Answer Addiction

Tag: opioid lawsuits

  • Hospitals Sue Drug Companies, Seeking Opioid Settlement Money

    Hospitals Sue Drug Companies, Seeking Opioid Settlement Money

    These lawsuits are separate from those filed by thousands of American municipalities against many of the same companies.

    Hospitals are joining the fight in trying to squeeze settlement money from drug companies accused of fueling opioid abuse and overdose in the U.S.

    The High Cost Of Addiction Treatment

    Hospitals in Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky and West Virginia are suing companies like Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson and McKesson, a drug distributor, hoping to recoup the heavy cost of treating the opioid crisis.

    “The expense of treating overdose and opioid-addicted patients has skyrocketed, straining the resources of hospitals throughout our state,” said Lee Bond, chief executive officer of Singing River Health System in Mississippi, which is also suing.

    These lawsuits are separate from those filed by thousands of American municipalities against many of the same companies.

    Hospitals see the worst of the opioid crisis firsthand. People who overdose, or require treatment for serious illness like endocarditis, pneumonia and hepatitis, are often unable to pay for treatment.

    According to court filings cited by NPR, hospitals estimate that the cost of treating such patients amounts to an average of $107,000 per person. In just one year, providing treatment for opioid-related sickness has cost U.S. hospitals over $15 billion, according to 2012 statistics.

    “I can’t pay a thing. I don’t have a dime. So they do absorb all that cost,” said Traci Grimes, a woman from Nashville who was treated at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (which is not involved in any lawsuit) for near-fatal endocarditis, hepatitis A and C, and pneumonia.

    Hospital Lawsuits Could Open “New Can Of Worms”

    Health experts noted that hospitals may be reluctant to sue in order to protect sensitive information such as how they determine their prices for care, or their relationships with drug companies. This may garner “some unflattering attention” for some hospitals, a health analyst explained to NPR. It could potentially open “a whole new can of worms,” making it a safer choice to sit out on litigation.

    However, the downside of sitting out is that hospitals are not guaranteed to receive any of the settlement money won by municipalities, experts noted.

    Ohio Governor John Kasich and West Virginia University President Gordon Gee want more hospitals to join as plaintiffs.

    “Hospitals are directly bearing the brunt of this crisis,” it says on the website for their organization, Citizens for Effective Opioid Treatment. “U.S. hospitals provide billions of dollars annually in reimbursed care directly related to the opioid crisis.”

    Gee told NPR, “There’s always safety in mass.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Four States Propose $48 Billion Settlement In Global Opioid Lawsuit

    Four States Propose $48 Billion Settlement In Global Opioid Lawsuit

    The $48 billion offer is still a far cry from the estimated $504 billion in damages caused to the country in 2015 alone.

    The attorneys general of four U.S. states have proposed a $48 billion settlement between some of the world’s biggest drug companies and states, tribes and nearly 3,000 cities and counties across the nation at what could be the peak of the opioid epidemic. 

    The offer comes shortly after what would have been the first federal opioid trial was averted by a $250 million settlement between Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen and two counties in Ohio.

    The global settlement deal was proposed by two Democratic and two Republican attorneys general of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Tennessee. According to NBC News, the foursome has not yet announced whether any other states are on board with their plan.

    Is $48 Billion Enough?

    However, a lawyer representing the cities and counties involved in the global suit, Paul Hanly, believes that this number is not high enough for his clients. It’s likely that negotiations will continue for another three to six months, he said.

    “This is the most complex negotiation in the history of litigation,” said Hanley.

    Last week, Hanley’s clients rejected an offer of $18 billion over the course of 18 years after it was found that New York City would have only received as little as $5 million per year from the deal, a small fraction of the $500 million per year it has spent to combat the opioid crisis. The same issue applied to other cities.

    The $48 billion offer is still a far cry from the estimated $504 billion in damages caused to the country in just the year 2015.

    Funds Would Be Delivered Over 10-Year Period

    The settlement would also be split between cash payments and services and supplies. The deal proposed for the global case would offer over $22 billion in cash as well as $26 billion in treatment drugs and delivery services, all of which would be delivered over the course of 10 years. 

