Tag: Opioid

Categories
Health

Richard Sackler Says Household and Purdue Bear No Accountability for Opioid Disaster

Richard Sackler Says Family and Purdue Bear No Responsibility for Opioid Crisis

Until the third hour of the testimony before the Federal Insolvency Court by Dr. Richard Sackler, a former president and co-chair of the board of directors of Purdue Pharma, the prescription opioid maker founded by members of the Sackler family, asked a lawyer a chain of questions:

“Do you have any responsibility for the opioid crisis in the United States?”

“No,” replied Dr. Sackler, 76, weak.

“Does the Sackler family have any responsibility for the opioid crisis in the United States?”

Again “No”.

And finally:

“Is Purdue Pharma responsible for the opioid crisis in the US?”

More consequently: “No.”

Dr. Sackler, perhaps the most famous of the Sacklers billionaire, who for nearly 20 years was the family member who played the primary role in launching his signature prescription pain reliever, OxyContin, seldom videoconferenced Wednesday before a judge holding the confirmatory hearing for a plan who would reorganize Purdue and resolve all lawsuits against the company and family members over their role in the opioid epidemic.

It is believed to be the first time Dr. Sackler publicly answered questions about the family’s opioid business. Similar to an expanded testimony presented to Kentucky state attorneys in 2015, Dr. Sackler presented his legal department with a testimony that was largely littered with faint or absent memories, brief statements, and distractions.

His voice was often barely audible, he apologized for his laryngitis, and occasionally appeared to be fiddling with the technology that posed annoying volume challenges and opening documents emailed to him when he testified.

While he did not provide any new insights into what is already known about the roles of Sackler’s family members in the company, his looks were remarkable for what he refused to admit.

Dr. Sackler had been called on for questioning by attorneys for states opposed to the plan, in part because they believe the Sacklers will receive extensive legal protection in return for paying $ 4.5 billion.

In a biting back and forth, Dr. Sackler, he doesn’t know how many Americans died from OxyContin. “In your role as chairman or president of an opioid company, you did not find it necessary to determine how many people died as a result of this product?” Asked Brian Edmunds, an assistant attorney general from Maryland.

“To the best of my knowledge, data is not available,” replied Dr. Sackler.

Dr. Sackler – who trained as an internist but embarked on a career as a pharmaceutical manager for the Stamford, Connecticut-based company originally owned in part by his father, Dr. Raymond Sackler – is known for throwing himself into Purdue’s operation. In a testimony on Wednesday, Dr. Sackler that he and a Purdue sales representative drove calls to doctors to increase sales. The sales force eventually focused on doctors, who tended to prescribe higher doses, said Dr. Sackler. He acknowledged that higher-dose opioids could result in higher profits for the company.

During his tenure, Purdue twice confessed to federal criminal charges related to the marketing and sale of OxyContin and settled with Kentucky.

Lawsuits against the Sacklers and Purdue received numerous emails from Dr. Sackler cited, including one from 2001 cited in a Massachusetts lawsuit. “We must take every possible means against the perpetrators,” he wrote. “You are the culprit and the problem. They are ruthless criminals. “

In 2019, the Sackler family contributed $ 75 million to Oklahoma as part of a larger settlement between the state and Purdue. In this case, as in a civil law settlement between the federal government and the Sacklers in 2020, family members did not admit any wrongdoing.

“I cannot enumerate all the settlements,” said Dr. Sackler. “There were many settlements, both private and public.”

The Maryland, Washington State, and Connecticut lawyers apparently attempted to extract such shards to put them back together, arguing that the Sacklers were deeply involved in Purdue’s business.

The settlement agreement negotiated by Purdue and the Sacklers with states, tribes, local governments and other plaintiffs would not only settle the lawsuits, but would also give the company immunity from future civil claims, a condition customarily accorded to companies emerging from bankruptcy restructuring .

But this plan would also give similar protection to the Sacklers who did not file for bankruptcy. The question of such comprehensive legal protection for the Sacklers has driven many of the remaining objections to the plan.

