Answer Addiction

Tag: purdue pharma sacklers

  • Sacklers Benefit From Ski Resort Sales In Areas Hit Hard By Opioids

    Sacklers Benefit From Ski Resort Sales In Areas Hit Hard By Opioids

    Some believe the Sacklers should donate the profits to fund addiction treatment.

    The Sackler family, including those who own Purdue Pharma, have recently earned as much as $116 million from the sale of ski resorts that they owned in areas of New Hampshire, Vermont and Ohio that have been heavily impacted by the opioid epidemic. 

    The Sackler family owned 54% of Peak Resorts Inc., according to Bloomberg. The company was purchased by Vail Resorts Inc. last week, leaving members of the Sackler family with a massive check and some members of local communities frustrated.

    New Hampshire Associate Attorney General James Boffetti explained why to The Washington Post: “It is clear that the Sacklers withdrew a huge amount of money from Purdue Pharma. To the extent that was used for these investments, including in the ski resorts, that is money that they would have only because of this deceptive marketing scheme that they have been running at Purdue.”

    Critics Say Sacklers Should Donate The Profits

    Amanda Bevard, chairwoman of the board of commissioners in Carroll County, New Hampshire, where one of the ski resorts is located, wants to see the Sacklers give up the money from the sales. 

    “The 10 counties in the state of New Hampshire spent over $60 million between 2015 and 2019 on the opioid problem,” she said. “It would be really nice if they would donate their profits back to the state of New Hampshire’s counties.”

    New Hampshire, which is home to three of the resorts sold, has the forth-highest overdose rate in the nation. In the area around one of the resorts, there were enough opioid prescriptions filled between 2006 and 2012 to give 201 pills per year to everyone living in a five-mile radius, the Post noted. Even when you account for out-of-town travelers to the ski area, that’s vastly higher than the national average of 36 pills yearly per person. 

    One Local Denies The Outcry Against The Ski Resort Sales

    Still, some New Hampshire locals said that the sales were needed, especially in rural areas of the state that could use an economic boost. Gene Chandler, former New Hampshire House Speaker, represents an area that is home to one of the resorts. 

    “There hasn’t been any outcry that we’ve been aware of,” he said. “Most people seem to be just interested in what’s best for the ski areas. If anything is going to offset opioid abuse and get control of it, it’s a good economy.”

    One of the ski resorts included in the sale is in Ohio, near where the opioid lawsuits are being litigated. Greg McNeil used to take his son Sam skiing at that resort, until Sam died of an overdose in 2015. Now, he says that seeing the Sacklers benefit from the sale of the resort is painful. 

    “Sam grew up skiing on that mountain, so we had many, many fun days,” McNeil said. “There’s a lot that the Sackler family can do so other families don’t have the same experience—the same thing we had with a loved one.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Sacklers "Siphoned" Money From Purdue To Avoid Payouts, Lawsuit Alleges

    Sacklers "Siphoned" Money From Purdue To Avoid Payouts, Lawsuit Alleges

    A spokesperson for the Sackler family said that they were within their rights as shareholders to withdraw profits from Purdue Pharma.

    The state of Arizona has gone directly to the U.S. Supreme Court with a bold lawsuit alleging that members of the Sackler family took $4 billion from Purdue Pharma between 2008 and 2019 when they knew that the company would likely need the funds to settle opioid-related lawsuits. 

    “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,” Arizona’s Attorney General Mark Brnovich told The New York Times. “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.”

    The Long Shot

    The state hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case because it involves a state as a party. However, that may be unlikely since the court rarely hears cases that have not first gone through lower courts. 

    “I do think it’s a long shot,” Brnovich said. “It’s a little different. It’s a little unorthodox. Sometimes you’ve just got to throw deep.”

    He said that the pressing need for funds to combat the opioid crisis calls for intervention at the highest level of the court system. “We don’t have time for this to take years to wind through the courts. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, and we think they have to act.”

    Another lawyer for the state, William S. Consovoy, said that the state is looking for a quicker resolution to the case. “The urgency is a big deal here. It’s very important that we get this resolved expeditiously, and that’s one of the key reasons why the Supreme Court is the right place to do this and to do this now.”

    Sacklers’ Statement

    A spokesperson for the Sackler family said that they were within their rights as shareholders to withdraw profits from Purdue Pharma. The spokesperson added that the allegations in the lawsuit are “inconsistent with the factual record.” The Sacklers “will vigorously defend against them,” the spokesperson said.  

    The Sackler family, in addition to Purdue Pharma, have become regular targets for opioid-related lawsuits, in part for their alleged misleading marketing of the drug OxyContin. 

    It is not clear when the court will decide whether or not to hear Arizona’s lawsuit. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Why Are Judges Sealing Court Evidence Related To Opioid Settlements?

    Why Are Judges Sealing Court Evidence Related To Opioid Settlements?

    Experts are calling into question the unexplained decisions to seal evidence surrounding opioid settlements with Big Pharma companies.

    Eighteen years ago, West Virginia Judge Booker T. Stephens saw evidence that Purdue Pharma had engaged with misleading and aggressive marketing practices that were getting people hooked on opioids in his state. But instead of allowing that information to become public, Stephens sealed the evidence. Purdue settled with the state, and the damning information was never made public.

    “This case was sealed because both sides agreed and asked me to seal it,” he said to Reuters recently. “Obviously when you settle a case of this magnitude and of this nature, Purdue Pharma would not want to let the world know they had engaged in deceptive marketing practices.”

    State and federal laws allow court evidence to be sealed when there is a privacy concern, but a recent Reuters analysis found that the practice has become widespread. Although federal law mandates that most evidence be made public, Reuters found that over the past 20 years judges have sealed evidence in about half of multidistrict litigation cases, often without explanation.

    This is alarming in cases like that of Purdue, where making the evidence public would have raised awareness of a public safety issue, and potentially saved lives.

    “Information that could have really made a difference sometimes doesn’t come to light,” Judge and judicial educator Jeremy Fogel said.

    Judges are supposed to explain why they seal evidence, and only seal the documents that contain sensitive information, like medical records or trade secrets. But as sealing evidence has become more common, judges like Stephens simply seal evidence without explanation.

    In 1991, Arthur Miller, a New York University law professor, wrote a paper claiming there was no proof that sealing evidence could result in public harm. Reached recently, however, he said that the opioid epidemic and the Reuters analysis of how evidence is handled show that there is a public interest in keeping evidence open.

    “Certainly, anything relating to public health or things tied to social policy, you would want to have an explanation as to why something is sealed,” he said.

    The question is particularly relevant as a federal judge in Ohio sorts through 2,000 lawsuits against the drug manufacturing industry. Judge Dan A. Polster has sealed most of the evidence in those cases.

    A recent court case in Massachusetts has made public reams of internal documents from Purdue, which have highlighted the unscrupulous practices at the company. The outcry shows the importance of having transparency around evidence in the judicial system.

    Stephens, the judge who sealed the Purdue evidence 18 years ago, still sees the affects of opioids in his courtroom today. Yet, West Virginia University College of Law professor Jennifer Oliva said that Stephens could have helped fuel earlier awareness of the opioid epidemic if he had not sealed the case.

    “That’s bananas,” Oliva said. “He’s not allowed to do that without providing reasons.”

    View the original article at thefix.com