with the president in January 2018, three weeks after the company made the last of 12 monthly payments to Cohen’s company. Narasimhan’s predecessor, Joe Jimenez, met with Trump in the spring of 2017, the company said, months after Novartis’s one-year contract with Cohen began.

2. Why Cohen?
If Novartis had questions about “U.S. healthcare policy,” why pay Cohen, a lawyer with no known health care expertise? As Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti put it on Twitter Wednesday: “Wow — he’s a doctor as well!! Very talented guy this Mr. Cohen.”

And now Novartis claims they hired Mr. Cohen for “healthcare” matters (they paid him approx $1 Million). Wow - he’s a doctor as well!! Very talented guy this Mr. Cohen.

Moreover, Cohen has no official role in the Trump administration.

3. What did Novartis get for its money?
This whole story starts with Avenatti, who released a document Tuesday outlining payments to Essential Consultants, Cohen’s firm, from Novartis as well as AT&T and Korea Aerospace — dealings that Avenatti claims were suspicious.

At the time of the payments, AT&T was trying to merge with Time Warner, a deal the president had disparaged, and Korea Aerospace was seeking a multibillion-dollar defense contract. In each case, bending Trump’s ear could have been beneficial.

So what did Novartis need?

The company isn’t saying (and it has not been accused of any illegal activity). Novartis’ biggest recent dealing with the federal government involved a costly new cancer treatment. Kymriah, a Novartis therapy for a rare blood cancer, costs $475,000 for a course of a treatment, and in order to make any money on the product, the company needs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reimburse that cost.

In the middle of Novartis’ contract with Cohen’s firm, Kymriah won Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug and CMS struck a deal with the company to reimburse for the drug if patients respond to therapy after a month.

4. How did Novartis get involved with Cohen in the first place?
Did the company approach Trump’s attorney? Or was it the other way around? Did some third party make an introduction?

Novartis isn’t talking about the genesis of the deal, but the company has made very clear who’s not responsible. The contract with Cohen “predated Vas Narasimhan becoming Novartis CEO,” the company said in a statement, adding that “Dr. Narasimhan had no involvement whatsoever with this arrangement.”

That means it all happened under the leadership of Jimenez, who retired in January. (Jimenez could not be reached for comment).

5. What did Robert Mueller want from Novartis?
Robert Mueller, who is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into the Trump White House, asked Novartis in November for information on its dealings with Cohen, the company said. In a statement, Novartis said it “cooperated fully” with Mueller, “provided all the information requested,” and now “considers this matter closed.”

And that’s it. What remains a mystery is just what Mueller wanted. Furthermore, it’s unclear why Novartis didn’t disclose the Mueller probe to investors in its ensuing regulatory filings.

6. What on Earth was Novartis thinking?
Whatever Novartis’ goals were, the company must have known that a clandestine contract with Trump’s personal attorney/fixer would look suspicious if ever it became public knowledge. That perhaps explains why Novartis has been so vehement in reminding the world that Narasimhan, who has enjoyed a high profile since taking office, wasn’t the boss when Cohen came into the picture.

It also explains what Novartis spokesman Michael Willi told Reuters on Wednesday: “In hindsight, this must be seen as a mistake.”

This is all leading to Destination:Fucked.

 

[#7!]

#7 Why did they pay for a YEAR & then STOP ???

Untangling Trump’s lawyer’s ties to Novartis: Here are 6 unanswered questions


By ADAM FEUERSTEIN @adamfeuerstein, DAMIAN GARDE @damiangarde, and REBECCA ROBBINS @rebeccadrobbins

MAY 9, 2018 DOM SMITH/STAT

Thanks to Novartis, the investigations of President Trump and his minions now have a Big Pharma angle: The drug maker admitted to wiring monthly payments to a company controlled by the president’s lawyer — the same one that paid adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an extramarital affair with Trump.

But in exchange for what? And who thought this was a good idea?

We have some questions. Here are six.

1. Why?
It’s the glaring omission from Novartis’ statements to date. The Swiss pharma giant says it paid $1.2 million to a shell company set up by Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to discuss “U.S. healthcare policy.”

But what does that mean?

Did Novartis want access to Trump? If so, it got it: Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan dined with the president in January 2018, three weeks after the company made the last of 12 monthly payments to Cohen’s company. Narasimhan’s predecessor, Joe Jimenez, met with Trump in the spring of 2017, the company said, months after Novartis’s one-year contract with Cohen began.

2. Why Cohen?
If Novartis had questions about “U.S. healthcare policy,” why pay Cohen, a lawyer with no known health care expertise? As Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti put it on Twitter Wednesday: “Wow — he’s a doctor as well!! Very talented guy this Mr. Cohen.”

And now Novartis claims they hired Mr. Cohen for “healthcare” matters (they paid him approx $1 Million). Wow - he’s a doctor as well!! Very talented guy this Mr. Cohen.

