On January 13, 2026, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Atlantic Biologicals Corporation, a Miami-based pharmaceutical distributor, paid a $450,000 criminal penalty and entered into a two-year deferred prosecution agreement. The settlement resolves the government’s allegations that from 2017 through May 2023, the company, through its business unit NAS, engaged in
I know it can be said about many areas of the law; however, the statue, regulations, and administrative caselaw governing controlled substances is truly a different animal. I frequently get calls from attorneys seeking advice on matters involving Drug Enforcement Administration investigations. Many have little to no experience with such matters. My first (and perhaps
(If this song is stuck in your head all day long, you are welcome.)
As my loyal readers are aware (too Bridgerton?), customer due diligence obligations, especially for distributors and manufacturers, have significantly evolved over the past several years. When I joined the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) nearly two decades ago (back when registrants
Today, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced the revocation of Coconut Grove Pharmacy’s DEA registration.
DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration back in September 2022, premised on Coconut Grove’s alleged failure to identify, resolve, and document the resolution of potential red flags associated with prescriptions for controlled substances. If
There is legislation making the rounds on Capitol Hill that seeks to provide clarity regarding the process for reviewing orders for controlled substances to determine if an order is a “suspicious order” that should be reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and withheld from shipment. Sponsored by Rep. Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), the title of the bill is the “Block, Report, and Suspend Suspicious Shipments Act of 2022.” An identical bill, was passed in the House of Representative in the last Congress; however, it did not come up for a vote in the Senate.
What does it say?
On January 20, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA’s) issued a Guidance Document reiterating DEA’s long-held position regarding the detection and reporting of suspicious orders. Specifically, DEA “clarified” that “neither the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) nor [DEA] regulations establish quantitative thresholds or place limits on the volume of controlled substances DEA registrants can order and dispense.”
Why the need for a clarification?
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to “revoke the exempted prescription product status for all butalbital products previously granted exemptions.”
If finalized as proposed, the significant impact of this change will be felt throughout the pharmaceutical supply chain.
The Controlled Substances Act and DEA’s regulations provide the agency with authority to exempt a prescription drug product containing a controlled substance from regulatory requirements and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions. DEA is authorized, among other reasons, to exempt nonnarcotic prescription drug products from application of all or any part of the CSA if the product also contains one or more active ingredients which are not controlled substances and in such quantities “as to vitiate the potential for abuse.“
On November 19, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) “to allow the transfer of electronic prescriptions for schedule II-V controlled substances between registered retail pharmacies for initial filling on a one-time basis.”
This proposed rule aligns with the regulatory guidance provided by DEA in October 2017, that specifically restricted the transfer of unfilled prescriptions for controlled substances to electronic prescriptions.
On November 17, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) seeking the public’s help with understanding the “practice, industry, and state regulations of telepharmacy.”
As DEA acknowledges in the Notice, telepharmacy is not a term defined by the Controlled Substances Act or DEA’s regulations. The agency’s current understanding of telepharmacy is that it involves “the provision of pharmacist care by a remote pharmacist, through the use of telecommunications and other technologies, to a patient located at a dispensing site.” DEA further states that the dispensing site is usually a “brick and mortar remote site” or “self-service, automated machines.”
The COVID pandemic notwithstanding, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies continue to actively pursue and prosecute pharmacies, pharmacists, doctors and others in the industry for violations of the Controlled Substance Act, False Claims Act and other controlled substance-related crimes.
I’ve compiled news reports on such cases from the last two months, confirming that prosecuting health care fraud and illegal distribution of controlled substances continues to be top of mind for law enforcement.