The Sackler family would give up ownership of Purdue Pharma, the company blamed for much of the opioid epidemic, and $ 3 billion of their own money in a Settlement Proposal to settle thousands of federal and state funds Landesklagen pay person who is familiar with the negotiations.
The discussions have been going on for months as Purdue and the Sacklers seek to prevent new lawsuits against individual family members and their companies.
When All Parties Agree and After the deal is finalized, Purdue is the first among about two dozen manufacturers, distributors and retailers of prescription opioids that are on trial nationwide to settle all claims against him for his role in a crisis of the United States settling hundreds of thousands of people in the past two decades.
But it would not be a simple cash payment. The bulk of the funds would stem from the company's restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, which would turn it from a private company into a "trust of public beneficiaries". This would enable the profits from all drug sales, including the opioid painkiller OxyContin, to be made to go to plaintiffs – mostly states, cities and tribes.
In addition, the company would make its addiction treatment products available to the public for free. These drugs are currently under development and have been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration in the fast lane. These include tablets to combat opioid cravings and an over-the-counter nasal spray to reverse overdoses.
The value of the profits from the new trust and drug donations is estimated at $ 7 billion to $ 8 billion.
In addition to their $ 3 billion cash payment, the Sacklers sold their own pharmaceutical company Mundipharma and contributed another $ 1.5 billion from the proceeds.
The settlement talks were first reported by NBC. In response to the reports, Purdue e-mailed a statement: "While Purdue Pharma is ready to vigorously defend itself in the opioid litigation, the company has made it clear that years of wasteful litigation and appeals do little good. The people and communities affected by the opioid crisis now need help. Purdue believes that a constructive global solution is the best way forward, and the company is actively working with Attorney Generals and other plaintiffs to achieve this result.
The Sacklers declined to comment.
Maura Healey, Massachusetts General's attorney, who filed the first state lawsuit against individual Sackler family members, declined to comment on the content of the settlement negotiations.
The settlement talks have been going on for months, largely at the behest of Judge Dan Polster, federal judge of Sackler Cleveland, who oversees about 2,000 lawsuits against local companies in the opioid industry.
Purdue wants to achieve a so-called global agreement – an agreement of all parties that would end the lawsuits. In order to achieve this goal, both the states whose cases were brought forward by their respective Attorney Generals and the federal prosecutors would have to reach a unified agreement with Purdue.
The framework for the agreement and which plaintiffs would join it are still in motion. The people familiar with the discussions expressed dismay that news was leaked at the eleventh hour just before the participants were due to submit a status report to Judge Polster on Friday. Some feared that the public could interfere with the already sensitive talks.
Judge Polster had ordered all attendees not to speak to anyone about the content outside the negotiations.
The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee issued a concise statement to The New York Times: "In accordance with Judge Polster's confidentiality regulation, which we will comply with, we can not publicly speak with speculation or media reports of settlement negotiations with the defendants against whom we defend ourselves in the fall before a federal court. "
Currently about 10 states were in the negotiations. It remains to be seen if the other 38 states that filed lawsuits will agree. Also in the air is whether a larger group of 34,000 towns and counties that have not filed any lawsuits would agree to be bound by this framework.
If the agreement could be finalized, Purdue would immediately file for bankruptcy and under the supervision of an insolvency judge. The judge would appoint three independent trustees, who in turn would designate a board of directors for the new trustee of the public beneficiary. The independent trustees and board would all make decisions on how to handle the proceeds from the continued operations of Purdue's business.
The Sacklers would no longer be involved in the company founded by three Sackler brothers in the 1950s.
Although Purdue has a relatively small share of the opioid market in the US, its introduction of the prescription painkiller OxyContin in 1996 and an unrestricted sales tactic widely regarded as triggering the two-decade-long slippage in opioid dependence, the US has seized land.
Already in 2007, Purdue and three senior executives in federal court found themselves guilty of misleading the regulators, doctors and patients over the drug's search risk and abuse potential. Despite paying a $ 600 million fine, the company continued to aggressively promote the drug to reduce its risk and exaggerate its benefits.