Idaho joined a drug price settlement. Find out if you qualify for compensation.
Idahoans should see if they're eligible for compensation as part of a proposed settlement over an alleged conspiracy to inflate generic drug prices and limit competition, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said.
Idaho is among 50 states and U.S. territories that are seeking preliminary approval for the $39.1 million settlement with drug manufacturer Apotex in federal court in Connecticut, the Idaho Office of the Attorney General announced in a news release. A coalition of states last fall also announced a $10 million settlement with Heritage Pharmaceuticals.
'When companies conspire to fix prices, real people pay the price — especially Idaho families who rely on affordable prescription drugs,' Labrador said in a prepared statement. 'I encourage every Idahoan who purchased generic medications during the covered period to review their eligibility and seek compensation if you qualify. Our office will continue to defend the integrity of the market and ensure Idahoans are protected from corporate misconduct.'
People who purchased generic prescription drugs between May 2009 and December 2019 may be eligible for compensation in the settlement, the Idaho Attorney General's Office said.
Here's how to find out if you're eligible:
Visit www.AGGenericDrugs.com, which lists generic drugs involved in the settlements
Email info@AGGenericDrugs.com
Call 1-866-290-0182, a toll free number
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Gen Z and millennials can't afford friendships, new study says: ‘It's in your best interest to become an introvert'
Buddy fees are taking a toll on Gen Zs. Having chums comes at a high cost for frugal 20-somethings, and their millennial counterparts, who can ill afford splurging on social outings, but would rather spend the dough than face loneliness and FOMO — the fear of missing out — according to new jaw-dropping data. 'While three out of five young adults admit social spending affects their financial goals, 69% still prioritize in-person connection with friends at least weekly,' revealed researchers of 'The Friendship Tab' survey, commissioned by Ally Financial, an all-digital bank. Advertisement 5 Gen Zers and millennials are spending beyond their means in an attempt to maintain meaningful relationships and avoid chronic loneliness. Getty Images/iStockphoto The money mavens polled 1,000 Zoomers and millennials ranging in age from 18 to 44, and dissected their spending habits to better understand 'the financial consequences of friendship.' To eye-popping surprise, people spend around $250 every month on activities with friends, per the findings, which also noted that men and women typically shell out a staggering $1,775 and $1,250, respectively, on fun in a six-month time period. Advertisement It's a scourge of our time. 5 Youngish adults polled in the survey admitted to grappling with anxiety around losing friendships due to money woes. Mirko Vitali – For young adults today — an era plagued by tariffs, inflation and $20 cocktails — blowing one's budget in order to maintain meaningful connections is basically a damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrum. Investigators for Ally found that 42% of study respondents routinely 'overspend' on buddy-activities, such as bar hopping and birthday bashes, throughout a year. Advertisement But they're expenses some fear they can't, emotionally, afford to skip. 5 Gen Z men make up the demographic that's most acutely impacted by the alone virus. ViDi Studio – A shocking 20% of Gen Zers and millennials claim financial or lifestyle differences contributed to the falling out of a friendship. More alarmingly, approximately 24% report feeling anxious about financial differences with their comrades, and 22% report often having anxiety when they're not sure they can afford a group activity. Advertisement The analysts also determined that 17% of youngsters often feel compelled to lie about their means, while nearly 25% blame the troubled economy for making it hard to hang out with their homies. Still, generations Y2K and Z are willing to pay to play. 5 Adults on social media have confessed to overspending in order to enjoy lavish social lives. Jose Calsina – And although those recurring indulgences — nights on the town and splashy celebrations — postpone financial milestones, like paying off student debt or buying a home, roughly 25% of participants admit they'd rather be fundless than friendless. It's a high-rolling effort toward avoiding the pangs of loneliness, also known as the 'alone virus,' which the World Health Organization (WHO) has deemed a 'pressing health threat' on par with smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Gen Z and millennial men in the US were recently identified as some of the most lonely demographics in the world, according to a Gallup poll. The results determined that one in four American men under 35 feels more isolated than their peers in other countries — including France, Canada, Ireland and Spain. So, to sidestep severe solitude, guys (and gals) are dipping deep into their savings. Advertisement Maria Stevens, a content creator and self-crowned 'chronic over-sharer,' made light of the friends vs. finances quandary online. 