If Judge Robert Drain’s plan is upheld as expected by the U.S. Southern New York Bankruptcy Court at White Plains, the Sacklers will not be pursued by those who contradict the plan, let alone future litigants for Purdue – related issues.

And that ban isn’t just limited to opioid-related cases. Benjamin Higgins, an attorney for the U.S. Trustee Program, a Department of Justice unit that oversees bankruptcy cases, noted that, for example, Purdue had in recent years introduced a long-acting stimulant to treat symptoms of attention deficit / hyperactivity disorder and that if any lawsuits occurred in the In connection with this drug would be considered, the Sacklers would also be vaccinated against it.

Dr. Sackler said he was not very familiar with the details of the extensive litigation clears that are at the core of Purdue’s bankruptcy plan.

“It’s an extremely dense document,” said Dr. Sackler. “I read a page or two and realized that it would take me a lot of time.”

In accordance with the complex structure of the Sackler payments to a national opioid trust, the contributions are partly financed by the prospective sale of the various pharmaceutical companies of the family members worldwide.

“Will you personally be contributing your own assets to the settlement payments in the next nine or ten years?” Sackler was asked.

“I don’t know,” he replied. “I don’t think that’s decided yet.”

Categories
Health

Sacklers Threaten to Pull Out of Opioid Settlement With out Broad Authorized Immunity

Sacklers Threaten to Pull Out of Opioid Settlement Without Broad Legal Immunity

At least 2,700 lawsuits and hundreds of thousands of lawsuits have been registered against Purdue, beginning in 2014 when the opioid epidemic peaked. Plaintiffs span a broad spectrum including 48 states, local governments, tribes, hospitals, individuals and caregivers of infants born with symptoms of withdrawal from opioids, all of whom are devastated and financially exhausted from opioids.

In the last few years, more and more cases, individual sackers have been named themselves.

Nearly two years ago, Purdue filed for bankruptcy restructuring that automatically suspended those lawsuits. However, the Sacklers themselves did not file for bankruptcy, despite insisting that they too benefit from their company’s expected indemnities.

The issue of releases for the Sacklers and other third parties is at the center of opposition to the bankruptcy scheme that is now being pursued by nine states, including Maryland, Washington and Connecticut. The District of Columbia, the Federal Department of Justice and the U.S. Trustee, a Department of Justice program that monitors bankruptcy cases, as well as several Canadian local governments and First Nations have joined in the opposition.

Under applicable law of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Judge Drain Court is located, the judge may grant exemptions to the Sacklers and other third parties who have not filed for bankruptcy. But, by and large, the issue is unresolved.

Other federal districts prohibit it. The issue has been taken up by members of Congress and could well lead to an appeal by the opponents if Judge Drain approves the plan. The pounding questions of contradicting attorneys so far should not only raise questions about the plan, but lay a foundation for such appeals.

Alain Delaquérière contributed to the research.

Categories
Health

Paul J. Hanly Jr., Prime Litigator in Opioid Instances, Dies at 70

Paul J. Hanly Jr., Top Litigator in Opioid Cases, Dies at 70

Paul J. Hanly Jr., a top litigation attorney who has been the focus of the current statewide litigation against drug companies and others in the supply chain for his role in the deadly opioid epidemic, died Saturday at his Miami Beach home. He was 70 years old.

The cause was anaplastic thyroid cancer, an extremely rare and aggressive disease, said Jayne Conroy, his longtime legal partner.

During his four decades-long career, Mr. Hanly, a class plaintiff attorney, has tried and administered numerous complex legal cases, including terrorist funding for the 9/11 2001 attacks and allegations of the sexual abuse of dozens of boys by a man, who ran an orphanage and school in Haiti.

But nothing compares to the national opioid cases pending in federal court in Cleveland on behalf of thousands of communities and tribes against manufacturers and distributors of prescription opioid pain relievers. The federal opioid litigation is considered by many to be perhaps the most complex in American legal history – even more intricate and far-reaching than the epic tobacco industry litigation.