    In Ohio, drug distributors Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen paid $215 million to Summit and Cuyahoga counties, while generic opioid maker Teva Pharmaceutical paid $20 million in cash and provided $25 million worth of Suboxone, a common opioid addiction treatment drug. The cash payments will also go toward treatment efforts.

    “We are looking at using this money for treatment,” said Cuyahoga County prosecutor Michael C. O’Malley. “It’s about rehabilitation and getting people straight.”

    Meanwhile, Walgreens Boots Alliance, another defendant in the Ohio case, has not yet announced its settlement with the plaintiffs. Purdue Pharma, whose name is often evoked when it comes to the opioid crisis, was also a target of these lawsuits but filed for bankruptcy in September.

    All companies involved have denied the allegations that they’re responsible for the opioid epidemic, but the three who settled last week released a joint statement saying that the deal is “an important stepping stone to achieving a global resolution and delivering meaningful relief.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Senator Urged AGs To Accept Settlement While On Sackler Payroll, Source Says

    Senator Urged AGs To Accept Settlement While On Sackler Payroll, Source Says

    Allegations surrounding Luther Strange’s role in the opioid settlements have created a deeper partisan divide.

    The opioid epidemic has been claiming lives across the country and affecting families no matter their socioeconomic status, race or political affiliation. And yet, a partisan divide has emerged in regards to the settlement with Purdue Pharma, thanks in part to one prominent Republican who was working with the Sacklers, the family that owns Purdue. 

    Conflict Of Interest

    NPR reported that Luther Strange, former Alabama attorney general and senator for that state, was working as a lawyer for the Sacklers at the same time that he was urging other Republican attorneys general to accept the proposed settlement deal. 

    At a meeting of the Republican Attorneys General Association, which took place over the summer in West Virginia, Strange allegedly urged attorneys general to accept the settlement with Purdue, while he was on the Sackler’s payroll. 

    Publicly, Strange has spoken out against the hiring of private lawyers to help craft the lawsuits against Big Pharma. He’s also said that using public nuisance laws to pursue companies could have wide-ranging impacts. 

    “I’ve written on this recently because it is a blooming problem and issue around the country,” he said in June. 

    The State Divide

    States are split almost evenly about whether to accept the proposed settlement with Purdue. The settlement would see the Sackler family contribute $3 billion of their personal money, but many attorneys general feel this is not enough, compared with the massive amount of profits that the family pulled from the company. 

    NPR found that opinions on the plan are split largely along part lines. Only two Democratic attorneys general are in favor of the settlement, with 20 opposing it. On the other hand, most Republicans are in favor of the settlement, with some exceptions.

    Richard Ausness studies opioid litigation at the University of Kentucky and says that the partisan divide can be explained by underlying differences about the purpose of the settlement. 

    He said, “Some of the Democratic politicians, more so than the Republicans, are on a crusade. This is a moral issue for them, not just simply a matter of economics. They want to punish the drug companies for what they did, and not simply make a deal with them.”

    Ausness pointed out that Republicans are less likely to want to sue companies, and that they have traditionally been more closely aligned with Big Pharma. 

    Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, a Republican, was widely praised for securing a $270 million settlement with Purdue Pharma and a ruling in favor of the state against Johnson & Johnson. While Hunter has secured millions in funding for his state, he was criticized by his party and was nearly defeated in a recent primary. 

    Over the summer, Hunter said, “It’s been tough. The extent to which this lawsuit was part of the discussion during the election was certainly regrettable. That was something that certainly gave me pause.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Johnson & Johnson Fined $107M Too Much In Opioid Settlement

    Johnson & Johnson Fined $107M Too Much In Opioid Settlement

    “That’s the last time I use that calculator,” an Oklahoma judge said, according to CNN.

    The judge who ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million said that he made a mathematical error that resulted in the settlement being $107 million too much. 

    Bad Math

    As part of the settlement, Judge Thad Balkman allotted $107,683,000 to help treat babies born dependent on opioids. However, Balkman said this week that he came to that sum by misguided math. He unintentionally added an extra three zeros. In reality, he only meant to assign $107,683 for the treatment of babies. 

    “That’s the last time I use that calculator,” Balkman said, according to CNN.

