últimas notícias

Many other settlement talks in the national litigation have been stalled over money and because of the unwillingness of companies to concede any culpability. Though Purdue itself has pleaded guilty twice to federal charges associated with misleading marketing and minimizing OxyContin’s risk of addiction, the Sacklers have always maintained that they acted scrupulously. In August, Dr. Richard Sackler, a former president and co-chairman of the board of Purdue, testified before Judge Drain that neither the family, the company nor its products bore any responsibility for the opioid epidemic.

As the opioid crisis began to wreak havoc across the country, two branches of the Sackler family, whose forebears along with another branch founded the privately owned company in the 1950s, presided in various leadership roles at Purdue in the last 20 years. The company worked with a cadre of doctors who spoke at medical conferences, praising OxyContin for being safe and effective. Though many other opioids soon crowded the market, OxyContin stood out for the no-holds-barred aggressiveness of Purdue’s sales force and the market dominance of the drug.

In one of the latest deal’s terms, the Sacklers have agreed to place in a public repository confidential documents that detail lobbying, public relations and marketing activities.

“This settlement is both significant and insufficient — constrained by the inadequacies of our federal bankruptcy code,” said William Tong, the attorney general of Connecticut and a leader of the effort to wrest this latest offer from the Sacklers. “But Connecticut cannot stall this process indefinitely as victims and our sister states await a resolution. This settlement resolves our claims against Purdue and the Sacklers, but we are not done fighting for justice against the addiction industry and against our broken bankruptcy code.”

An earlier settlement proposal from the Sacklers of $4.55 billion, including a $225 million settlement with the federal government, had been approved by an overwhelming majority of states, local governments, tribes and individuals. But in December, a federal judge vacated that plan, questioning the legality of the protections from liability granted to the Sacklers. The corporate bankruptcy code typically confers protection from lawsuits for the company that seeks restructuring, but it is unusual for the company’s owners to also get that shield if they did not file for personal bankruptcy as well.

The Sacklers’ shield against lawsuits was the major sticking point for states that opposed the plan. The District of Columbia and nine states — California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had voted against the earlier proposal, contending they had the right to pursue the Sacklers under state civil laws.

Mediation talks between the holdouts and the Sacklers began soon afterward. To get those opponents on board, the Sacklers agreed to pay $5.5 billion, plus up to $500 million more, contingent on the sale of their international pharmaceutical companies.