Purdue Pharma reached a nationwide settlement Thursday over its role in the opioid crisis, with the Sackler family members who own the company boosting their cash contribution to as much as $6 billion in a deal intended to staunch a flood of lawsuits facing the maker of OxyContin.
The deal follows an earlier settlement that had been appealed by eight states and the District of Columbia. They agreed to sign on after the Sacklers kicked in more cash and accepted other terms. In exchange, the family would be protected from civil lawsuits.
In all, the plan could be worth more than $10 billion over time. It calls for members of the Sackler family to give up control of the Stamford, Connecticut-based company so it can be turned into a new entity with profits used to fight the crisis. The deal would not shield members of the family from criminal charges, although there’s no indication any are forthcoming.
Sackler family members have not unequivocally offered an apology but issued a statement of regret about the toll of OxyContin, its signature painkiller, which users learned could be manipulated to produce quick highs. Purdue Pharma had promoted its use for a broad range of pain issues for which doctors previously had shied away from prescribing opioids.
“While the families have acted lawfully in all respects, they sincerely regret that OxyContin, a prescription medicine that continues to help people suffering from chronic pain, unexpectedly became part of an opioid crisis that has brought grief and loss to far too many families and communities,” said the statement from the Sackler family.
Under the settlement, victims also are to have a forum in court, by videoconference scheduled for March 9, to address some of the Sacklers. That’s something they have not been able to do previously in a public setting.
The settlement is outlined in a report filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, New York, and must be approved by the judge. It was hammered out with attorneys general from the eight states — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — and D.C. who had opposed the earlier one, arguing that it did not properly hold Sackler family members accountable.
Several parents whose children became addicted to opioids said they were ambivalent — glad that more money will be available for addiction treatment, but upset that the Sacklers will remain wealthy and escape more accountability.
Connecticut’s Paige Niver, whose daughter became addicted following a bicycle accident when she was 14 and remains in recovery about 13 years later, said she didn’t want other families to endure what hers did.
“As a mother, I did what the doctor told me to do and I just kept giving them to her. And when they were starting to have kind of a lesser effect, they say, ‘Oh, then you need to give her more.’ And that’s exactly what I did,” she said at a news conference Thursday with her state’s attorney general.
“I never thought I’d see any justice for it, so the money will do so much good — fund as much treatment and prevention as possible,” Niver said.
Ed Bisch, whose 18-year-old son died of an overdose 20 years ago, is glad states pushed Sackler family members to pay more. Still, he called the settlement “a horrible deal” because so many parents who buried loved ones won’t see money, while the Sacklers retain their wealth.
“Guess what? They still made billions and billions of dollars,” said Bisch, of Westampton, New Jersey. “Without any jail time, where is the deterrent? We’ve lost two generations to their greed.”
Individual victims and their survivors are to share a $750 million fund, a key provision not found in other opioid settlements. About 149,000 people made claims in advance and could qualify for shares from the fund.
That amount is unchanged in the new plan, but states will be able to create funds they can use to compensate victims beyond that, if they choose.
Other new provisions include an agreement from Sackler family members that they won’t fight when institutions attempt to take their names off buildings funded by the family’s support. And additional company documents are to be made public.