    Because of that, the landmark judgment against Johnson & Johnson will be reduced by nearly a quarter. 

    Lawyers for Johnson & Johnson were the first to notice the error. 

    “No evidence supports this higher amount, which appears simply to reflect a mistaken addition of three zeros to the calculation of the annual average, yet the state’s proposed judgment fails to account for this discrepancy,” the lawyers wrote in court paperwork. 

    Drugmaker Requests Further Reduction in Payout

    Johnson & Johnson also requested that Balkman reduce the amount that the company will be required to pay to account for the fact that Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries will be contributing $355 million to the state. That amount was decided on during a pretrial settlement. 

    Balkman has not yet said whether he will amend the Johnson & Johnson fine because of the settlement with Purdue and Teva. However, he will reduce the fine to account for his math error. The settlement amount will be updated, but Johnson & Johnson has said that it plans to appeal the ruling regardless. 

    The state of Oklahoma had asked for $17 billion in damages from Johnson & Johnson. Christopher Ruhm, professor of public policy and economics at the University of Virginia, helped the state decide how much to ask for. He said that $17 billion would have allowed Oklahoma to address the opioid epidemic over the next 30 years. 

    Opioid Settlements Pale in Comparison to Big Pharma Profits

    “It is a lot of money. It’s also a major public health crisis,” Ruhm said.

    Balkman used that plan to allot $572,102,028, roughly the amount that the state asked for per year. 

    “The state did not present sufficient evidence of the amount of time and costs necessary, beyond year one, to abate the opioid crisis,” he wrote in his ruling. 

    Although settlements around the opioid lawsuits can seem large, many people argue that they pale in comparison to the profits that companies made from opioids that were allegedly marketed in misleading ways. The settlement amounts are also small compared to the money that cities, counties and states spend to address the epidemic. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Jury Selection Begins In Federal Opioid Trial

    Jury Selection Begins In Federal Opioid Trial

    The trial that begins next week technically will focus on Cuyahoga and Summit counties in Ohio.

    Jury selection began on Wednesday in the first federal opioid trial, which is slated to begin on Monday (Oct. 21). 

    The lawsuit that begins next week is part of the National Prescription Opiate Litigation, which brings together more than 2,000 lawsuits against opioid manufacturers and distributors, according to NPR.

    The trial that begins next week technically has two plaintiffs—Cuyahoga and Summit counties in Ohio—but they will gauge how other trials will unfold.

    U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, who is overseeing the trial, has been clear about his desire to see parties settle out of court. 

    Negotiation Class

    In fact, last month Polster said that he will approve a “negotiation class.” Under this model, 49 governments would participate in negotiating a deal that would apply to every city and county in the country, unless the municipality explicitly opts out. The representatives of the 49 municipalities would have the opportunity to vote on potential settlements, potentially streamlining settlements between governments and manufacturers. 

    University of Connecticut law professor Alexandra Lahav said that this is an unusual approach.

    “The usual class action—the way it works is you have a class representative and they decide whether it’s a good settlement or not. Here we’re letting people vote. We have a much bigger input—that’s the novel thing here,” she said. “This is totally uncharted territory. There’s no model for any of it.”

    Time Is Of The Essence

    Polster has spoken out about his belief that the opioid cases are unique, and therefore call for unusual approaches to resolution. He has spoken about his belief that time is of the essence, so that settlement funds can be used to support people affected by opioid use disorder. Writing in a pretrial ruling, he said, “Ordinarily, the resolution of a social epidemic should be the responsibility of our other two branches of government, but these are not ordinary times.”

    While the National Prescription Opiate Litigation could result in a so-called “global settlement” that would resolve lawsuits, opioid manufacturers and producers could potentially still face criminal charges for their role in the epidemic. New York representative Max Rose (a democrat), has said, “The Sackler family does not belong in bankruptcy court, they belong in handcuffs.” 

    However, Rutgers Law School professor David Noll said that criminal charges could complicate the national litigation, which is likely why no states have filed criminal charges. 