The defendants – including everyone in the opioid manufacturing, distribution and dispensing chain – are charged with aggressively marketing pain relievers while downplaying the risk of addiction and overdose. Their actions, Hanly said, contributed to the opioid epidemic that has raged across the country for two decades, killing hundreds of thousands of people who have started abusing pain relievers like OxyContin and switched to street drugs like heroin and fentanyl.

“This was probably the most complicated set of lawsuits ever to come to court in my tenure,” said Ohio District Judge Dan A. Polster, who oversees the sprawling case, in a telephone interview on Saturday. “I was fortunate to have the best lawyers in the country on all sides, and Paul was one of them.”

“He was an excellent lawyer, an accomplished professional,” added the judge. “He fought hard. He fought fair. And that’s exactly what you want from a lawyer, from a lawyer. “He said that Mr. Hanly was leading” in helping organize and hold the plaintiffs’ side together “.

Mr. Hanly of Simmons Hanly Conroy in New York played a leading role in the litigation as one of three plaintiffs’ attorneys appointed by Judge Polster to handle important aspects of the cases, including negotiations. The others were Joe Rice of Motley Rice, South Carolina and Paul T. Farrell Jr. of Farrell Law, West Virginia.

At the same time, there are several cases of opioid occurring at the state level. Mr. Hanly had also prepared for a lawsuit against manufacturers and dealers due to go on trial next month in Suffolk County, NY

He had long been at the forefront of efforts to hold drug companies accountable. He filed one of the first major lawsuits against Purdue Pharma in 2003 for warning no more than 5,000 patients about the addictive properties of OxyContin. His clients eventually settled for $ 75 million in Purdue. It was one of the few cases where a drug company agreed to pay individual patients who accused them of gently pedaling the risk of addiction.

Mr. Hanly had taken up complex cases with a large number of plaintiffs in the past. Shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, he represented some of the families who had lost loved ones on the planes and in the World Trade Center. He also filed a lawsuit to stop the sale of tanzanite, a rough stone used as a cash alternative to fund terrorist activities. This lawsuit was extended to foreign governments, banks, and others who supported al-Qaeda. Parts of it are still pending.

Another major case was a landmark US $ 12 million settlement in 2013 on behalf of 24 Haitian boys who said they were sexually abused by Douglas Perlitz, who ran programs for underprivileged boys, and was subsequently sentenced to 19 years in prison . Mr Hanly said the defendants, including the Society of Jesus of New England, Fairfield University and others, did not properly supervise Mr Perliitz. Mr. Hanly filed additional charges in 2015, bringing the total number of juveniles abused to over 100 between the late 1990s and 2010.

“Paul was an attorney’s attorney,” said Ms. Conroy, his legal partner. She said he was known for his extensive preparation for the process, his creative strategies for the process, and his almost photographic memory of the contents of documents.

He was also known for moving away from the muted grays and blacks of most lawyers to brisk dresses in bright yellows, blues, and pinks. He preferred bespoke styles that were eye-catching yet sophisticated. His two-tone shoes were all handmade.

In a recently published book on the opioid industry, Empire of Pain, Patrick Radden Keefe described Mr. Hanly as “like a lawyer in a Dick Tracy cartoon” with his bold colors and tailored shirts with stiff, contrasting collars. But none of this, Mr. Keefe made clear, diminished his competitive advantage.

“Paul was a man of few words and a tremendous presence,” said David Nachman, who recently retired from the New York attorney general where he was the state’s chief counsel for the state’s opioid case and worked with Mr. Hanly on it to bring case to court in Suffolk County.

“When he walked into a room everyone noticed,” Nachman said via email. “When he spoke, everyone listened and when he smiled, you knew everything would be fine.”

Paul James Hanly Jr. was born on April 18, 1951 in Jersey City, New Jersey. His father held a variety of government posts including assistant director of Hudson County Penitentiary and hospital administrator. His mother, Catherine (Kenny) Hanly, was a housewife.