Moreover, Cohen has no official role in the Trump administration.

3. What did Novartis get for its money?
This whole story starts with Avenatti, who released a document Tuesday outlining payments to Essential Consultants, Cohen’s firm, from Novartis as well as AT&T and Korea Aerospace — dealings that Avenatti claims were suspicious.

At the time of the payments, AT&T was trying to merge with Time Warner, a deal the president had disparaged, and Korea Aerospace was seeking a multibillion-dollar defense contract. In each case, bending Trump’s ear could have been beneficial.

So what did Novartis need?

The company isn’t saying (and it has not been accused of any illegal activity). Novartis’ biggest recent dealing with the federal government involved a costly new cancer treatment. Kymriah, a Novartis therapy for a rare blood cancer, costs $475,000 for a course of a treatment, and in order to make any money on the product, the company needs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reimburse that cost.

In the middle of Novartis’ contract with Cohen’s firm, Kymriah won Food and Drug Administration approval for the drug and CMS struck a deal with the company to reimburse for the drug if patients respond to therapy after a month.

4. How did Novartis get involved with Cohen in the first place?
Did the company approach Trump’s attorney? Or was it the other way around? Did some third party make an introduction?

Novartis isn’t talking about the genesis of the deal, but the company has made very clear who’s not responsible. The contract with Cohen “predated Vas Narasimhan becoming Novartis CEO,” the company said in a statement, adding that “Dr. Narasimhan had no involvement whatsoever with this arrangement.”

That means it all happened under the leadership of Jimenez, who retired in January. (Jimenez could not be reached for comment).

5. What did Robert Mueller want from Novartis?
Robert Mueller, who is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into the Trump White House, asked Novartis in November for information on its dealings with Cohen, the company said. In a statement, Novartis said it “cooperated fully” with Mueller, “provided all the information requested,” and now “considers this matter closed.”

And that’s it. What remains a mystery is just what Mueller wanted. Furthermore, it’s unclear why Novartis didn’t disclose the Mueller probe to investors in its ensuing regulatory filings.

6. What on Earth was Novartis thinking?
Whatever Novartis’ goals were, the company must have known that a clandestine contract with Trump’s personal attorney/fixer would look suspicious if ever it became public knowledge. That perhaps explains why Novartis has been so vehement in reminding the world that Narasimhan, who has enjoyed a high profile since taking office, wasn’t the boss when Cohen came into the picture.

It also explains what Novartis spokesman Michael Willi told Reuters on Wednesday: “In hindsight, this must be seen as a mistake.”

 

[Buying Access]

Novartis official: Michael Cohen was 'promising access' after Trump election
Cohen reached out to the drug giant after the election, a senior Novartis official said
by Tracy Connor, Michael Cappetta, Sarah Fitzpatrick and Brandy Zadrozny / May.09.2018 / 1:30 PM ET / Updated 2:43 PM ET

President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, contacted the drug giant Novartis after the 2016 election "promising access" to the new administration, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller later requested information from the company about the offer, a senior official inside Novartis told NBC News on Wednesday.

"He [Cohen] contacted us after the new administration was in place," the official said. "He was promising access to the new administration." Novartis then signed a one-year, $1.2 million contract with Cohen.

The disclosure came after an attorney representing the adult-film actress who says she had an affair with Trump released a summary of bank transactions that he says shows payments from various companies to a company controlled by Cohen.

 

[NVS Taints Pharma]

Novartis Payments To Trump's Personal Attorney Cast A Cloud Over All Of Biopharma

John LaMattina , CONTRIBUTOR I cover news on drugs and R&D in the pharma industry Novartis entered into a deal to help “advise the company as to how the Trump administration might approach certain US healthcare policy matters, including the Affordable Care Act.”

As more and more digging goes into the affairs of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, more dirt gets flung into all sorts of unusual places. The most recent revelation involving Novartis is both shocking and depressing. After Trump had taken the office of the Presidency, Cohen, under the guise of “Essential Consultants”, and Novartis entered into a deal to help “advise the company as to how the Trump administration might approach certain US healthcare policy matters, including the Affordable Care Act.”


One wonders what Novartis was thinking in entering such an agreement. Clearly, any sensible person would look at such an agreement cynically and come away with the view that Novartis was attempting to buy access to the President through his lawyer. Furthermore, the one year contract that Novartis had with Cohen - $100,000/month – is a lot of money for a lawyer with no background in healthcare. Didn’t anyone at Novartis think about how badly this would look if such a deal was made public? Indeed, since this information came to light, Novartis has scrambled and said that Essential Consultants was “unable to provide the services that Novartis had anticipated related to US healthcare policy matters and the decision was taken not to engage further.” However, the contract could only be terminated for cause and so payments continued to be made until the contract expired in February, 2018.