    “There is a possibility that they’ll have to pay restitution,” he explained. “And their position will be, ‘The money which we had earmarked for the settlement now can’t be used for that purpose because we have to preserve our ability to satisfy a criminal judgment.’ That may explain why nobody has pulled the trigger on filing a criminal action against them.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Judge Orders Pause On Suits Against Sacklers, Purdue

    Judge Orders Pause On Suits Against Sacklers, Purdue

    The Sacklers had asked for a months-long stay on lawsuits while they dealt with Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy. 

    A federal judge has put a temporary hold on further lawsuits of Purdue Pharma or the Sackler family, but not as long of a hold as the Sacklers wanted. 

    Robert D. Drain, a bankruptcy judge based in New York, is overseeing the proceedings for Purdue (the maker of OxyContin), part of the company’s settlement in opioid litigation. Drain put a stay in place that will last until November 6.

    According to the New York Times, Drain said that this will keep the parties from unnecessary spending on litigation, but also ensure that the settlement is moving forward. 

    States that oppose the settlement agreement are trying to go after the Sacklers’ personal wealth, which the states argue was gained through their company’s harmful and possibly illegal marketing practices.

    The Sacklers Wanted A Longer Stay To Deal With Bankruptcy

    The Sacklers are contributing $3 billion to the settlement, but states argue that is little compared to the amount the company profited from OxyContin and other prescription drugs. The Sacklers asked for a months-long stay on lawsuits while they dealt with the bankruptcy. 

    The judge, it seemed, ruled in the middle. During the seven-hour hearing, Drain emphasized that the bankruptcy court could craft a binding agreement that would help states reach their ultimate goal: getting damages to help them cover the costs of the opioid crisis. He said that Purdue (and the Sacklers) would not be able to use delay tactics in his court. 

    Midway through the hearing, the Times reported that Drain shouted, “No one wastes time in front of me! Everyone, the debtor first and foremost, would engage in good faith.” 

    Learning From The Big Tobacco Settlement

    Drain pointed out that his court has the power to make a settlement that will dictate what the funds are used for. He pointed out that this could help avoid issues like those that happened with the tobacco settlement, where funds that were intended for smoking prevention were instead used to cover general budget shortcomings. 

    “That could not happen in a bankruptcy plan, because a bankruptcy plan is binding,” he said. 

    The states agreed to voluntarily abide by Drain’s decision, since a federal judge cannot compel states to a certain action. By November 6, the states will have more information from the Sacklers and Purdue, including how much, exactly, the family profited, said William Tong, Connecticut’s Attorney General. 

    “We are disappointed by the court’s ruling, but pleased that it is limited in time to less than 30 days,” he said. “We will use this time to ensure that we get access to the Sacklers’ financial information and will be ready on Nov. 6 to make our case to hold Purdue and the Sacklers accountable.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Arizona Backs Out Of Purdue Settlement

    Arizona Backs Out Of Purdue Settlement

    Arizona’s attorney general indicated that in light of new information, the $3 billion that the Sacklers had agreed to pay is not enough.

    States have been split on whether or not to accept a $12 billion opioid settlement with Purdue Pharma. Now, Arizona has become the first state to switch positions, backing out of the deal that it had previously agreed to.

    Major Withdrawal Triggers States To Rethink Settlement

    The move comes after court documents emerged indicating that the Sackler family, which owns Purdue, withdrew as much as $13 billion from the company. The family says that the withdrawals were used to pay taxes and were later invested in companies that the family will sell as part of the settlement.

    However, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich indicated that in light of the new information, the $3 billion that the Sacklers had agreed to pay is not enough, according to Reuters. 

    “It’s in everyone’s best interest to secure a just and timely settlement. Purdue and the Sackler family need to take responsibility for their role in the opioid crisis,” Brnovich said in a statement.

    Other States May Follow In Arizona’s Footsteps

    Arizona’s change of position means that the majority of states now oppose the settlement. Two states—Kentucky and Oklahoma—have reached their own settlements with Purdue, but of the remaining 48 states, 25 are not in agreement about the settlement. 

    Last month, when the settlement was announced, Brnovich said that it was “was the quickest and surest way to get immediate relief for Arizona and for the communities that have been harmed by the opioid crisis and the actions of the Sackler family,” according to CNN. 

    However, the new revelation that the Sacklers’ profits was more than triple the amount initially reported made him second-guess the settlement. The family “sought to undermine material terms of the deal,” Brnovich said in court fillings on Monday. 

