OxyContin’s maker’s agreement to settle thousands of lawsuits over opioid harms could help combat the overdose epidemic caused by the painkiller. However, that does not mean that all victims are satisfied.
In exchange for relinquishing ownership of drug company Purdue Pharma and donating up to $6 billion to fight the crisis, members of the wealthy Sackler family will be granted immunity from civil lawsuits. At the same time, billions of dollars could be secured from profits from OxyContin sales.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Dec. 4 over whether the agreement, part of Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy resolution, violates federal law.
The question for the justices is whether the legal shield provided by bankruptcy law applies to people like the Sacklers who have not declared bankruptcy themselves. This legal issue has resulted in conflicting decisions from lower courts. It also affects other major product liability cases that have been resolved through the bankruptcy system.
But even as the deal sets aside billions of dollars for opioid abatement and treatment programs, it still leaves much to be desired for people who have lost loved ones or lost years of their own lives to opioids. It also raises difficult moral questions that divide opinion.
Ellen Isaacs’ 33-year-old son, Ryan Wroblewski, died in Florida in 2018, about 17 years after he was first prescribed OxyContin for a back injury. When she first heard about the possibility of a settlement that included some money for people like herself, she signed up. But she changed her mind.
Money may not be the answer, she says. And accepting this agreement could create further problems.
“Anybody in the future will be able to do exactly what the Sacklers are able to do today,” she said in an interview.
“The Sackler’s release is a special protection for billionaires,” her attorney Mike Quinn said in a court filing.
Lynn Wenkas of Wrentham, Massachusetts, also lost her 33-year-old son Jeff to an overdose in 2017.
Although she initially opposed the Purdue Pharma deal, she has now agreed to it. Although she doesn’t expect a payout, the settlement she hopes will help her stop thinking about Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family, whom she blames for the opioid crisis. I hope that.
“I don’t think we can really move forward while this matter continues in court,” Wenkus said.
Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing of OxyContin, a powerful prescription painkiller introduced to the market in 1996, is often cited as a catalyst for the national opioid epidemic, with little regard for the dangers of addiction. convinced the doctor to prescribe painkillers.
The company pleaded guilty in 2007 to misbranding the drug and paid more than $600 million in fines and penalties.
The drug and the Stamford, Conn.-based company became synonymous with crisis, even though the majority of the pills prescribed and used were generics. The number of opioid-related overdose deaths continues to rise, reaching 80,000 in recent years. Part of the reason is that people with substance abuse disorders have had difficulty obtaining pills and have turned to heroin and, more recently, fentanyl, an even more powerful synthetic opioid.
Pharmaceutical companies, wholesalers, and pharmacies will pay more than $50 billion to settle lawsuits brought by states, local governments, Native American tribal governments, and others alleging that the companies’ marketing, sales, and surveillance practices helped fuel the outbreak. We agreed. Purdue Pharma’s settlement would be the largest. It is also one of only two so far to provide direct compensation to victims of the crisis, with payments from the $750 million pool ranging from about $3,500 to $48,000. It is expected to be in the range of
Lawyers for the more than 60,000 victims supporting the settlement acknowledge that “no amount of money can fully compensate victims” for the damage caused by OxyContin’s misleading marketing. , called this a “watershed moment in the opioid crisis.”
As a result, parts of the Sackler family’s story have been told in multiple books, documentaries, and fictionalized versions of the streaming series Dopesick and Painkiller.
Museums and universities around the world have removed the family’s names from galleries and buildings.
The family has largely remained out of the public eye, no longer serves on the company’s board, and has not received a salary since before the company went bankrupt. But over the previous decade, they were paid more than $10 billion, about half of which went to paying taxes, the family said.
Some testified at bankruptcy hearings in 2021, telling judges that their families would not contribute to the proposed legal settlement unless they were protected from lawsuits.
Two family members appeared by video and one listened in by audio at a 2022 court hearing in which more than 20 people affected by opioids spoke publicly about their experiences. One person said to them: “You poisoned our lives and had the audacity to blame us for our deaths.”
Florida’s state attorneys say Walgreens ignored red flags indicating its involvement in the opioid crisis. Prosecutors say an unusually large number of opioid prescriptions and pills were being distributed at Walgreens stores in the Tampa area. Lawyers for Walgreens argue that the company was misled by drug companies such as Purdue Pharma about the efficacy of its drugs.
Purdue Pharma has reached agreements with governments that are suing, including some states that initially rejected the plan.
But the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, the division of the Justice Department responsible for promoting the integrity of the bankruptcy system, opposes legal protections for members of the Sackler family. Attorney General Merrick Garland has also criticized the plan.
Opponents have completely changed their stance for the Justice Department, which supported settlements during the era of Republican President Donald Trump. The department and Purdue Pharma have entered into plea agreements in criminal and civil cases. The agreement included $8.3 billion in fines and forfeitures, but as long as the company follows through on its settlement plan, it will only pay $225 million to the federal government.
A federal trial court judge ruled in 2021 that the settlement should not be granted. This year, a federal appeals panel ruled against it in a 2-1 decision. The Supreme Court quickly agreed to take up the case at the urging of Democratic President Joe Biden.
Purdue Pharma is not the first bankruptcy to include this type of third-party release, even if not all parties involved agreed. Special authorization was granted by Congress in 1994 regarding asbestos cases.
The program includes settlements of sexual abuse lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America that were helped pay by groups such as local Boy Scout councils and troop-sponsoring churches, as well as sexual abuse lawsuits against Catholic dioceses where dioceses and schools contributed cash. It is also used elsewhere, such as in settlements.
Supporters of the Purdue Pharma settlement argue that federal law does not prohibit releases to third parties and that they are necessary to create a settlement that the parties agree to. It is often argued that it is possible.
Lawyers for one branch of the Sackler family wrote in a court filing that “third-party releases are a recurring feature of bankruptcy law practice, and are unlikely to occur because someone is trying to benefit a released third party.” No,” he said.
Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
