Drug companies to pay Hawaii $700 million to settle Plavix blood thinner lawsuit
A court ruling last year ordered Bristol Myers Squibb Company and three U.S.-based subsidiaries of French pharmaceutical company Sanofi to pay a combined $916 million.
But before an appeal was decided, a settlement was reached for the lower amount, the attorney general's office said.
In a joint statement, the companies said they 'are pleased to resolve this litigation, and to continue their companies' focus on discovering, developing, and delivering innovative medicines to patients.'
'Plavix has helped millions of people with cardiovascular disease around the world for nearly 30 years and it continues to be endorsed as a first-line therapy by leading treatment guidelines across the globe,' the statement added.
First Circuit Court Judge James Ashford found that there was a risk that about 30% of patients, particularly non-Caucasians, might have a 'diminished response' to Plavix but the companies did not update their labels, Attorney General Anne Lopez said last year.
Neither company has admitted wrongdoing.
Gov. Josh Green called it a 'landmark settlement' and a 'major victory' for the state.
The settlement divides the $700 million equally between Bristol Myers Squibb and Sanofi, with the funds to be paid by wire transfer by June 9, the attorney general's office said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
43 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
South Korea's Lee must navigate the ‘Trump risk' at key summits in Japan and US
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung faces a pivotal foreign policy test barely two months after taking office, with back-to-back summits in Tokyo and Washington that reflect the wider struggle of U.S. allies to navigate Donald Trump's unilateral push to redefine postwar orders on trade, security and alliances. The meetings come after Seoul and Tokyo reached trade deals with Washington that spared them from the Trump administration's highest tariffs, but only after pledging hundreds of billions of dollars in new U.S. investments. Trump's transactional approach with long-standing allies extends beyond trade to security and has fueled fears in South Korea that he will demand higher payments to support the U.S. troop presence in the country, even as he possibly seeks to scale back America's military footprint there to focus on China. The looming concerns about a U.S. retreat in leadership and security commitments come as South Korea and Japan confront growing cooperation between their nuclear-armed adversaries, North Korea and Russia, partners in the war in Ukraine and in efforts to break isolation and evade sanctions. Here is what is at stake for the Asian allies of the U.S. as they deal with an America-first president who's more unyielding than his predecessors: Asian allies pulled closer by Trump A day after confirming his Aug. 25 summit with Trump, Lee's office announced he will visit Japan on Aug. 23-24 to meet Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, a rare diplomatic setup that underscores how Trump is drawing closer two often-feuding neighbors with deep-rooted historical grievances. The meeting on Saturday in Tokyo of Lee and Ishiba — who last met on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit in June — is largely about projecting leverage as the countries seek to coordinate their response to Trump, said Choi Eunmi, an analyst at South Korea's Asan Institute for Policy Studies. 'There is now the Trump risk,' Choi said. 'There's especially a lot of uncertainty in the business sector, so they might discuss ways to ease that uncertainty … not necessarily in joint efforts to confront Trump, but within the framework of trilateral cooperation.' Yukiko Fukagawa, a professor at Japan's Waseda University, said Lee's visit to Tokyo will also be seen positively in Washington, long frustrated by its Asian allies' persistent disputes over Japan's colonial rule of Korea before the end of World War II, and the way these tensions hindered three-way security collaborations. 'Because they have to deal with increasingly challenging mutual counterparts, such as China and America, both Japan and South Korea are under pressure to set aside minor differences to cooperate on larger objectives,' Fukagawa said. Yoshimasa Hayash, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, said Lee's visit will help promote the 'stable development' of bilateral ties as their countries work together on international challenges by utilizing the 'shuttle diplomacy" of regular summits. Lee and Ishiba could discuss restarting long-stalled free trade talks and South Korea's potential entry into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, a 12-member Asia-Pacific trade pact that Ishiba has pushed to expand amid tensions over U.S. tariffs. Ishiba, who has met Trump twice in person — at the White House in February and at the G7 in Canada — could also offer Lee tips ahead of his summit in Washington. Seoul and Tokyo clearly share many crucial interests in the face of Trump's efforts to reset global trade and U.S. security commitments. They are both under pressure from Washington to pay more for the tens of thousands of American troops stationed in their countries and also to increase their own defense spending. Their vital automobile and technology industries are vulnerable to Trump's tariff hikes. They navigate a tricky balance between the U.S. and its main rival, China, a growing regional threat that is also the largest trade partner for Seoul and Tokyo. They are alarmed by North Korea's accelerating nuclear program and its deepening alignment with Russia, which could complicate future diplomatic efforts after a long stalemate in U.S.-led denuclearization talks. It makes more sense for South Korea and Japan to work with the Trump administration under a trilateral framework rather than engage Washington separately, especially given how Trump mixes security and economic demands, said Ban Kil-joo, a professor at South Korea's National Diplomatic Academy. For example, the countries could propose a trilateral scheme to support Trump's push to expand natural gas and other energy production in Alaska, rather than negotiating potential investments bilaterally, he said. 