Category: Blog

California Gov. Jerry Brown defied the drug industry Monday by signing a sweeping drug price transparency bill that will force drugmakers to publicly justify big price hikes.

“Californians have a right to know why their medical costs are out of control, especially when pharmaceutical profits are soaring,” Brown said. “This measure is a step at bringing transparency, truth, exposure to a very important part of our lives. That is the cost of prescription drugs.”

The new law will require drug companies to give 60 days’ notice to state agencies and health insurers anytime they plan to raise the price of a drug by 16 percent or more over two years on drugs with a wholesale cost of $40 or higher. They must also explain why the increases are necessary.

The advance notification provisions take effect Jan. 1, while the other reporting requirements don’t kick in until 2019.

This story is part of a partnership that includes KQED, NPR and Kaiser Health News. It can be republished for free. (details)

Brown said the bill is part of a larger effort to correct growing income inequality in the United States.

He called on top pharmaceutical leaders to consider doing business in a way that helps Americans who are spending large sums of money for lifesaving medications.

“The rich are getting richer. The powerful are getting more powerful,” he said. “We’ve got to point to the evils, and there’s a real evil when so many people are suffering so much from rising drug profits.”

The drug lobby fiercely opposed the bill, SB 17, spending $16.8 million on lobbying from January 2015 through the first half of this year to kill an array of drug legislation in California, according to data from the secretary of state’s office. For the pricing bill alone, the industry hired 45 lobbyists or firms to fight it.

The bill drew support from a diverse coalition, including labor and consumer groups, the hospital industry and even health insurers, who agreed to share some of their own data. Under the new law, they will have to report what percentage of premium increases is related to drug prices.

“Health coverage premiums directly reflect the cost of providing medical care, and prescription drug prices have become one of the main factors driving up these costs,” said Charles Bacchi, CEO of the California Association of Health Plans. “SB 17 will help us understand why, so we can prepare for and address the unrelenting price increases.”

Drug companies criticized the governor’s move, saying the new law focuses too narrowly on one part of the drug distribution chain — and ultimately won’t help consumers afford their medicine.

“There is no evidence that SB 17 will lower drug costs for patients because it does not shed light on the large rebates and discounts insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers are receiving that are not always being passed on to patients,” said Priscilla VanderVeer, spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Indeed, some experts have said transparency alone is not enough to bring down drug prices, and that California’s law may lack the muscle being applied in other states to directly hold drug prices down.

This year, at least two states have passed laws that may have a more immediate effect on consumer costs than the California measure. Maryland and New York, for example, adopted bills that use a variety of legal levers to impose financial penalties or require discounts if prices are too high.

But other policy experts argue that California’s law is part of a broader campaign to adopt stronger drug price measures across the country. So it makes sense to start with the source of the drug prices: the drugmakers themselves, said Gerard Anderson, a health policy professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who tracks drug legislation in the states.

“The manufacturers get most of the money — probably about three-quarters or more of the money that you pay for a drug, and they’re the ones that set the price initially,” he said. “So they are not the only piece of the drug supply chain, but they are the key piece to this.”

California Healthline Sacramento correspondent Pauline Bartolone contributed to this report. 

This story is part of a partnership that includes KQED, NPR and Kaiser Health News.

KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Categories: Cost and Quality, Health Industry, Pharmaceuticals

Tags: Drug Costs, Legislation, Prescription Drugs

Go to Source

After more than a decade of planning and work, the Wharf, the waterfront mega-development in Southwest DC, will finally open October 12. The sprawling collection of apartments, restaurants, hotels, shops, offices, and music venues is essentially a whole new neighborhood. So far, developers have spent in excess of $1.2 billion—it won’t be entirely finished until at least 2021—and initial offerings include restaurants from the likes of Fabio Trabocchi and Mike Isabella, outposts of Shake Shack and Dolcezza Gelato, and a new Politics and Prose bookstore. Here’s some of what it took to launch the place.

1

Lawsuit

The developers are revamping the site’s historic Maine Avenue Fish Market, which will be incorporated into the Wharf complex. But in a two-years-and-counting federal court battle, the White family—which operates about half of the market’s seafood stalls—has accused the development firm Hoffman-Madison of trying to force them out. The developer has countersued, claiming that the Whites don’t have valid leases, among other arguments. Though the litigation slogs on, the renovated market is set to open this spring.

4

Acts of Congress

Before shovel could hit dirt, the federal government had to vote to overcome a series of bureaucratic obstacles, including authorization of the property’s sale to a private developer. The Wharf also necessitated seven DC Council votes and more than 800 meetings with Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and other community groups.

22

Architecture Firms

The project’s master planner, Perkins Eastman, worked alongside a wide variety of collaborators with different aesthetic visions to spearhead this first wave of buildings and green spaces. The idea is to make it feel authentic and organic rather than contrived and overly uniform.

