The Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma (the maker of OxyContin), and the company itself have agreed to pay up to $7.4 billion to settle lawsuits related to the opioid crisis, according to an announcement from the attorneys general of several states.
This new settlement replaces a previous deal that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected last year. Under the new agreement, the Sacklers will pay up to $6.5 billion and give up ownership of Purdue Pharma, which will also pay nearly $900 million. The family’s total contribution is about $500 million more than what was proposed in the earlier settlement.
The agreement is one of the largest reached in the wave of lawsuits aimed at holding companies accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. In addition to the Purdue settlement, other companies have agreed to settlements totaling around $50 billion, most of which is earmarked to help address the opioid crisis.
The deal still needs court approval, and some details are still being worked out. One branch of the federal Department of Justice opposed the previous settlement, even though every state had agreed to it, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. However, with the current administration under President Trump, the federal government is not expected to oppose this new agreement.
As part of the settlement, the Sackler family will give up ownership of Purdue, as they did under the previous agreement. They’ve already stepped down from the company’s board and have not received distributions from Purdue since it filed for bankruptcy. Purdue will be restructured into a new entity, with its board being appointed by the states and other parties involved in the lawsuits.
A significant portion of the settlement—between $800 million and $850 million—will go directly to victims of the opioid crisis or their families, which is a unique feature compared to many other opioid-related settlements. There’s also a provision for up to $800 million to cover future lawsuits if any new cases arise against the Sacklers.
Last year, the Supreme Court blocked the earlier deal because it gave the Sacklers immunity from civil lawsuits over OxyContin, even though the family members weren’t in bankruptcy. The new agreement only shields them from lawsuits filed by those who agree to the settlement.
If this new deal doesn’t get approved, it could open the door for more lawsuits against the Sacklers. A bankruptcy judge is expected to rule Friday on whether the Sacklers’ temporary protections will stay in place through February.
This settlement could finally close a long chapter in the ongoing legal battle over the opioid crisis, which many trace back to the release of OxyContin in 1996. Since then, opioids have been linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S., with illicit fentanyl now playing a major role in the crisis.
The Sackler family has been widely criticized for their involvement in Purdue Pharma, with their name being removed from museums and universities across the globe. The family has consistently denied any wrongdoing, even as they’ve faced immense public backlash.
Despite the settlement, members of the Sackler family are still estimated to be worth billions, though much of their wealth is reportedly tied up in offshore accounts, which may be difficult to access through lawsuits.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong emphasized that the settlement isn’t meant to bankrupt the Sacklers but to hold them accountable for the damage caused by the opioid epidemic. “This is about families impacted by this crisis,” he said. “This is about a group of people and a family that are among the most notorious wrongdoers … and we are holding them accountable.”
Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019 due to the thousands of lawsuits it faced over its role in the opioid crisis. These lawsuits claim that Purdue intentionally misled doctors and patients about the risks of addiction related to OxyContin. Despite the settlement, one branch of the Sackler family has vowed to defend themselves in any remaining cases, arguing that the “public nuisance” claims against them have no merit.
