BMS and Sanofi to pay Hawaii $700m to settle Plavix lawsuit
The state alleged the companies misled consumers about the benefit of using the drug, in a case that has been in courts for more than a decade.
"This landmark settlement is a major victory for the state of Hawaii," governor Josh Green said.
"Once the money goes into our general fund, we can go to work on immediately identifying ways to enhance health care services for Hawaii's residents," he added.
BMS and Sanofi have agreed to pay equal shares of the settlement by June 9, bringing an end to 12 years of litigation, according to legal filings.
Per media reports, the pharma giants lost in court repeatedly and continually appealed. In 2021, a Hawaii court ordered the drugmakers to pay the state $834-million over their marketing claims, which the pharma giants vowed to appeal. In 2024, a Hawaii court again ordered them to pay the state $916-million, which they again vowed to appeal.
"It doesn't matter if a company is a one-person shop or a multi-billion-dollar oil company, we will relentlessly enforce Hawaii's consumer protection laws," Anne Lopez, the state's attorney general, said.
The state had pointed to results showing the treatment did not work well for some patients of Asian or Pacific Island descent who could not properly metabolise the drug.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Competition Commission and international banks to square off in ConCourt over rand price-fixing accusations
The case stems from allegations that the banks were manipulating the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand over several years by sharing information on messaging platforms. The Constitutional Court is due to hear four days of legal argument in a matter involving the Competition Commission and more than two dozen banks from across the world, which the commission has accused of 'the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct'. The case stems from allegations that the banks were manipulating the foreign exchange rate between the US dollar and the rand over several years by sharing information on messaging platforms. Three cases, one brought by the commission and the other two brought by the French bank BNP Paribas and US-based Credit Suisse Securities, have been combined into a single massive hearing at which the court will determine whether all or some of the banks should be held liable for colluding. Years of legal battles The case has its origin in a 2017 referral by the Competition Commission to the Competition Tribunal, in which the commission alleged that international traders were using the Bloomberg instant messaging service to discuss the pricing of the US dollar to rand exchange rate. The commission eventually included 28 banks in its case referral. 'The traders shared competitively sensitive information and made arrangements to assist each other by coordinating their trading activities. The traders would regularly agree on the bid-offer spread or spot rate for buying and selling of the USD/ZAR currency paid,' said the commission. The traders would also make arrangements to manipulate the bid-offer prices on the Reuters trading platform by agreeing on the order of transacting, withholding their trades, or posting 'fake bids and offers', said Makgale Mohlala, the manager of the cartels division of the Competition Commission, in an affidavit before the ConCourt. Various banks filed appeals and exceptions to the case, alleging that the commission did not have the jurisdiction to refer the case. The Competition Appeal Court heard the matters and found that the commission had no jurisdiction with regard to 17 of the international banks. Just four international banks were retained in the case: BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse Securities, JPMorgan Chase and Co, and HSBC Bank PLC. South African banks Standard Bank, Nedbank Limited and FirstRand Bank Limited had also appealed against the initial referral, but the court dismissed their cases. 'Single overarching conspiracy' Mohlala said the commission 'cannot accept this outcome in a case involving the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct'. The commission had said that there was a 'single overarching conspiracy' among the banks. 'The manipulation impacted on the exchange rate of the South African rand, which in turn affected various parts of the South African economy — including imports and exports, foreign direct investment, public and private debt, companies' balance sheets, with the attendant implications for the prices of goods and services and financial assets,' said Mohlala. The commission also alleges that the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) erred in several conclusions of its judgment, saying it created new requirements for jurisdiction and contradicted itself. No constitutional issue Some of the banks that were listed in the initial complaint have opposed the commission's application, criticising the way the commission handled the initial complaint and subsequent litigation. Standard Bank of South Africa is among these, saying the commission ignored important information when formulating its complaint. In an affidavit, Ian Sinton, the former general counsel and current consultant for Standard Bank, said the bank was opposing the commission because 'there is no constitutional issue implicated' and 'it is not in the interests of justice' that leave to appeal be granted. He claimed that the bank had raised several factual issues during the Competition Tribunal phase that were ignored. 