Answer Addiction

Tag: sacklers

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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