871

Apartments and Condos

With four buildings offering a variety of living spaces to rent or buy, the Wharf will instantly import a significant population to the previously desolate waterfront area. The most buzzed-about residence is the Channel, which offers bocce courts and a dog run, among other enticements. Its glass-bottomed infinity pool looks down into the lobby of the Anthem, a music venue in the building’s lower level.

3,000,000

Dollars Spent on Soundproofing

That’s right, there’s a major rock performance space right under a high-end apartment building. No matter how much the Channel residents may love Foo Fighters—who are playing on opening night—nobody wants to deal with wall-shaking noise in a $5,025-a-month flat. Developers didn’t hold back when it came to muffling the din.

This article appears in the October 2017 issue of Washingtonian.

Senior Editor

Marisa M. Kashino joined Washingtonian in 2009 as a staff writer, and became a senior editor in 2014. She was previously a reporter for Legal Times and the National Law Journal. She lives in Northeast DC with her husband, two dogs, and two cats.

Go to Source

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Monday expressed displeasure with the Punjab chief secretary for not submitting record of public sector companies and status of their heads working in the province.

Earlier, Chief Secretary Zahid Saeed appeared before the court and stated that the public sector companies did not fall in his domain. He also sought time to submit his written reply to the court’s queries.

At this, Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi observed how powerful the chief secretary was that he could not control secretaries of the government departments subordinate to him.

The judge further said the court had no personal interest to summon the chief secretary but compelled to summon since the advocate general office failed to submit the required record.

Challenging the jurisdiction of the high court, Additional Advocate General Shan Gull argued that details of the public sector companies and their heads could not be sought as protected under Article 212 of the Constitution.

This irked the judge further, who observed with regret that the law officers instead of complying with the order had been complaining to the chief justice against the court. However, AAG Gull expressed ignorance about the matter pointed out by the judge and sought two-week time to submit the details required by the court.

The law officer also asked the court to decide an application of the government challenging the maintainability of the petition filed by a lawyer.

Justice Naqvi observed that the court first wanted to know as to why the government was reluctant to submit details of the companies.

He said there was a beyond reason inconsistency between the salaries of the same grade officer working in the public sector companies and government departments.

The judge noted that there had been a tradition of establishing companies and burning their record in fire incidents.

“The court will protect taxpayers’ money at any cost,” the judge said.

The judge adjourned hearing till Oct 18 and directed the government to submit the details of the companies, their chief executive officers and salaries/perks being drawn by them.

A female lawyer had filed a petition challenging alleged corruption in Punjab Saaf Pani Company and the process for the appointment of manager (legal). The court had broadened the scope of the case by summoning details of all public sector companies working in the province.

Published in Dawn, October 10th, 2017

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Oct. 9, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla” or the “Company”) 
                                    TSLA, -3.91%
                                           Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Tesla and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. 

[Click here to join a class action]
On October 2, 2017, in a press release detailing the Company’s vehicle production and deliveries for the third quarter of 2017, Tesla cited “production bottlenecks” as the reason for its failure to meet its production goals for its Model 3 sedan.  On October 6, 2017, post-market, the Wall Street Journal published an article reporting, in part, that “[u]nknown to analysts, investors and the hundreds of thousands of customers who signed up to buy it, as recently as early September major portions of the Model 3 were still being banged out by hand, away from the automated production line, according to people familiar with the matter.”  

Following this news, Tesla’s share price has fallen as much as $10.75, or 3.01%, during intraday trading on October 9, 2017, the following trading day.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

        CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby  
Pomerantz LLP   
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-pomerantz-law-firm-investigates-claims-on-behalf-of-investors-of-tesla-inc—tsla-300533365.html
SOURCE  Pomerantz LLP

Copyright (C) 2017 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

Go to Source

							

Go to Source

Go to Source

NEW YORK, Oct. 09, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Pursuant to Court Order, Pomerantz LLP hereby advises investors of the filing of class action lawsuits against Arconic Inc. (“Arconic” or the “Company”) (NYSE:ARNC) (NYSE:ARNC-PB), certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors, and underwriters of certain of the Company’s securities (collectively, “Defendants”).  On August 11, 2017, a class action was filed in United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, under style of Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., and docketed under 2:17-cv-01057, on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic common or preferred stock between November 4, 2013 and June 26, 2017, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).  On September 15, 2017, a class action was filed in United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, under style of Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., and docketed under 2:17-cv-01213, on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic Depositary Shares, each representing a 1/10 interest in a share of 5.375% Class B Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock, Series 1, par value $1, liquidation preference $500 per share (“Class B Preferred Shares”), pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Arconic’s September 18, 2014 initial public stock offering (“IPO”), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  Both of the foregoing actions are pending before United States District Judge Mark R. Hornak. 

