Company Offers to “Pay” Part of Settlement with Addiction Pharmaceuticals
While the Sackler family has upped the ante, the settlement is met with some groans and skepticism.
Jessica Hartogs, Editor at LinkedIn News:
“Purdue Pharma has offered up a $10 billion restructuring plan that would pay $500 million up front to settle approximately 135,000 claims linked to the company’s role in the opioid epidemic. The Sackler family would pay more than $4 billion over a decade and also give up domestic ownership of the company, which is alleged to have fueled the deadly national opioid crisis with its OxyContin drug. They would also admit no wrongdoing. Two dozen state attorneys general immediately rejected the plan, reported NPR.”
Charlie Kingdollar, Retired Emerging Issues Officer at Gen Re:
Members of the Sackler family offered roughly $4.3 billion to resolve sprawling opioid litigation, up from $3 billion initially proposed in settlement discussions.
Purdue’s chapter 11 plan must be approved by a bankruptcy judge and likely will be challenged in court by individuals who have suffered injuries from opioids and state attorneys general who have not signed onto the deal. A final resolution isn’t expected before the summer. “We’re going to keep fighting for the accountability that families all across this country deserve,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who, along with 23 other attorneys general, voiced opposition to the plan Monday and called for greater transparency and more money upfront from the Sacklers.
Fred Johnson, Attorney, Spencer Fane LLP:
“[T]he company that introduced America to OxyContin and is alleged to have ushered in the opioid epidemic in the country, has proposed a $10B settlement to resolve 1000s of civil lawsuits and other civil and criminal matters and its bankruptcy, and allegedly intends to fund part of the settlement through the sale of ‘overdose reversal’ and addiction treatment drugs that it has in development. Seriously.”
The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter
Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don't subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law. Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J. Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.