Source: https://corporatecomplianceopinions.justia.com/category/u-s-11th-circuit-court-of-appeals/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:56:58+00:00

Document:
Holston Investments Inc. B.V.I., et al. v. LanLogistics, Corp.
Solymar Investments, Ltd., et al. v. Banco Santander S.A., et al.
Matheny, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al.
Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp; Cox Enterprises, Inc. v. Davidson, et al.
Hofmann v. EMI Resorts, Inc.
Walter Int’l Prod., et al. v. Walter Mercado Salinas, et al.
United States v. Bradley, Jr., et al.; United States v. Bradley, Jr., United States v. Bradley, III.; United States v. Tellechea; United States v. Bradley, III; United States v. Bradley, et al.
Martin J. Bradley III and his father, Martin J. Bradley, Jr. (collectively, the Bradleys), owned Bio-Med Plus, Inc. (Bio-Med), a Miami-based pharmaceutical wholesaler that purchased and sold blood-derivatives. This case stemmed from multiple schemes to defraud the Florida and California Medicaid programs by causing them to pay for blood-derivative medications more than once. The Government chose to prosecute the schemes and a grand jury indicted eight individuals, including Albert L. Tellechea, and two companies, Bio-Med, and Interland Associates, Inc. The Bradleys, Bio-Med, and Tellechea subsequently appealed their convictions and raised several issues on appeal. The court affirmed the Bradleys', Bio-Med's, and Tellechea's convictions, and Bradley III's and Bio-Med's sentences. The court vacated Bradley, Jr.'s sentences on Counts I and 54 and Tellechea's sentence on Count 3, and remanded those counts for resentencing. The court reversed the district court's October 4, 2006 order appointing the receiver and monitor, and its supplemental receivership order of May 17, 2007. The court finally held that, as soon as circumstances allowed, the receivership should be brought to an immediate close.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.