'Numerous opportunities have been afforded to the commission to plead a sustainable case against [Standard Bank], and it has failed to do so. Contrary to its obligation of impartiality imposed by section 20 of the Competition Act, the commission has shut its mind to relevant information furnished to it by Standard Bank, including easily verifiable facts which dispose of the case,' said Stinton in court papers. The bank also argues that the commission didn't have jurisdiction to prosecute it because the alleged misconduct did not take place in its local office. 'The commission made out no case at all linking the activities of the Johannesburg branch to any cause of action, and so the deficiencies in alleging subject matter jurisdiction remain exactly as before,' said the bank through its lawyer Martin Versfeld. The lawyer for Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Shawn van der Meulen, has criticised the commission for raising new legal issues that were not brought up during the initial appeal. JPMorgan Chase has also criticised the commission's decision to approach the ConCourt, saying the case 'does not legitimately raise a constitutional issue'. Banks appeal Two of the banks whose tribunal referral was ruled as valid, BNP Paribas and Credit Suisse Securities, have launched their own cases. BNP alleges that the commission has not properly pleaded its revised case. 'By failing to properly plead its case, the commission has fallen short of the requirements imposed on it by the CAC. This raises a constitutional issue in that this court is called on to decide whether the rule of law, enshrined in section 1 of the Constitution, can accommodate a situation in which the commission can exercise its prosecutorial powers in contravention of an order of the CAC, which binds the commission,' said Rudolph Labuschagne, BNP's attorney. Credit Suisse Securities has also taken issue with how the commission initiated its investigation. The commission 'exceeded [its] statutory power and thereby violated the principles of legality and the rule of law. These are quintessential constitutional matters,' said Paul Cleland, the attorney for Credit Suisse Securities. Credit Suisse also takes issue with the appeal decision, saying the CAC failed 'to treat like parties alike in the same proceedings — for no good reason whatsoever'. It believes it should have got an exception, like several other international banks. The bank says this action is 'patently arbitrary and irrational'. 'The CAC order violates the right to equal treatment before the law under section 9 (1) of the Constitution, which 'entitles everybody, at the very least, to equal treatment by our courts of law'.' Due to the similarity of issues being dealt with, the ConCourt has combined all three cases into one hearing. Argument will be heard from 19-22 August. DM
The Star
4 days ago
- The Star
BRICS+ Series: The link Between the G20, BRICS & The Global South
Cole Jackson and Dr Iqbal Survé | Published 2 days ago The G20 (Group of 20) was established in 1999 in the wake of the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis as an informal platform bringing together Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors from the world's leading developed and emerging economies to address global economic and financial stability. While its early discussions centred primarily on broad macroeconomic concerns, the G20 has since broadened its scope to cover a wider range of global priorities, including trade, climate action, sustainable development, health, agriculture, energy, environmental protection, and anti-corruption efforts. BRICS was established in a similar fashion, as quoted by Cole Jackson: ' The BRICS grouping has, to a large extent, grown naturally considering the global climate during its formation and in today's context. BRICS was formed in 2009. Its formation follows the 2007/08 financial crisis, caused by a period of dramatic economic downturn in the United States (US)--due to the housing market collapse and a subprime mortgage crisis–leading to a global recession. Many countries, the world over, bore the brunt of this recession, especially those countries in the Global South already battling economic difficulties.' The G20 comprises BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia) and other countries in the Global South (Argentina & Mexico). These presidencies and officials often overlap between countries in the Global South, G20, BRICS (and its associated institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB)). This in essence, means more than a quarter of members are BRICS or Global South affiliated. However, due to the United States (US) & Canada, for example, being part of the G7 they need to collaborate and deliberate with many of these countries having BRICS/Global South agendas to fulfill. Reforming Global Governance G20: Includes both developed and emerging economies and increasingly acknowledges the need for reform in global financial institutions (like the IMF and World Bank). BRICS: Actively