Source: nytimes.com

Massive Settlement Raises Concerns Over Victim Compensation

A proposed $7.4 billion bankruptcy settlement involving Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, has ignited frustration among opioid crisis victims. While the agreement is poised to be one of the largest opioid settlements in history, critics argue that only a small fraction of the funds will directly benefit those affected.

Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019 after facing thousands of lawsuits related to its role in the opioid epidemic. At the time of its filing, the company was debt-free and valued at over a billion dollars, but its liabilities—driven by claims from victims, hospitals, and state governments—reached trillions. The Sackler family, Purdue’s wealthy owners, sought to resolve the legal battle through bankruptcy proceedings. However, activists argue that the process prioritizes financial settlements over justice for victims.

Ryan Hampton, a former Justice Department appointee tasked with representing victims’ financial interests in the Purdue case, criticized the legal framework, saying bankruptcy is “about who gets paid the most and in what order.” Hampton, who overcame an OxyContin addiction, contends that the settlement is structured in a way that deprives victims of fair compensation.

Sackler Family’s Role and Responsibility in the Crisis

Among the 140,000 claimants in the case are individuals and families who argue they were harmed by Purdue Pharma’s opioids. Hampton himself became addicted to OxyContin at age 23 after being prescribed the drug for a knee injury in 2003. His subsequent struggle with addiction cost him his job and left him homeless before he was able to recover through treatment.

As part of the bankruptcy case, seven members of the Sackler family—who either served on Purdue’s board or were employed by the company—were questioned in 2020. Dr. Richard Sackler, a former Purdue president, played a significant role in making OxyContin the most prescribed brand-name opioid in the U.S. When asked about the drug’s dangers, he focused on its medical benefits.

David Sackler, another former board member, was asked about Purdue’s responsibility for patients who developed opioid addiction. “These were defined risks on the label,” he responded, adding that the company had taken “a dramatic amount of responsibility.”

The Sacklers have agreed to contribute up to $6.5 billion of the settlement over the next 15 years. If finalized, Purdue will pay approximately $900 million. Despite the large figures, none of the victims have yet received compensation.

Victims’ Families Demand Accountability

According to court filings, nearly 90% of the settlement funds will go to creditors, including state governments, hospitals, insurers, and pharmacy chains like CVS. Critics argue that major corporations, some of which have faced their own lawsuits over opioid distribution, are benefiting more than those who lost loved ones.

Hampton called the process a “money grab” and noted that some victims may not receive any payments. Families of deceased victims, like Emily Walden, worry they will be excluded if they cannot prove a prescription history. Walden, whose son died from an overdose, insists the Sacklers should be held accountable for knowingly profiting from the opioid crisis.

While Purdue Pharma has pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges over the years, no Sackler family member or company executive has faced criminal prosecution. Former federal prosecutor Rick Mountcastle, who led an earlier investigation into Purdue, claims political interference prevented top executives from being charged in 2007. He asserts that the Justice Department has shielded the Sacklers from accountability.

The Sackler family continues to maintain their innocence, stating that the bankruptcy settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing but an effort to end litigation. Despite agreeing to relinquish ownership of Purdue Pharma, they retain significant personal wealth, having withdrawn an estimated $11 billion from the company before its financial collapse.

As the settlement process moves forward, victims and their families remain skeptical about whether justice will ever be served.