Things Change
Edith Cook
Miss Edith
(Dr. Edith Cook)
About a year ago, I produced two back-to-back articles regarding the pharmaceutical machinations of Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sacklers, using as my base Patrick Radden Keefe 2021 Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty.
I explained that the dynasty was founded by three physician brothers, the sons of impoverished immigrants. Arthur, the eldest, was born in 1913. He developed such a knack for advertising and selling that, after obtaining his medical degree, he joined McAdams, an advertising agency he eventually purchased to serve his own ends. Arthur’s advertising campaigns touted the benefits of pain medication like Valium, a product of the Swiss company Roche, and Sigmamycin, which was owned by Pfizer. Meanwhile he helped his two brothers to become physicians as well.
Right from the start, Arthur’s marketing strategies were misleading. When an article exposing Arthur’s fraudulent advertising appeared in The Saturday Review, a congressional investigation called Arthur to the carpet, but he smooth-talked the panel out of punishing him.
Intent on developing Sackler products, Arthur acquired the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma in 1952. As a family business, Arthur and his brothers first developed the pain-reliever drug MS Contin, followed by OxyContin, researched and developed at Purdue Pharma. Like MS Contin, OxyContin is an opioid consisting primarily of morphine.OxyContin is vastly more powerful than its forerunner .
Soon the Sacklers increased their sales force to 700, and “Sell, Sell, Sell” was the driving force at gala events. Via Purdue Pharma, the Sacklers targeted American doctors and pharmacists in a blitzkrieg of advertising, gala dinners, gifts, and trips.
Purdue Pharma began manufacturing OxyContin in the mid-1990s, advertising the drug as a less addictive compared to other opiates prescribed for pain management, but in 2007, Purdue Pharma executives pleaded guilty to federal misbranding charges. Although the company discontinued its original formulation of OxyContin in the years after, the Sackler Family’s unscrupulous marketing continued unabated, which produced additional thousands of addicts and overdose deaths. In turn, these tragedies gave rise to innumerable law suits against Purdue. Reading the writing on the wall, the Sacklers drained most financial resources from Purdue, turning their company into an empty shell when it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019. Soon the plaintiffs in the case produced evidence that the Sackler family drew $11 billion, over 75% of Purdue Pharma’s assets, out of the company.
Eventually the Sacklers offered to return $4.3 billion to the company’s bankruptcy estate in return for a judicial order that would shield the family from all opioid-related claims against them, present and future. The order would have prohibited opioid-crisis victims and their families from pursuing lawsuits against the family in the future; not only that, it would protect the Sacklers from existing legal claims.
"The documents we are releasing today,” wrote the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “show that the Sackler family has built an enormous fortune . . . in large part through sales of OxyContin. Members of the Sackler family pushed Purdue to use deceptive marketing practices to flood communities with this dangerous painkiller, and now the Sackler family is attempting to use Purdue's bankruptcy proceedings to evade individual responsibility for their role in fueling the opioid epidemic.”
The bankruptcy court accepted the proposed settlement terms, but a federal district court vacated the order. Thereafter the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s ruling and upheld the settlement, whereupon the U.S. Trustee appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
Thus is happened that, on July 5, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement on grounds that it would have shielded the Sackler family from lawsuits over their involvement in the ongoing opioid crisis. The court argued that, because the Sacklers were not named debtors in the bankruptcy case, they did not have the right to seek immunity from opioid lawsuits in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy proceedings.
The unhappy outcome is that state and local governments that were slated to receive settlement money to fund their opioid crisis response will have to delay plans, potentially for years.
Now the Sackler lawyers have proposed a new settlement. “Purdue Pharma and owners to pay $7.4 billion in settlement of lawsuits over OxyContin,” reads the AP headline of January 25, 2025.
.
In the new deal, which replaces the settlement that was rejected last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Sackler family members agree to pay up to $6.5 billion and give up ownership of Purdue, which would pay nearly $900 million. According to AP, the maximum contribution from family members is $500 million more than the previous deal. The deal has yet to be approved by the courts.
“No dollar amount could ever replace what has been lost due to the opioid epidemic,” AP quotes Pennsylvania’s Attorney General as saying, “but this settlement will go a long way in bolstering treatment resources and helping Pennsylvanians achieve recovery. This epidemic, no doubt, was fueled by Purdue Pharma's manufacturing and deceptive marketing of OxyContin, a highly potent and addictive drug. Dependency on the drug ruined countless lives, while the Sackler family and Purdue made more than $35 billion from its distribution, profiting off of the suffering of others.”
An editorial in the Chicago Tribune, however, argues that the courts should reject the settlement. “Bosses of Purdue Pharma insert another poison pill into opioid-addiction liabilities,” reads its headline. The editorial recalls that last time they proposed a settlement, the Sacklers tried to get the protection that comes from filing for bankruptcy without ever filing for it (which would have forced them to reveal the fortune they’ve stashed into off-shore banks). The Supreme Court “shot down that Sackler scheme.” This time, the Sacklers are offering a multibillion dollar payout that would provide funding for some victims, yet most of the money would “fund a gigantic war chest for the family to fight lawsuits against it. The states agreeing to the settlement reportedly would have to set aside as much as $800 million” for the Sacklers to use against other claimants bringing separate cases rather than going along with the settlement.
The Supreme Court choked on the Sacklers’ previous gambit, comments the writer. “We are hopeful this latest scheme receives the scrutiny it deserves.”
Other commentators opine that, und the Trump Administration’s new Department of Justice, the settlement will likely be approved.
creamsaver
Miss Edith
www.edithcook.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Edith S. Cook" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to edith-cook+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/edith-cook/CAMS_viKPaLhq-_Z2zkkmUcKFhTdfUFM9Jnew-vP6WGveY8s-OQ%40mail.gmail.com.