Ordinarily, one would simply say that Novartis threw away $1.2 million by getting suckered in by a huckster. However, Novartis’ motives are being questioned because of a new drug it was preparing for launch over this same timeframe. The drug in question was Kymriah, the first of a new class of therapies based on CAR-T technologies that cures the deadly childhood leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Novartis launched Kymriah at a cost of $475,000 for a course of treatment. However, as pointed out by Adam Feuerstein of STAT for Kymriah to be successful,Novartis needs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reimburse the drug’s cost. As this fact becomes known to the general public, it’s hard to believe that people won’t come to the conclusion that Novartis was seeking to buy influence with the President with the hopes of gaining traction with the government to accept Kymriah’s price.

We are entering an era in which cures for many diseases are being brought to market. In order for biopharmaceutical companies to get a return on the large investments being made to come up with these cures, high prices need to be charged. It is imperative that the arguments being made by biopharmaceutical companies to justify the pricing of these drugs be accepted at face value. However, the slightest bit of impropriety in the behavior of these companies causes incredible skepticism on the part of the public.

Yes, Novartis screwed up. But, by doing so, it tarnished the entire drug industry which is struggling right now to justify the costs of these breakthrough medicines. It is important that the biopharmaceutical industry strive for the highest standards in order to restore its reputation with patients, physicians and payers. Unfortunately, Novartis’s recent actions with Essential Consultants is a big step backward.

 

[anonymous]

Totally agree.

Novartis Payments To Trump's Personal Attorney Cast A Cloud Over All Of Biopharma

John LaMattina , CONTRIBUTOR I cover news on drugs and R&D in the pharma industry Novartis entered into a deal to help “advise the company as to how the Trump administration might approach certain US healthcare policy matters, including the Affordable Care Act.”

As more and more digging goes into the affairs of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, more dirt gets flung into all sorts of unusual places. The most recent revelation involving Novartis is both shocking and depressing. After Trump had taken the office of the Presidency, Cohen, under the guise of “Essential Consultants”, and Novartis entered into a deal to help “advise the company as to how the Trump administration might approach certain US healthcare policy matters, including the Affordable Care Act.”


One wonders what Novartis was thinking in entering such an agreement. Clearly, any sensible person would look at such an agreement cynically and come away with the view that Novartis was attempting to buy access to the President through his lawyer. Furthermore, the one year contract that Novartis had with Cohen - $100,000/month – is a lot of money for a lawyer with no background in healthcare. Didn’t anyone at Novartis think about how badly this would look if such a deal was made public? Indeed, since this information came to light, Novartis has scrambled and said that Essential Consultants was “unable to provide the services that Novartis had anticipated related to US healthcare policy matters and the decision was taken not to engage further.” However, the contract could only be terminated for cause and so payments continued to be made until the contract expired in February, 2018.

Ordinarily, one would simply say that Novartis threw away $1.2 million by getting suckered in by a huckster. However, Novartis’ motives are being questioned because of a new drug it was preparing for launch over this same timeframe. The drug in question was Kymriah, the first of a new class of therapies based on CAR-T technologies that cures the deadly childhood leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Novartis launched Kymriah at a cost of $475,000 for a course of treatment. However, as pointed out by Adam Feuerstein of STAT for Kymriah to be successful,Novartis needs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reimburse the drug’s cost. As this fact becomes known to the general public, it’s hard to believe that people won’t come to the conclusion that Novartis was seeking to buy influence with the President with the hopes of gaining traction with the government to accept Kymriah’s price.

We are entering an era in which cures for many diseases are being brought to market. In order for biopharmaceutical companies to get a return on the large investments being made to come up with these cures, high prices need to be charged. It is imperative that the arguments being made by biopharmaceutical companies to justify the pricing of these drugs be accepted at face value. However, the slightest bit of impropriety in the behavior of these companies causes incredible skepticism on the part of the public.

Yes, Novartis screwed up. But, by doing so, it tarnished the entire drug industry which is struggling right now to justify the costs of these breakthrough medicines. It is important that the biopharmaceutical industry strive for the highest standards in order to restore its reputation with patients, physicians and payers. Unfortunately, Novartis’s recent actions with Essential Consultants is a big step backward.

Totally agree

 

[anonymous]

Stupidity, Ignorant, Dumb, YOU DON"T like being called those names?? Well, what else are YOU?? It's clearly evident that YOU fit exactly into those categories!! And of course, Sweetness and his Momma are the perfect definition! Playing doctor...

 

[anonymous]

Novartis Payments To Trump's Personal Attorney Cast A Cloud Over All Of Biopharma

John LaMattina , CONTRIBUTOR I cover news on drugs and R&D in the pharma industry Novartis entered into a deal to help “advise the company as to how the Trump administration might approach certain US healthcare policy matters, including the Affordable Care Act.”