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic common or preferred stock during the Class Period and/or purchased or otherwise acquired Arconic Class B Preferred Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the September 18, 2014 IPO, you have until December 8, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  To discuss these actions, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Arconic Inc. is a global provider of lightweight multi-material solutions, focused on the aerospace market in addition to serving the automotive, industrial gas turbine, commercial transportation, and building and construction markets. The Company also provides titanium, aluminum, nickel-based alloy, and specialty alloy solutions.  Arconic was established as a result of a spin-off of the mining and raw aluminum manufacturing operations of Alcoa, Inc. on November 1, 2016.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Arconic knowingly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond PE (polyethylene) cladding panels for use in construction; (ii) the foregoing conduct significantly increased the risk of property damage, injury and/or death in buildings constructed with Arconic’s Reynobond PE panels; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Arconic’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  

On June 14, 2017, a fire broke out at the 24-story Grenfell Tower apartment block in London.  The fire burned for roughly 60 hours, destroying the building and causing at least 80 deaths and over 70 injuries.

On June 24, 2017, The New York Times published an article entitled “Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety”, describing the causes of the Grenfell Tower fire and attributing the rapid spread of the fire to highly flammable Reynobond PE cladding panels manufactured by Arconic and used in the building’s construction.

On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled “Arconic knowingly supplied flammable panels for use in tower: emails,” revealing that Arconic sales managers were aware that flammable panels would be distributed for use at Grenfell Tower.

On June 26, 2017, Arconic issued a press release announcing it would discontinue global sales of Reynobond PE for use in high-rise buildings after the material was suspected to have contributed to the spread of the deadly fire at the Grenfell Tower apartment complex in London.

On these disclosures, Arconic securities have fallen sharply in value, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com

/EIN News/ — CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby

Pomerantz LLP

rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

Go to Source

Go to Source

The Nigerian Senate is set to invite and investigate over 40 oil firms fingered in the NNPC $25bn contract scandal currently rocking the top oil corporation.

In addition to this, a Senate adhoc committee has been set up to investigate the allegations brought to the fore by the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, Ibe Kachikwu, against the Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Maikanti Baru.

Kachikwu in a leaked memo to President Muhammadu Buhari had alleged that against the rules, Baru awarded major contracts worth $25 bn without reviewing or discussing them with him or the NNPC board.

“The legal and procedural requirements are that all contracts above $20m would need to be reviewed and approved by the board of NNPC. Mr. President, in over one year of Mr Baru’s tenure, no contract has been run through the board.

‘‘As in many cases of things that happen in NNPC these days, I learn of transactions only through publications in the media,’’ Kachikwu wrote.

It was gathered that the Senate, which had earlier stated that it would probe the allegations, decided to invite over 40 companies which received the following contracts: Crude Term contracts — valued over $10bn; the Direct Sale of Crude Oil and Direct Purchase of Petroleum Product (DSDP contract) valued over $5bn; the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano gas pipeline contract valued at $3bn; allocation of funding contracts of national oil companies valued over $3bn and NPDC production service contracts valued between $3bn and $4bn.

A Punch source said, in one of such instances, Baru was accused of making appointments into the NNPC without the approval of the board.

The director said during the 124th session of the NNPC Board meeting, Baru was allegedly criticised for appointing the Managing Director of NNPC Retail without informing the board. Members of the board complained that they learnt of the appointment in the media.

He said, “Kachikwu, pleaded with the board that the appointment of the MD of NNPC Retail Limited without recourse to the board should be treated as part of a learning curve and stated that going forward, management should present to the board a number of candidates that should be considered for such appointments for board evaluation before making appointments.”

The director also claimed that Baru was criticised at a separate meeting for attempting to submit the budget of the NNPC directly to Buhari without the input of Kachikwu or the board. He also re-echoed the complaints in Kachikwu’s leaked memo that Baru had been approving contracts through the NNPC Tenders Board and taking documents directly to Buhari under the pretext that Buhari is the substantive minister of petroleum.

The NNPC director further told one of our correspondents that NNPC and Schlumberger in June signed a tripartite agreement for the development of the Anyala and Madu fields under oil mining leases OMLs 83 and 85, offshore Bayelsa State worth over $700m.

He said it was not until Schlumberger released a statement to the media that the board heard about the contract

According to him, following Baru’s alleged circumvention of the board in the award of contracts, the Finance and General Purpose Committee of the NNPC board and the NNPC management sought legal opinion from external experts.

“Since the National Council on Public Procurement had not been appointed by the President, the Bureau of Public Procurement’s manual regarding the composition of the NNPC Tenders Board is merely advisory and not law.”

“In essence, the NNPC board, as the apex authority, with its fiduciary relationship with the corporation and the onerous liability exposure that it has, is not prohibited from approving contracts by the Public Procurement Act,” he added.

Olujide

Media strategist •Good citizen of Nigeria and Social Media Evangelist