'Beyond the drilling project itself, they would need to address security, including protecting maritime routes for the LNG shipments, and that responsibility could count toward defense cost-sharing or higher defense spending,' which Trump demands, Ban said. Modernizing the military alliance Lee's meeting with Trump could include talks to flesh out the details of South Korea's $350 million investment fund for U.S. industries, centered on cooperation in shipbuilding, a sector Trump has highlighted in relation to South Korea. A more crucial topic for the leaders could be the future of their decades-long military alliance, a legacy of the brutal 1950-53 Korean War. The U.S., which keeps about 30,000 troops in South Korea to deter North Korea, has long urged Seoul to accept greater flexibility to use them for missions beyond the Korean Peninsula – a demand that has intensified under Trump. Comments by senior U.S. government and military officials suggest that, in addition to pressing South Korea to pay more for hosting American forces, the Trump administration could seek to reshape U.S. Forces Korea as part of a broader military focus on ensuring capability to respond to a conflict with China over Taiwan. That shift would mean conventionally armed South Korea taking on more of the burden against the North, while the U.S. turns its focus to China. This could affect the size and role of U.S. Forces Korea, leaving Seoul with fewer benefits but higher costs and risks at a time when the North Korean nuclear threat is growing, experts say. South Korean lawmakers have also expressed fears that Washington could ask for Seoul's commitment to intervene if a conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, a tricky prospect given South Korea's reliance on China for trade and Beijing's role in dealing with North Korea. South Korea should enter the Trump summit with a clear stance on its role in regional security, Ban said, possibly supporting U.S. efforts to maintain Indo-Pacific stability and opposing changes to the status quo, but without explicitly naming China as an adversary. While potentially accepting a more flexible role for U.S. Forces Korea, South Korea should also seek U.S. commitments to ensure deterrence and readiness against North Korea aren't compromised. American troop deployments off the peninsula could be offset by increased airpower or the arrival of strategic assets like bombers, helping prevent any miscalculation by the North, Ban said. AP writer Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo contributed.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The dilemma behind every California winery sale
When a California winery or vineyard changes hands, the new owner must confront a crucial question: to rename or not to rename? The prospect of renaming often entices. If the existing moniker is someone else's family name, you might want to replace it with your own. The recently purchased William Harrison in Napa Valley will soon become William Perry. The Carmel Valley vineyard originally known as Durney became Heller and then Massa; though the identity of its latest owner has not been publicly revealed, I'd bet it will get a new name yet. But renaming also comes with risks, principally the uncertain outcome of building a new brand from scratch. It can feel like a shame — and could alienate some fans — to erase a name that has some history behind it. Santa Cruz Mountain Vineyard winemaker Jeff Emery said that one local vineyard has changed names five times in the decades he's been buying its fruit. He disapproves: 'That's why you don't name a vineyard after yourself,' Emery said. 'No legacy.' At Healdsburg's Michel-Schlumberger Wine Estate, the subject of a story I published Wednesday, a new team is attempting to have it both ways. They'll retain the Michel-Schlumberger label, which has been around since the early '90s, while also introducing both a lower-end tier (Jean Jacques) and a higher-end one (name not yet disclosed). It's a delicate feat to try to pull off. The Michel-Schlumberger name has some recognition — and 46 years behind it — but isn't as strong as it once was, after the previous owner abandoned an estate-grown model. The team doesn't want to leave behind Michel-Schlumberger entirely, which I suspect will prove prudent, giving it the sense of having some roots. At the same time, a new, upscale label will be free of any historical baggage (but good luck finding a name that isn't taken already). This won't be the first name change at the Dry Creek Valley winery. Originally it was Domaine Michel, until subsequent owner Jacques Schlumberger bought tacked on his own name to his predecessor's. For a while, the winery also sold a higher-priced Cabernet Sauvignon label called Deux Terres, later discontinued. Arguably the most resonant rebrand in California wine's contemporary files is the change from Araujo Estate Wines to Eisele Vineyard in 2016. Maybe it worked so well because it wasn't really a rebrand at all: The Calistoga property had been known as the Eisele Vineyard since 1969, and the Araujo family had established an eponymous winery there in 1990. After French billionaire François-Henri Pinault acquired it, he extended the Eisele name not only to the vineyard but to the winery too. Given the sterling reputation that the Araujo wines had garnered, it might have looked tempting to keep that name on the labels. But to anyone who knew even the most cursory background on the site — and the fact that the Eisele name predated the Araujo name — Eisele made perfect sense. Sometimes, a rename doesn't stick. When Napa Valley's Clif Lede Vineyards bought Anderson Valley's Breggo Cellars, it rechristened it as Fel Wines; last year, the Breggo founder bought back the brand and revived the name. (Disclosure: My best friend worked for Fel.) The most famous example of a naming reversal, however, would have to be Inglenook. In the '70s, you would have been a fool to want to rebrand Inglenook, one of Napa Valley's earliest, most important and most famous wineries. But Francis Ford Coppola's purchase of part of the historic Rutherford estate in 1975 did not come with the Inglenook trademark. While the mark got traded around among several corporate entities including Constellation and the Wine Group, Coppola dubbed it Niebaum-Coppola, combining his own name with the original founder's. He later renamed it Rubicon Estate. Finally, in 2011, he purchased the trademark and restored it as Inglenook once again. Coppola did not apply the same reverence for historical nomenclature, however, when he bought the historic Chateau Souverain in Geyserville in 2005. He renamed that one Francis Ford Coppola Winery.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Westaim: Q2 Earnings Snapshot
TORONTO (AP) — TORONTO (AP) — Westaim Corp. (WEDXF) on Thursday reported a loss of $233,000 in its second quarter. The Toronto-based company said it had a loss of 1 cent per share. The investment company posted revenue of $10.5 million in the period. _____ This story was generated by Automated Insights ( using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on WEDXF at
