The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office says a proposed settlement offered by Purdue Pharma does not require the embattled OxyContin maker or the family that owns it to acknowledge any wrongdoing, and that’s just not good enough.
Instead, the tentative agreement to settle thousands of lawsuits brought against Purdue would allow the Sackler family to continue to reap a profit as they wind down their company’s international pharmaceutical sales over the next few years, Associate Attorney General James Boffetti told the Monitor. The Sacklers, Boffetti said, have made billions through deceptive marketing to “massively enrich” their own wallets, and yet none of that money would be returned to the victims ravaged by drug addiction or their families under the proposal announced Wednesday.
“The agreement does not provide the amount of accountability from the Sacklers that justice requires, and so we will continue to fight for a better deal,” Boffetti said.
Boffetti is not alone.
New Hampshire joined Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and other states and territories in rejecting what was an attempt by Purdue at a nationwide deal. Additionally, the majority of New Hampshire counties named in the lawsuit say they need more time to review the specifics of the proposed settlement before making a decision.
Nationally, almost half of the states and hundreds of municipalities have signed on. They took the position that the agreement ensures compensation from Purdue and the Sacklers, whereas waiting for the company to file for bankruptcy on its own could come with risks.
The agreement would have the company file for a structured bankruptcy and pay as much as $12 billion, with about $3 billion coming from the Sackler family. The family would also have to give up ownership of its company and no longer be involved. Instead, court-appointed trustees would select a board of directors to run the new public beneficiary trust, according to the agreement.
The catch: State attorneys general would play a key role in the trust’s day-to-day operations moving forward, Boffetti said.
“How is the attorney general going to run a for-profit opioid company, selling the exact drug that we think was at the core of this crisis?” he asked. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
More than 2,000 lawsuits were brought against Purdue by local and state governments, hospitals, unions and others in recent years, alleging the privately owned company played a major role in creating the opioid crisis. Of those cases, the majority were consolidated by a federal judge in Cleveland as part of a multi-district litigation process. At the same time, some states, including New Hampshire, have sued Purdue and members of the Sackler family in state courts, and those proceedings are ongoing.
On Wednesday, the Sackler family said in a statement that it “supports working toward a global resolution that directs resources to the patients, families and communities across the country who are suffering and need assistance.”
“This is the most effective way to address the urgency of the current public health crisis, and to fund real solutions, not endless litigation,” it said.
But the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office says its fight is far from over. In rejecting the tentative settlement, the Granite State moves closer to its June 2020 trial date in Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord, where it brought litigation against Purdue in August 2017.
At the same time, county governments in the Granite State are weighing their next steps.
Attorney Robert James Bonsignore, who is lead counsel for the majority of the state’s counties, in addition to Belmont and Claremont, said entering into the agreement with Purdue would have been “impulsive.” He said $12 billion is a slap in the face to the victims, their families and New Hampshire communities who’ve suffered so much pain and loss.
“They clearly don’t understand the cost – that’s a penny in the scope of things,” Bonsignore said of Purdue. “The Sacklers continue to siphon money off New Hampshire.”
Bonsignore said Purdue is going to file bankruptcy regardless of whether states and municipalities accept a deal. The question is whether it’ll be prearranged under certain terms or if it’ll be more free-flowing.
“We should not be struggling to keep Purdue alive,” he said. “What’s more important: the life of citizens in New Hampshire, the well-being of citizens in New Hampshire and deterring drug dealers from permanently altering the landscape in New Hampshire, or keeping these companies alive so they can do it again?”
(The Associated Press contributed to this report. Alyssa Dandrea can be reached at 369-3319 or at adandrea@cmonitor.com.)