Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Business topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves routine items and discusses joining insulin price litigation
Summary
Trustees approved minutes, the meeting agenda, consent items and fund balance designations by voice vote; they also discussed a draft resolution to join nationwide insulin pricing litigation handled by Grant Law Group/TrueLaw and noted a proposed contingency fee of 30% with the option to withdraw before any financial settlement.
The board handled routine governance items and debated a staff recommendation to consider joining nationwide insulin-price litigation.
Procedural votes: the board approved the Aug. 25, 2024 meeting minutes and the meeting agenda by voice vote, accepted consent items and certified MASA delegates for the upcoming leadership conference. Trustees also approved fund balance designations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, as recommended by the finance committee; the motion passed by voice vote and no roll-call tally was read aloud.
Insulin litigation discussion: the board reviewed meeting materials describing nationwide litigation alleging that insulin manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers and others artificially inflated prices. Meeting materials named companies including Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi and noted that public- and employer-sponsored plans that provide health insurance may be eligible to join. The district received a draft resolution from TrueLaw and was contacted by Grants Law Group, which is representing entities in the litigation.
Trustees asked procedural questions about costs and exposure. Staff told the board that joining would not require the district to testify in original complaints and that the board could withdraw before any financial settlement without paying fees; the contingency arrangement described in the materials was 30% of recovery. One trustee asked about the district—s expected share of any recovery and staff said project-level estimates were not provided in the packet.
The board did not vote to join the litigation at this meeting; the matter remained a discussion item with staff directed to provide additional details and the draft contract/engagement documents for follow-up review.