'Realizing having adult friends is extremely expensive, and it's in your best interest to become an introvert,' the distressed brunette joked in the closed captions of a TikTok clip, which features her rocking back and forth in anguish. But Jack Howard, head of Money Wellness at Ally, assures that the internal battle between breaking the bank or missing out on social events doesn't have to be so traumatic. Advertisement 'FOMO is real and can lead to overspending that harms our financial well-being,' Howard said in a statement. Rather than making fear-based sacrifices, he suggests being honest about your limitations. 5 Howard says coming clean to friends about your finances may be advantageous. Getty Images/iStockphoto 'Be open with your friends if you can't swing that brunch or birthday trip,' encouraged Howard. 'You might be surprised to learn they're in the same boat.' Advertisement 'Discussing money openly with friends can help dismantle the shame around financial struggles,' he added, 'and is a great way to explore affordable ways to spend time together.' 'Plus, the ultimate BFF is someone who respects your relationship with money.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Ex-Kroger CEO ordered by judge to reveal ‘embarrassing' details in lawsuit involving singer Jewel
A Cincinnati judge has ordered former Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen to provide a written account of why he abruptly left the grocery giant in March — potentially exposing details the executive's attorneys have called 'completely irrelevant' and 'embarrassing' in a lawsuit that involves singer Jewel. The circumstances surrounding 65-year-old McMullen's surprise resignation have become a point of interest in a lawsuit unrelated to his exit. Jewel — the songstress known for 90s hits like 'Foolish Games' and 'Hands' — has together with a business partner sued Kroger over the company's annual Wellness Festival, claiming they were central to launching the event and are owed damages over alleged contractual problems. 4 Former Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen (seen far left) has been ordered to reveal details of his exit from the company as part of an unrelated lawsuit brought by singer Jewel (seen second from left). Getty Images for The Wellness Experience by Kroger Their lawyers argued that delving into details of McMullen's resignation could be relevant to his credibility if he appears as a witness and could inform the court's view of what they describe as an 'allegedly corrupt corporate culture at Kroger.' McMullen's legal team pushed back, calling the questions 'completely irrelevant' and 'embarrassing,' but the judge ordered him to answer in writing. The Aug. 1 directive from Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Christian Jenkins required McMullen to submit a sworn explanation by Aug. 8 that details the reason for his exit and identifies others involved, according to the court's order. It wasn't immediately clear whether McMullan had complied with the order. The Post has reached out to McMullen's lawyers for comment. Whether any written account from McMullen becomes public will depend on a later ruling about its relevance to the case. The judge can keep it under seal if he decides it matters to the lawsuit, or exclude it entirely if it does not. McMullen stepped down after more than a decade leading the Cincinnati-based grocery company, following what Kroger described as an investigation into his 'personal conduct.' 4 Rodney McMullen, former Kroger CEO, has been ordered to explain the reasons behind his sudden resignation. Bloomberg via Getty Images The company did not elaborate at the time. As part of his departure, McMullen forfeited all unvested equity and bonuses — $11 million in total, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. McMullen earned $15.7 million in 2023. 'Usually a CEO has downside protection if they leave,' Eric Chaffee, a corporate law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told Fortune. 4 Jewel performed on stage in Cincinnati in 2021. Jewel and a business partner have sued Kroger over the company's annual Wellness Festival. Getty Images for The Wellness Experience by Kroger 'The fact that he was willing to give that up may provide some insight that what went on here was something he did not want revealed.' Chaffee told Fortune it is 'somewhat invasive' to probe a CEO's departure, but noted that Kroger itself linked the resignation to 'business ethics,' which can make the line of inquiry easier to justify. In civil litigation, he added, attorneys commonly try to 'test that individual's credibility… to figure out whether they behave in an ethical manner.' 4 Jewel shares the stage with then-Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen at the company's wellness festival in Cincinnati in 2021. Getty Images for The Wellness Experience by Kroger Chaffee pointed out that US courts strongly favor openness. There is, he said, a 'strong preference that the public has access to judicial proceedings — not just to be nosy, but because transparency makes for a fairer legal system.' The judge will ultimately decide how much of McMullen's account the public can see, if any. Kroger's sparse explanation left room for speculation when McMullen resigned, and the new order renews interest in what the company and its former leader have chosen not to disclose. 'There's a cloud that's left by his departure,' Chaffee told Fortune, 'but companies sometimes decide that's better than the damage that could come from disclosure.' For McMullen, silence may also be a rational choice. 'It might be something embarrassing to him personally, to a family member, or something that could have future repercussions for his career,' Chaffee told Fortune. Executive careers can hinge on public perception, and 'if you're a CEO and there are news reports out there that you've done something you shouldn't have, getting another top job can become very, very difficult,' he said. The Post has sought comment from Kroger, McMullen and Jewel.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