    Although Arizona is not a state typically associated with a high rate of opioid overdose, Brnovich has been aggressively pursuing both Purdue and the Sackler family. In August, he announced a lawsuit that goes directly to the Supreme Court, in which the state alleges that the Sacklers took money from Purdue in order to avoid paying out damages. 

    “These transfers all took place at times when company officials, including the Sacklers, were keenly aware that Purdue was facing massive financial liabilities and that these transfers could prevent it from satisfying eventual judgments,” the suit argues. 

    “We want the Supreme Court to make sure that we hold accountable those individuals who are responsible for this epidemic,” Brnovich told The New York Times in August. “We allege that the Sacklers have siphoned billions of dollars from Purdue in recent years. They did this while knowing the company was facing massive financial liabilities.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Drug Companies Want Federal Judge Removed From Opioid Cases 

    Drug Companies Want Federal Judge Removed From Opioid Cases 

    Big Pharma lawyers argue that their clients will not get a fair trial with Judge Dan Polster because of his desire for a settlement.

    Drug companies and retailers that are being sued by local governments across the nation are requesting that the judge overseeing the opioid suits in federal court step down, saying that he is too focused on reaching a settlement. 

    Lawyers for the defendants—which include Cardinal Health, Walmart and many others—filed a motion on Saturday saying that Judge Dan Polster is not impartial in the case because he has said he wants a settlement, The Guardian reported. 

    Turning A Blind Eye

    Polster’s “unusual level of commitment” to reaching a settlement agreement has caused him to turn “a blind eye to the law,” the lawyers said in the motion. 

    They explained, “Defendants do not bring this motion lightly. Taken as a whole and viewed objectively, the record clearly demonstrates that recusal is necessary.”

    Polster has indeed been outspoken about his desire to see a settlement in the federal cases, which combined more than 2,000 lawsuits.  

    Hopeful For Change

    Last year, Polster discussed his hopes that the trials would result in meaningful change. The defendants latched onto that comment in their motion.

    They quoted Polster as saying, “My objective is to do something meaningful to abate this crisis,” including “dramatically reducing the number of opioids that are being disseminated, manufactured and distributed… and [assuring] that we get some amount of money to the government agencies for treatment.”

    Polster has acknowledged that the trials that he is presiding over are a unique situation, and something that hasn’t been seen before in the judiciary. 

    “The judicial branch typically doesn’t fix social problems, which is why I’m somewhat uncomfortable doing this, but it seems the most human thing to do,” he said in 2018. 

    The lawyers argue that their clients will not get a fair trial with Polster at the bench.

    “The court’s deep involvement in settlement discussions requires its disqualification from any bench trial of equitable remedies. Together, these factors more than raise a reasonable question about the court’s impartiality,” they wrote. 

    The first bellwether trial in the federal opioid litigation is scheduled to start next month. However, this motion is likely to delay that beginning, said law professor Carl Tobias.

    “Polster is likely to deny the motion, which will then be appealed, delaying the start of the trial,” he said. 

    Tobias pointed out that the whole point of presiding over all of the lawsuits in one court is to facilitate settlements. 

    “The defendants are saying Polster pre-judged the outcome through his public statements and in all he’s done,” Tobias said. “But trying to move it toward settlement is what Congress intended in this kind of situation.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Could The Purdue Settlement Set The Stage For A Public Pharma System?

    Could The Purdue Settlement Set The Stage For A Public Pharma System?

    “A United States public option for pharmaceutical production would address a range of problems in an industry rife with market failure.”   

    After Purdue Pharma settles its bankruptcy cases, the company will be disbanded and reformed, according to settlement plans. Rather than selling its drugs for profit, the new spin-off company will sell drugs to benefit cities and states devastated by the opioid crisis.

    Purdue will be no more, and a “public beneficiary company” will take its place. 

    Writing for The New Republic, Dana Brown and Isaiah J. Poole of The Democracy Collaborative, argue that this should be a first step in transforming the pharmaceutical industry from public to private. 

    “A United States public option for pharmaceutical production would address a range of problems in an industry rife with market failure,” Brown and Poole write.  

