Richard Sackler, a prominent member of the billionaire family that turned Purdue Pharma into a marketing juggernaut for the highly addictive prescription painkiller Oxycontin, has denied that he or any member of the family is responsible for the opioid epidemic. Testifying to a bankruptcy court overseeing a possible $4.5 billion settlement between Purdue and states, local governments, tribes, and other claimants, Sackler, a former president of the firm and board member, also said he was ignorant of the company’s marketing tactics used to pump up sales and downplay the drug’s addictiveness. Sackler, making a rare appearance before the court, said he did not know how many people had died from using Oxycontin, which was aggressively marketed by Purdue and sold as safe and effective, even as overdose deaths surged. Over the past two decades, more than 500,000 Americans have died over drug overdose, the majority opioid-related.
If approved, the settlement would grant the company immunity from future civil legal claims and also shield the Sackler family from any further prosecution, which has become a sticking point for many of the litigants. They want the company to pay more and acknowledge its role in the epidemic. But the bankruptcy judge is expected to approve the settlement, which would also provide protection to the Sackler family from any future Purdue-related claims. The company would become a public-benefit corporation, with profits used to fund compensation over a decade, but would not prohibit Purdue from continuing its international opioid business.
Thousands of lawsuits against the opioid industry—including drug distributors and pharmacy chains, as well as manufacturers such as Purdue—are still pending. Some have gone to trial, while others have tentative agreements in place, including a $26 billion settlement with the country’s three largest drug distributors and opioid-maker Johnson & Johnson. States are trying to strike a balance between holding the industry accountable and guaranteeing funding for drug abatement and treatment at a time when overdoses reached a record 93,000 just last year. They also want to avoid protracted and expensive litigation that would take place if the deals are eventually scuttled, thereby denying states and communities of badly needed resources to fight the drug crisis.