These Billionaires Pledged To Give Away Their Wealth. Instead, Most Are Getting Wealthier
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Giving Pledge just turned 15. Bill Gates, Melinda French, and Warren Buffett founded the Pledge in August 2010 to boost charitable giving among billionaires. Pledgers agree to give away half or more of their wealth within their lifetimes, or upon their deaths. The effort was inspired by Duty Free Shoppers founder Chuck Feeney, the reluctant billionaire who advocated "giving while living." Feeney gave away over $8 billion before he died, relinquishing his billionaire status to live a more modest life. "[Feeney] told me we should encourage people not to give just 50 percent," Gates recounted, "but as much as possible during their lifetime." The Giving Pledge is the largest and most visible public commitment that billionaires have made to distribute their vast fortunes. Over 256 individuals, couples, and families have signed, including 194 from the United States. U.S. money is pictured. U.S. money is pictured. Getty Images Our tax code's charitable deductions effectively allow billionaires to "opt out" of taxes—ostensibly to give back through charity. In the absence of higher taxes on the wealthy that could fund a stronger social safety net, voluntary commitments like the Giving Pledge are important. But in an era of staggering wealth inequality—and tax avoidance—privately held fortunes are larger than anyone can fathom. And charitable contributions simply aren't keeping up with what could be raised from a fairer tax code. In our new report, The Giving Pledge at 15, we found that the explosive growth of Giving Pledgers' wealth is outpacing their giving. At this rate, the Giving Pledge appears to be mostly an empty promise. Along with our co-authors Helen Flannery and Dan Petegorsky, we analyzed the philanthropic records of the pledgers. Some are bold and direct, like MacKenzie Scott, who's vowed to "keep at it until the safe is empty." Others need to pick up the pace, like John Paul DeJoria, whose foundation has awarded $54 million since its inception eight years ago—a paltry sum compared to his roughly $3 billion fortune. And there are those who seem to cravenly intertwine personal benefit with philanthropy—like Elon Musk, who in 2021 enjoyed some fortuitously timely tax relief from a stock transfer to his foundation. Across nearly every example, there's proof that the Pledge is unfulfilled, unfulfillable, and not our ticket to a fairer, better future. If hundreds of billionaires pledge to give away half their wealth in their lifetimes, we should expect that some would have less wealth than when they took the Pledge. But when adjusted for inflation, the 32 original U.S. pledgers who are still billionaires have collectively gotten 166 percent wealthier since they signed on in 2010. (Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan's wealth has increased an inflation-adjusted 2,919 percent since 2010!) Only one couple in this group, Laura and John Arnold, has fulfilled their commitment, moving billions in their lifetime—mostly to their own foundation. But that raises another issue. By our count, 80 percent of Giving Pledge donations have gone to private foundations—and billions more to other intermediaries. Donors get an immediate tax deduction, but the funds can remain sidelined for generations before they're granted out to real working charities—if ever. Play this out another 15 years and we'll witness the rise of family-controlled dynastic foundations worth trillions. These foundations will wield tremendous power, especially as their windfalls contrast with catastrophic cuts to the social safety net like those in the GOP's Big Beautiful Bill. A select few families will essentially decide how publicly subsidized funds are spent, concentrating power over our politics and civil society and jeopardizing our democracy. At 15, the Giving Pledge must either go big or reconsider its value. One path forward is to encourage a "Feeney Giving Pledge," an augmented commitment for existing pledgers to pay their fair share of taxes, give more while alive, and empower organizations led by non-billionaires to solve the urgent problems of our day. Feeney's example echoed in Bill Gates's May announcement that he would donate 99 percent of his Microsoft stock to his foundation, which he's pledged to wind down and close within 20 years. This voluntary effort would pair nicely with structural reforms. We should tax billionaires at a fair rate. And taxpayer-subsidized foundations and donor-advised funds (DAFs) should be subject to stronger transparency rules—and required to grant out funds to real, working charities more quickly. If billionaires' best intentions can't deliver a fairer economy, then it's up to the rest of us not to count on them. Chuck Collins directs the Program on Inequality at the Institute for Policy Studies. Bella DeVaan is the associate director of the IPS Charity Reform Initiative. They're coauthors of the new IPS report The Giving Pledge at 15. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