    The Case For Public Pharma

    Unscrupulous tactics like those undertaken by Purdue, the company behind OxyContin, and other opioid manufacturers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the industry’s problems, they write. There’s the fact that some medications are too expensive for the people who need them the most (including insulin, which has been in the news for high prices). Or, the fact that companies only research drugs that they believe can generate profit. 

    “The case for a public option is simple,” the authors write. “First, publicly owned pharmaceuticals are free of the structural need to appease profit-hungry shareholders and are thus able to focus on public health priorities.”

    Other Countries Have Public Options

    Sweden, Brazil, China and India all have some sort of public pharmaceutical industry and those countries have contributed to global drug development. 

    “These examples expose the emptiness of industry arguments that public involvement in the drug industry will stifle innovation,” Poole and Brown write. In fact, with no need to spend on advertising or to direct profits to investors, a public pharmaceutical company would be better able to invest in research and thus make new innovations, they write. 

    The authors point out that controlling diabetes currently costs about $6,000 per person annually, a cost that has tripled in the past 10 years. A public pharmaceutical company could cut that cost to about $70, according to some analysis. 

    “Coupled with reforms such as a national pharmaceutical institute—which would ensure public investments in medical research can be harnessed for public benefit instead of co-opted exclusively for private profit—these public enterprises would produce both new medications and generics, and could offer them at or even below cost,” Poole and Brown write. 

    Learning From the Big Tobacco Settlement

    The authors point out that little lasting change came from the massive settlement with Big Tobacco in 1998. However, the opioid settlement could be different, if it sparked interest in public pharmaceuticals. 

    Poole and Brown conclude, “The U.S. could once and for all move beyond having to tolerate an industry that subordinates public health to shareholder greed.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Sacklers Accused Of Concealing $1 Billion In Wire Transfers

    Sacklers Accused Of Concealing $1 Billion In Wire Transfers

    The New York Attorney General’s Office was able to identify shell companies that were used to conceal the Sacklers’ riches.

    Members of the Sackler family have been accused of trying to conceal their wealth, as they try to settle some 2,000 lawsuits alleging that the family-owned company Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, contributed to the opioid crisis.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James said that her office discovered about $1 billion in wire transfers made by the Sackler family to various entities including real estate holdings.

    The wire transfers were uncovered as a result of just one of 33 subpoenas issued by James to various financial institutions, seeking information about the family’s wealth. Forbes listed the Sacklers as the 19th richest American family in 2016 with a net worth of $13 billion.

    Shell Companies

    James’ office was able to identify shell companies that were used to conceal the Sacklers’ riches.

    “While the Sacklers continue to lowball victims and skirt a responsible settlement, we refuse to allow the family to misuse the courts in an effort to shield their financial misconduct,” said James in a statement. “The limited number of documents provided to us so far underscore the necessity for compliance with every subpoena.”

    Sackler Rep Says Transfers “Were Perfectly Legal”

    A representative for Mortimer D.A. Sackler, a former Purdue Pharma board member, denied James’ suggestion that the family has been trying to protect their wealth from the barrage of lawsuits from states, counties, cities and tribal governments across the U.S.

    “There is nothing newsworthy about these decade-old transfers, which were perfectly legal and appropriate in every respect,” they stated. “This is a cynical attempt by a hostile AG’s office to generate defamatory headlines to try to torpedo a mutually beneficial settlement that is supported by so many other states and would result in billions of dollars going to communities and individuals across the country that need help.”

    A lawyer for Purdue Pharma argued in a court filing against subpoena action by the AG’s office, but a lawyer for the AG’s office said they have already helped uncover “shell companies” used by the family to hide their wealth.

    “Already, these records have allowed the State to identify previously unknown shell companies that one of the Sackler Defendants used to shift Purdue money through accounts around the world and then conceal it in at least two separate multimillion-dollar real estate investments here in New York, sanitized (until now) of any readily-detectable connections to the Sackler family,” said David E. Nachman in a letter to the court.

    On Monday, it was reported that Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy after reaching a tentative settlement that could be worth up to $12 billion over time, according to AP News. However, not everyone is onboard with the proposed settlement.

    View the original article at thefix.com