Dependency on synthetic opioids is as bad as being addicted to illegal street drugs like heroin or methamphetamines. Tens of thousands of people die every year from overdoses connected to opioids and the toll on those addicted to opioids is massive in terms of emotional and physical health.
The most popular opioid this century has been OxyContin, a synthetic pain killer introduced by Purdue Pharma in 1996. More than 3.5 million legal prescriptions of oxycontin have been given out by doctors since 2006, making it the most popular painkiller on the market.
The problem with OxyContin is that, like natural opioids such as heroin, it’s highly addictive. And the company, Purdue Pharma knew it early on and did little to warn patients or doctors.
Purdue is a privately held corporation owned by the Sackler family and is facing at least 3,000 lawsuits for its business decisions that many public health experts believe contributed to the opioid crisis. The family declared bankruptcy and tried to reorganize the company without the burden of facing up to $10 billion in claims. More than 95 percent of creditors signed off on the deal.
But eight states refused and took the case to court. A federal judge agreed with the states, tossing the settlement by claiming that the New York bankruptcy court did not have the authority to grant the Sacklers legal protection from future lawsuits.
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who had objected to Purdue’s reorganization, praised the judge’s decision.
McMahon raised questions about more than $10 billion Purdue distributed to the Sacklers spanning a roughly decade-long period that preceded the company’s bankruptcy filing.
The Sacklers have faced allegations, which they deny, that they authorized the financial transfers to prevent the money from being drained in future litigation against Purdue. The Sacklers have said much of the money went toward taxes and investments, as opposed to their pockets.
What this means is that Purdue must go back to the drawing board as far as reorganizing the company. The chairman of the company’s board, Steve Miller, said in a statement that the ruling would “delay and perhaps end the ability of creditors, communities, and individuals to receive billions in value to abate the opioid crisis.”
It would certainly delay the possible settlement but it almost certainly won’t end the process. But the Sacklers’ effort to evade additional legal responsibility for their company’s actions in driving the opioid crisis has failed, which means that it’s likely Purdue Pharma won’t be able to survive what’s coming.
For some, that won’t be enough.
But the concessions did not appease those who argued that the family should contribute more, pointing to the $10 billion transferred from Purdue to Sackler family members during a decade before the company filed for bankruptcy.
“Many people whose lives were devastated by opioids do not believe the Sacklers warrant this protection, and certainly not when the parties are far from bankrupt,” Melissa Jacoby, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who has been following the case, said in an email.
Jacoby predicted the decision could influence similar cases in which parties seek liability shields.
The bankruptcy court has ordered 30 million Purdue documents released. There will be much for the plaintiffs’ attorneys to scrutinize.
How much responsibility should individual Sackler family members bear? Which individual family members should be held accountable? To visit the sins of some family members on the entire clan is unfair and un-American. In fact, some family members sold their interest in Perdue before OxyContin was even created. Are they to suffer to the same fate as those who should be held to account?
In America, individuals are responsible for their own actions, their own decisions. We don’t hold families accountable, no matter how tempting it is.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member