pushes for a multipolar world and reform of institutions to reflect the voices of emerging powers and developing nations. Global South: Wants a fairer system where their voices are heard and interests are not sidelined by traditional Western powers. Promoting Inclusive and Sustainable Development G20: Advocates for sustainable development, climate finance, and reducing inequality, especially through multilateral cooperation. BRICS: Prioritises development-led growth, infrastructure financing (e.g., through the New Development Bank), and South-South cooperation. Global South: Seeks development financing and capacity building on their terms, focusing on health, education, and infrastructure. G20: While not centered on the Global South, it increasingly includes dialogues on cooperation between developing countries. BRICS: Champions South-South cooperation as a means to share resources, technology, and strategies among developing nations. Global South: Sees South-South partnerships as more equitable alternatives to Western aid or conditional loans. Multipolarity and Economic Sovereignty G20: Includes rising powers like India, China, Brazil, and South Africa, reflecting a shift away from unipolar dominance. BRICS: Promotes a multipolar world order with diversified centers of power. Global South: Seeks to reduce dependency on the West and build regional blocs and alternative financial institutions. Climate Justice and Energy Transitions G20: Has focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation, though progress varies. BRICS: Supports climate action but emphasizes common but differentiated responsibilities. Global South: Advocates for climate finance, technology transfer, and the right to develop. The growing alignment between the G20, BRICS, and the Global South reflects a strategic shift towards a more inclusive and multipolar global order. With overlapping memberships and shared priorities—ranging from global governance reform and sustainable development to climate justice and economic sovereignty—these groupings increasingly influence one another. BRICS and the Global South have injected fresh urgency and purpose into G20 deliberations, pushing for a system that better represents emerging economies and developing nations. As this alignment deepens, it strengthens efforts to reshape international institutions, promote equitable growth, and ensure that the voices of the Global South are not only heard but also acted upon. Written By: Dr Iqbal Survé Past chairman of the BRICS Business Council and co-chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and the BRNN *Cole Jackson Lead Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group Chinese & South American Specialist * MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE ** Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & @brics_daily on Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
The South African
6 days ago
- The South African
Shell and Total dealt devastating South Africa offshore drilling blow
The Western Cape High Court has refused environmental authorisation for offshore drilling in a venture led by French energy giant TotalEnergies off South Africa's west coast, in a ruling on Thursday. The High Court said on Wednesday the environment ministry's 2023 go-ahead for exploratory operations in the roughly 10 000-square-kilometre block near Cape Town had been 'reviewed and set aside'. Environmental lobby groups that launched a legal challenge against the project said it would harm marine life. The block is jointly owned by South Africa's state oil company PetroSA, TotalEnergies and British oil heavyweight Shell, with the French firm serving as the operator. In a statement to AFP, TotalEnergies said the venture complied with all required local regulations, including environmental and social, from the outset and it would assess the judgement. Although it had already announced its exit from exploration in the block, it remains 'fully committed to respecting the judicial process to its term', the company said. In overturning the environmental permit, the judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood said TotalEnergies could reapply for authorisation after public consultation. Green Connection, one of the groups that filed the legal challenge, said the ruling was a major victory for coastal communities and small-scale fishers. 'Oil spill and blowout contingency plans were kept from the public until after approval, denying communities a chance to comment,' it said in a statement. Interest in oil and gas exploration off South Africa's coast has surged in recent years, driven in part by major discoveries across the maritime border in Namibia and broader energy activity in southern Africa, including Mozambique. The Natural Justice group of environmental lawyers said Wednesday's judgement affirmed that all companies needed to follow due process before seeking the green light for oil exploration off South Africa. 'We will continue to turn to our courts to not only stop the takers who parade under the guise of growth and development, but to ensure that impacts of oil and gas exploration and production are properly scrutinised and that our people and our resources are not exploited,' it said. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