His family was notorious in New Jersey; Some members had been charged with corruption and spent time in prison. These included his maternal grandfather, John V. Kenny, a former Jersey City mayor and a powerful Democratic chief of Hudson County known as the “Pope of Jersey City” who was jailed in the 1970s after pleading guilty of tax evasion would have.

Mr. Hanly went a different way. He went to Cornell, where his roommate was Ed Marinaro, who later played professional football and later became an actor (best known for “Hill Street Blues”). Mr. Hanly, who played soccer with him, graduated with a major in philosophy in 1972 and received a sports scientist award as Cornell Varsity Football Senior, which combined the highest academic average with outstanding ability.

He earned a Masters in Philosophy from Cambridge University in 1976 and a law degree from Georgetown in 1979. He then worked as a clerk for Lawrence A. Whipple, a judge at the US District Court in New Jersey.

Mr. Hanly’s marriage to Joyce Roquemore in the mid-1980s ended in divorce. He is survived by two sons, Paul J. Hanly III and Burton J. Hanly; one daughter, Edith D. Hanly; a brother, John K. Hanly; and a sister, Margo Mullady.

He began his legal career as a national litigation and settlement advisor with Turner & Newall, a UK asbestos company, one of the world’s largest in its product liability cases. The company was bought by an American company, Federal-Mogul, in 1998. After that, it was overwhelmed with asbestos claims and filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

Mr. Hanly and Ms. Conroy spent much of their time negotiating with the plaintiffs’ attorneys. They soon switched to representing the plaintiffs themselves.

“We have come to realize over time that this is more important to us,” said Ms. Conroy, “to ensure that the victims are compensated for what happened.”

Jan Hoffman contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Health

Sacklers Deny Private Accountability for Opioid Epidemic in Home Listening to

Sacklers Deny Personal Responsibility for Opioid Epidemic in House Hearing

Members of Congress on Thursday threw withering comments and angry questions at two members of the Sackler billionaire family who own Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, in a rare public appearance to take personal responsibility for the deadly opioid epidemic for details over $ 10 billion showing the family withdrew from the company.

The hearing before the House Oversight Committee provided the public with an extremely unusual opportunity to hear directly from some family members whose company is accused in thousands of federal and state lawsuits for misleading marketing of OxyContin, the pain reliever seen as initiating a wave of opioid addiction, which resulted in the deaths of more than 450,000 Americans. Eight family members were individually named in many state cases.

The uniqueness of the Sacklers’ appearance on Thursday was underscored by the likelihood that they will never testify in court, as the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings and statewide litigation can be settled in settlements rather than legal proceedings. Despite the millions of dollars in legal costs incurred by plaintiffs and Purdue alike – and the subsequent Chapter 11 filing for bankruptcy protection in September 2019 – one obstacle to resolution remains: the Sacklers refusal to face personal or criminal accountability and appeal over substantial parts of their property.

During the tense, nearly four-hour hearing, 40-year-old David Sackler and his cousin Dr. Kathe Sackler (72), who both worked for years on the company’s board of directors, testified from a distance and largely avoided the possible booby-traps and diverted the blame for “management” and independent, non-family board members.

Or, as Mr Sackler said, “That is a question for the lawyers.”

Repeatedly, committee members pitted harsh statistics on the destruction from the epidemic against pictures of the family’s simultaneous gains, including a $ 22.5 million mansion in the Bel Air neighborhood of Los Angeles paid in cash in 2018 – which David did Sackler called an investment in which he had not spent a single night.

Throughout the session, both Sacklers expressed regret over OxyContin’s role in the epidemic, but not about their own actions over the years when the company aggressively promoted the pain reliever, with the oversight and encouragement of the board of directors.

In fact, Dr. Sackler embarrassed about patient welfare. “I thought Purdue was acting responsibly to reduce the incidence of abuse and overdose while continuing to serve those in need of pain relief,” she said.

