20 US states balk at Florida settlement with drugmaker Sandoz
March 18 (Reuters) - Twenty U.S. states including California, Connecticut and Michigan have pushed back against a $10 million settlement that Florida reached with Swiss generic drugmaker Sandoz, saying a key provision could restrict damages claims in other lawsuits.
The states, along with the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands, in a court filing, opens new tab on Monday challenged a part of Florida's settlement that they said could bar other states from settling for more than Florida did, for up to four years.
Florida's settlement, opens new tab with Sandoz in federal court in Connecticut resolved the state's claims that the company participated in a broad price-fixing conspiracy. Sandoz is among many pharmaceutical defendants and has denied any wrongdoing.
Sandoz makes drugs including antidepressants amitriptyline and clomipramine, and clobetasol, which is used to treat some skin conditions.
Florida and Connecticut, a lead state in the antitrust litigation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
U.S. District Judge Michael Shea has not ruled on the states' opposition to Florida's settlement. The states asked the judge to strike the provision that they said could curtail future settlement amounts.
Sandoz in a statement on Tuesday said Florida represented one of the largest claims made by any plaintiff state in the litigation. Sandoz said the settlement 'shows that we are willing to resolve matters when it is in the interest of the company to do so.'
Connecticut and the other states said Florida's settlement, which was inked in January, gives Sandoz 'unfair leverage in settlement negotiations with the remaining states.'
The states in Monday's court filing said Sandoz was 'attempting to substantially limit their liability in this case.'
Sandoz has settled other claims in the wide-ranging multidistrict litigation.
In February, Sandoz agreed to pay $275 million to resolve claims by U.S. consumers and others who accused the company of conspiring with industry rivals to illegally fix prices.
Sandoz last year agreed to pay $265 million to resolve related claims lodged in the litigation by a group of wholesale drug purchasers and others.
The case is State of Connecticut et al v. Sandoz, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, No. 3:20-cv-00802-MPS.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
Inter Milan set to early repay bond as plans new debt deal
MILAN, June 13 (Reuters) - Champions League finalist Inter Milan is set to repay early a 415 million euro ($479.57 million) high-yield bond this month as the Italian soccer club prepares to secure funds from a new debt deal, it said in a statement on Friday. Inter Milan paid a 6.75% coupon to place a five-year bond in 2022 to refinance Italy's top-flight soccer club's debt. The debt facility was issued by the Serie A club's media company, which manages the broadcast and sponsorship business of Inter Milan. The company plans to redeem the bond on June 26, subject to securing funds from a debt financing transaction by the business day before the redemption date, it said in a statement. Companies typically repay debt early to secure better financial conditions. Controlled by U.S. investment fund Oaktree (OAK_pa.N), opens new tab, Inter Milan was reportedly tapping private debt investors to refinance the debt facility. Oaktree took over the club last year after a missed 395 million euro payment from the then majority shareholder, Chinese conglomerate Suning ( opens new tab. ($1 = 0.8654 euros) (This story has been refiled to fix typos in paragraphs 1 and 5)
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
Skadden law firm fellowship revamps application to omit 'racial justice,' 'equity'
June 13 (Reuters) - The Skadden Foundation, a public interest law fellowship program entirely funded by law firm Skadden Arps, has altered its application criteria to remove language related to racial justice and other topics that became flashpoints for U.S. law firms under the Trump administration. Applicants last year were required to explain "the role of public interest work in addressing systemic racism" and asked, "to the extent your project relates to racial justice, please describe the intended impact of your project on racial equity in our country." That essay question is absent in updated application materials for the two-year fellowship, which funds law graduates to work at non-profit organizations, according to a Reuters review of the current applications and archived versions from one year ago. The foundation also removed language encouraging applications from lawyers "who are members of groups that historically have been underrepresented in the legal profession," and who have "deep connections with or insights into the marginalized client communities they seek to serve," a comparison showed. Spokespeople for the Skadden Foundation and the law firm did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The foundation's former executive director Kathleen Rubenstein resigned last week, telling Reuters that she was leaving "rather than endorse actions that I believe will undermine its mission." She did not elaborate and had no immediate comment on Friday on the updated application. Susan Plum, who took over as interim executive director of the foundation, said in a statement last week that "maintaining a broad, nonpartisan approach in an increasingly polarized climate is more difficult than ever and some believe it runs counter to the foundation's purpose and values. We fundamentally disagree." Plum did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. Skadden, a 1,700 lawyer firm based in New York, made a deal in March with President Donald Trump to devote $100 million in free legal work to causes supported by the White House and committed to what Trump called merit-based employment practices. That agreement, one of nine made by prominent firms after Trump began targeting law firms with executive orders over their past cases and hires, required Skadden to also fund at least five fellowships related to "Assisting Veterans; ensuring fairness in our Justice System; combatting Antisemitism, and other similar types of projects." Skadden had agreed that its fellows would "represent a wide range of political views, including conservative ideals," Trump had said in a March 28 post on his Truth Social platform. The Skadden Foundation's website now includes new language, saying that it prohibits "discrimination against applicants and fellows on any basis prohibited by applicable law." It adds now that applicants should work at a "strong, nonpartisan host organization." Skadden's deal with Trump also resolved an inquiry launched by the acting chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which in March had warned Skadden and 19 other major law firms that their employment policies, meant to boost diversity, equity and inclusion, may be illegal. Other law firms and major U.S. companies have dropped or considered altering their DEI policies after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 2023 ruling curtailing affirmative action. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January cracking down on such programs in the federal government and in the private sector.
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
Kilmar Ábrego García pleads not guilty to human smuggling charges
Kilmar Ábrego García, the man returned to the US last week after being wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, pleaded not guilty on Friday to criminal charges of taking part in a conspiracy to smuggle migrants into the United States. The Maryland man, 29, entered the plea at a hearing before US magistrate judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville, Tennessee. At the hearing, Ábrego García was also expected to contest a bid by federal prosecutors to have him detained pending trial. The Trump administration initially removed him, alongside more than 200 Venezuelans held as undocumented in the US, without any due process. He was flown to a notorious prison for suspected gangsters and terrorists in El Salvador, where Salvadorian men can disappear indefinitely, now followed by people rounded up from the US by the Trump administration. Ábrego García was later moved to another prison there, as US campaigners battled to get him back and have him afforded due process. Despite admitting in court that it had wrongly removed him against a court's order for protection against deportation to El Salvador, specifically, the Trump administration refused to facilitate his return to the US for a fair legal process. This comes in face of judicial objections all the way up to the US supreme court that precipitated a significant constitutional battle between the executive and judicial co-equal branches of government. Before Ábrego García's indictment was unsealed on 5 June, officials alleged he was a member of the MS-13 gang and said they would not bring him back. The justice department's decision to return him to the US to face criminal charges is a potential off-ramp for Trump's administration from its escalating confrontation with the judiciary over the case. The Republican president's critics say his swift removal without a hearing showed the administration prioritized increased deportations over due process as part of its growing anti-immigration crackdown. The criminal proceeding will provide Ábrego García with due process by giving him the right to contest the charges contained in a grand jury indictment returned in secret on 21 was charged with working with at least five co-conspirators as part of a smuggling ring to bring immigrants to the United States illegally, then transport them from the US-Mexico border to destinations across the country. He is also accused of transporting firearms and drugs. Reuters contributed reporting
