Judge says hell approve opioid settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue and Sackler family

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal bankruptcy court judge said Friday that he will approve OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s latest settlement that will resolve thousands of lawsuits over the quantity of opioids and include some money for thousands of victims of the epidemic.

The deal, overseen by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane, would require members of the Sackler family, which owns the company, to contribute up to $7 billion and give up ownership. The new settlement replaces one that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected last year on the grounds that it would improperly protect family members from future lawsuits. The judge said he would announce his decision at the hearing on Tuesday.

The settlement is among the largest in a series of opioid settlements facing state and local governments. pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesalers And pharmacies this amounted to approximately $50 billion. That could cap a long chapter (and perhaps the entire book) on efforts to hold the company accountable for its role in an opioid crisis that has been linked to 900,000 deaths in the U.S. since 1999, including deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl.

The lawyers and judges involved described it as one of the most complex bankruptcies in U.S. history. Ultimately, attorneys representing Purdue, cities, states, counties, Native American tribes, people with addictions and others voted almost unanimously to have the judge approve the bankruptcy plan for Purdue, which filed for protection six years ago as it faced claims running into trillions of dollars.

Purdue attorney Marshall Huebner told the judge he wished he could “collect $40 trillion or $100 trillion to compensate those who have suffered incomprehensible losses.” But without that possibility, he said: “The scheme is completely legal and would provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people in the shortest possible time period.”

Myth it got emotional and full of contentious debates among many Groups taking Purdue to courtoften reveals a possible mismatch between the pursuit of justice and the practical role of the bankruptcy court.

US Supreme Court rejected previous agreement Because he said it was inappropriate for members of the Sackler family to receive immunity in opioid-related lawsuits. In the new regulationOrganizations that do not accept the agreement can sue them. Family members are collectively worth billions of dollars, but most of their assets are held in trusts in offshore accounts that are difficult to access through litigation.

This time, the relevant government groups reached an even broader consensus, with pent-up opposition mostly from individuals. He is among more than 54,000 personal injury victims who voted whether to accept the plan. only 218 said no. A large number of people who were part of this group did not vote.

Unlike other hearings, there were no protests outside the courthouse.

A handful of objectors spoke at the hearing Thursday, sometimes interrupting the judge. Some have said only victims, not states and other government agencies, should receive the funds in the settlement. Others wanted the judge to find members of the Sackler family criminally liable; That’s outside the scope of bankruptcy court, Lane said, but the agreement doesn’t prevent prosecutors from pursuing the case.

A Florida woman struggling with addiction after her husband was given OxyContin following an accident told the court the deal wasn’t enough.

“The natural laws of karma dictate that the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma must pay for their actions,” Pamela Bartz Halaschak said via video.

Lawsuits filed by government agencies against Purdue and other drug manufacturers, drug wholesalers and pharmacy chains began nearly a decade ago.

Most of the important ones have already settled About $50 billion in total, most of the money combating the opioid crisis. There is no mechanism to keep track of where everything is going or any general requirement for evaluation whether the spending is effective. Those who are generally most affected I had nothing to say.

The Purdue deal would be among the biggest of these. Members of the Sackler family will be required to pay up to $7 billion and give up ownership of the company. Neither has served on the board or been paid since 2018. Similar hearing four years agoNone of them were called to testify at this week’s hearing.

The company will change its name to Knoa Pharma and have new controllers who will dedicate future profits to fighting the opioid crisis. This could happen in spring 2026.

There are also some non-financial provisions. Some members of the Sackler family will need to divest from companies that sell opioids in other countries.

Family members will also be prohibited from adding their names to institutions in exchange for charitable contributions. Name already removed from museums and universities.

And company documents will be made public, including many corporate documents normally subject to attorney-client privilege.

Unlike other major opioid settlements, people harmed by Purdue products will be in line to receive some money as part of the settlement. About $850 million will be set aside for them, and more than $100 million of that amount will be earmarked to help born children dealing with opioid withdrawal.

All of the individual victims’ money will be delivered next year. It will take up to 15 years for governments to receive full funds.

It is stated that approximately 139,000 people are actively requesting money. But many were not shown evidence that they were prescribed Purdue’s opioids and would receive nothing. Assuming about half of individual applicants will qualify, attorneys project that those with prescriptions for at least six months will receive about $16,000 each, and those with prescriptions for a shorter period will receive about $8,000, before legal fees, which would reduce the amount people actually receive.

People will have until March 1 to agree not to sue the Sacklers and apply for the funds.

A woman with a family history of opioid addiction told the court via video Thursday that the agreement does not help people with substance use disorders.

“Tell me how you can sleep at night knowing that people make so little money they can’t do anything,” asked Laureen Ferrante of Staten Island, New York.

Christopher Shore, an attorney representing a group of individual victims, said in court Friday that the settlement was a better deal than taking on Sackler family members in court. “Some Sacklers are bad people,” he said, “but the truth is that sometimes bad people win cases.”

Most of the money will go to state and local governments for use in efforts to mitigate the harms of the opioid epidemic. Overdose death numbers are falling Experts believe the decline over the past few years is due in part to the impact of settlement dollars.

This article has been corrected to remove a reference to lawyers for Sackler family members asking the judge to approve the settlement.