As more and more digging goes into the affairs of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, more dirt gets flung into all sorts of unusual places. The most recent revelation involving Novartis is both shocking and depressing. After Trump had taken the office of the Presidency, Cohen, under the guise of “Essential Consultants”, and Novartis entered into a deal to help “advise the company as to how the Trump administration might approach certain US healthcare policy matters, including the Affordable Care Act.”


One wonders what Novartis was thinking in entering such an agreement. Clearly, any sensible person would look at such an agreement cynically and come away with the view that Novartis was attempting to buy access to the President through his lawyer. Furthermore, the one year contract that Novartis had with Cohen - $100,000/month – is a lot of money for a lawyer with no background in healthcare. Didn’t anyone at Novartis think about how badly this would look if such a deal was made public? Indeed, since this information came to light, Novartis has scrambled and said that Essential Consultants was “unable to provide the services that Novartis had anticipated related to US healthcare policy matters and the decision was taken not to engage further.” However, the contract could only be terminated for cause and so payments continued to be made until the contract expired in February, 2018.

Ordinarily, one would simply say that Novartis threw away $1.2 million by getting suckered in by a huckster. However, Novartis’ motives are being questioned because of a new drug it was preparing for launch over this same timeframe. The drug in question was Kymriah, the first of a new class of therapies based on CAR-T technologies that cures the deadly childhood leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Novartis launched Kymriah at a cost of $475,000 for a course of treatment. However, as pointed out by Adam Feuerstein of STAT for Kymriah to be successful,Novartis needs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reimburse the drug’s cost. As this fact becomes known to the general public, it’s hard to believe that people won’t come to the conclusion that Novartis was seeking to buy influence with the President with the hopes of gaining traction with the government to accept Kymriah’s price.

We are entering an era in which cures for many diseases are being brought to market. In order for biopharmaceutical companies to get a return on the large investments being made to come up with these cures, high prices need to be charged. It is imperative that the arguments being made by biopharmaceutical companies to justify the pricing of these drugs be accepted at face value. However, the slightest bit of impropriety in the behavior of these companies causes incredible skepticism on the part of the public.

Yes, Novartis screwed up. But, by doing so, it tarnished the entire drug industry which is struggling right now to justify the costs of these breakthrough medicines. It is important that the biopharmaceutical industry strive for the highest standards in order to restore its reputation with patients, physicians and payers. Unfortunately, Novartis’s recent actions with Essential Consultants is a big step backward.

Yes, Novartis screwed up. But, by doing so, it tarnished the entire drug industry which is struggling right now to justify the costs of these breakthrough medicines. It is important that the biopharmaceutical industry strive for the highest standards in order to restore its reputation with patients, physicians and payers. Unfortunately, Novartis’s recent actions with Essential Consultants is a big step backward.


And people that don't know the Industry still want to work in Pharma....It's a dying Industry because of Companies and Managers (at all levels) that do things like this!! ABL's on up!! Pay attention because your Reps are recording your w/w going forward hoping, wishing that you will be like every other NVS manager and use your NVS Management Training for evil instead of good. The Manager down in Tampa said at a District meeting don't put anything in writing or in an Email...just call him. You can't trust these people record every work w/! Things are being covered up at all levels, it's what they are trained to do. Don't worry about invasion of privacy because once you have the "goods" on them they will be more terrified of you than you are of them and yes "It's a bargaining chip" for you if needed.

 

[CEO Excuse Tour]

Where is the accountability , Did he try to interfere in any legal proceedings ?

Novartis CEO: ‘We made a mistake’ with Cohen payments
By ELI OKUN
05/11/2018 10:14 AM EDT

The CEO of Novartis apologized to employees for the company’s payments to President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen.

“We made a mistake in entering into this engagement and, as a consequence, are being criticized by a world that expects more from us,” wrote Vasant Narasimhan, the Swiss drugmaker’s chief executive. Novartis shared the Thursday email, which was first reported by STAT, with POLITICO.

Novartis has garnered widespread criticism this week over the revelation that it paid Cohen $1.2 million in a yearlong contract in an attempt to gain insight into the Trump administration. The drugmaker, along with other companies like AT&T, made payments to a Cohen shell company, Essential Consultants LLC, that was used for a hush payment to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.

Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, first revealed the nature of the payments.

“Personally and for my family, yesterday was also a difficult day, as unfounded stories spread through the US news. While I was not involved with any aspect of this situation, the facts did not matter. I went to sleep frustrated and tired,” Narasimhan wrote. “But I woke up this morning full of determination.”

He said he knew employees were likely “disappointed and frustrated.” The arrangement was set up before Narasimhan took over as CEO in February. Novartis previously said it had met with Cohen only once but was bound to continue the payments.

Novartis acknowledged earlier this week that it had cooperated last year with questioning in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election interference.