The Sacklers present their bid to settle the Purdue Opioids case, with new terms

Seven months after the Supreme Court struck down a settlement that could resolve thousands of opioid lawsuits against Purdue Pharma, the company’s owners, members of the Sackler family, have increased their cash offer to settle the trial – but with new arrests.

Under the new deal structure, the Sacklers will not receive immunity from future opioid trials, a provision they have long argued the court’s decision is unacceptable.

Instead, they will pay up to $6.5 billion — $500 million more than the previous agreement — but with a new stipulation: Claimants, including states, municipalities and individuals, will must allocate up to 800 million dollars in the same account as the law. -A hedge fund for billionaires to deal with such cases, according to people familiar with the deal.

Some details about the system – but not the legal defense fund – were revealed by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, on Thursday. He said the total amount is $7.4 billion, including $897 million from Purdue.

New York could get $250 million, he said.

“The Sackler family relentlessly sought profit at the expense of vulnerable patients and played a major role in starting and growing the opioid epidemic,” Ms. James said.

Once the deal is done, he added, “the Sacklers will no longer control Purdue and will no longer be allowed to sell opioids in the United States.”

Echoing other cities in opioid trials across the country, these payments are intended to fund efforts to prevent and treat addiction in hard-hit communities across the country.

It is not clear how many claimants will accept the new conditions. Ms. James noted that 14 other states participating in the talks were inside, including Florida, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Tennessee, California and West Virginia.

But now the deal must be sold to all the claimants – not just the rest of the state and thousands of local governments, but the 140,000 or so victims and hundreds of American tribes.

Legal funds for Sacklers may run out: New lawsuits against Sacklers have already threatened states, counties, cities and a few individuals.

A spokeswoman for Washington state, which successfully sought alternative drug companies but did not sign the national agreement, said the state is weighing its options.

The state, which is responsible for most of these payments, must keep at least $200 million in the account, with a total of up to $800 million. After five years, unused funds will begin returning to the state.

The final calculation of how much in total to pay for attorneys, consultants and administrative fees is still being worked out.

The Sacklers will pay nearly $3 billion in the first three years, and the remainder over 12 more years.

If the plan is approved by the claimants, an arm of the Department of Justice that oversees the bankruptcy system called the US Trustee and a federal bankruptcy judge, Purdue will emerge from bankruptcy protection later this year. him until 2019. immediately pay $897 million of his own money to the parties who signed the agreement.

This process is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

At that time, the 15 years of Sackler payments will also begin. And most of the lawsuits that began more than a decade ago—turned into impromptu lawsuits brought by cities, states, tribes, hospitals and individual victims, and argued by countless teams of lawyers—were may end.

In a plan rejected by the Supreme Court, the Sacklers, who have long been portrayed in movies, television and articles as the face of predatory opioid manufacturers, demanded a $6 billion settlement: that the all lawsuits against them now and in the future are related to Purdue. and opioids will be blocked.

Purdue itself receives this protection as a common benefit granted when a company emerges from bankruptcy. But because the Sacklers did not specifically file for bankruptcy, the Supreme Court ruled in June that granting them permanent civil immunity was not covered by bankruptcy law.

The purpose of the legal fund, which is generally paid by claimants to defend the Sacklers against other claimants, is to satisfy judgments.

“If the state is expected to fund the legal defense of the Sacklers, the public wants to hear more about how that money will affect the Sacklers and their lawyers than about opioid reductions,” filed bankruptcy filing Melissa B. Jacoby. scholar at the University of North Carolina School of Law.