“I was trying to find out, was there anything I could have done differently? Know what I knew then – not what I know now? “Said Dr. Sackler, who served on the board from 1990 to 2018. “There is nothing that I could find otherwise, depending on what I believed and understood at the time.”

She said what she later learned from management and reported to the board was “extremely distressing.”

Mr. Sackler, who served on the board from 2012 to 2018, was similarly sensitive: “I believe I behaved legally and ethically, and I believe the full record will show that I still feel absolutely awful that a product created to help so many people “is linked to death and addiction, he said.

Deeply skeptical committee members asked the Sacklers whether they actually subscribed to newspapers or had access to cable television.

Speaking to the Sacklers, Representative Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, said, “When I see you testify, my blood boils. I don’t know of any family in America worse than yours. “

West Virginia Republican Carol Miller asked Mr. Sackler if he had ever visited Appalachia to see firsthand the effects of the crisis.

“Yes,” he replied, but not for the express purpose of establishing the facts.

“I was on vacation with my wife,” he said.

In the absence of a direct sense of responsibility by the Sacklers – or by Dr. Craig Landau, Purdue’s chief executive officer since 2017, who also testified – the committee members used their questions to explain the most egregious actions of the company and Dr. Sackler’s father, Dr. Richard Sackler, a practical manager during the height of the epidemic.

In particular, they examined the measures resulting from a nearly $ 635 million fine in 2007 paid by the company and three senior executives after pleading guilty of “misbranding”. The settlement did not include any assumption of liability by one of the Sacklers.

The committee chairman, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, asked Mr. Sackler if the family was concerned about a government investigation following the company’s federal settlement in 2008. Mr. Sackler denied knowing that the investigation had increased.

But then Ms. Maloney read from an email exchange between Mr. Sackler and other relatives in 2007, just a week after that settlement. Regarding courtroom activities, he wrote, “We are rich? For how long? Until what suits reach the family? “

Then she asked Mr. Sackler, “Have you tried to cash out winnings so opioid victims can’t claim them for future losses?”

He replied: “No, I don’t think that’s what I meant then.”

The committee was able to require the Sacklers to submit a list of the companies Ms. Maloney referred to as “offshore shell companies”. According to court records, the family withdrew approximately $ 10 billion from Purdue Pharma between 2008 and 2017.

Mr Sackler said Thursday that the family paid about half of those taxes.

Dr. Landau said that during his tenure the company stopped promoting opioids and focused on developing drugs that reverse overdoses.

Three generations of family members have overseen Purdue since the 1950s when three brothers – including Raymond (David’s grandfather) and Mortimer (Kather’s father) – started it. (A third brother, Dr. Arthur Sackler, sold his stock long before OxyContin was launched.) During the opioid epidemic, family members served on Purdue’s board of directors, often pushing the sales department to rave about – prescribing doctors and downplaying its addictive properties of the drug according to extensive court documents.

Last month, Purdue pleaded guilty to three crimes of setbacks and fraud related to advertising its opioid and failing to report abnormal sales. The Justice Department has agreed with the company $ 8.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties and family members with $ 225 million in civil penalties. The Sacklers did not admit any wrongdoing. The amount they paid is roughly 2 percent of the family’s net worth.

Maura Healey, the attorney general of Massachusetts, the first state to name individual Sacklers in litigation, said the Sacklers want “special treatment.” In a letter to the House Committee, she wrote, “If we let powerful people cover up the facts, avoid accountability, or start a government sponsored OxyContin business – it is no justice. This time we have to get it right. “

In 2019, Congressman Elijah E Cummings, the late committee chairman, opened an investigation into the company and the family to see if their actions should lead to possible policy or legislation changes. In October, the committee released a plethora of documents that underscored how individual Sacklers asked the company to increase sales. The committee tried to get numerous Sacklers to testify, which they opposed through their lawyers, saying that the appearances would hamper the ongoing bankruptcy process.

The committee’s lawyers threatened to summon them. After considerable disputes, the Sacklers agreed to introduce two of the four family members originally requested.