WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would shield members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids.

The justices seemed by turns reluctant to break up an exhaustively negotiated agreement, but also leery of somehow rewarding the Sacklers.

The agreement hammered out with state and local governments and victims would provide billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic. The Sacklers would contribute up to $6 billion and give up ownership of the company, but retain billions more. The company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.

The high court put the settlement on hold during the summer, in response to objections from the Biden administration.

Justice Elena Kagan seemed to sum up the questions that were nagging at some of the justices.

“It seems as though the federal government is standing in the way of that as against the huge, huge, huge majority of claimants,” Kagan said.

But later, she also said that in bankruptcies, protection against lawsuits has a price.

“You get a discharge when you put all your assets on the table,” she said. “The Sacklers didn’t come anywhere close to doing that.”

Arguments lasted nearly two hours in a packed courtroom, its doors draped in black in memoriam to retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who died Friday. Chief Justice John Roberts offered a remembrance of the first woman to serve on the court. “She changed the world,” Roberts said.

Outside the court, a small but vocal group of protesters opposed the Purdue Pharma agreement. “Shame on Sackler,” one banner read. “No Sackler immunity at any $$,” read another.

The issue for the justices is whether the legal shield that bankruptcy provides can be extended to people such as the Sacklers, who have not declared bankruptcy themselves. Lower courts have issued conflicting decisions over that issue, which also has implications for other major product liability lawsuits settled through the bankruptcy system.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, contends that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. During the Trump administration, the government supported the settlement.

Justice Department lawyer Curtis Gannon told the court Monday that negotiations could resume, and perhaps lead to a better deal, if the court were to stop the current agreement.

Proponents of the plan said third-party releases are sometimes necessary to forge an agreement, and federal law imposes no prohibition against them.

“Forget a better deal,” lawyer Pratik Shah, representing victims and other creditors in the bankruptcy, told the justices. “There is no other deal.”

Lawyers for more than 60,000 victims who support the settlement called it “a watershed moment in the opioid crisis,” while recognizing that “no amount of money could fully compensate” victims for the damage caused by the misleading marketing of OxyContin, a powerful prescription painkiller.

A lawyer for a victim who opposes the settlement calls the provision dealing with the Sacklers “special protection for billionaires.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed more inclined toward the opponents, saying the Sacklers’ insistence on a shield against all lawsuits is “causing this problem.”

By contrast, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sounded like a vote to allow the deal to proceed. He said the government was seeking to prevent payment to victims and their families, as well as money for prevention programs “in exchange really for this somewhat theoretical idea that they’ll be able to recover money down the road from the Sacklers themselves.”

OxyContin first hit the market in 1996, and Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing of it is often cited as a catalyst of the nationwide opioid epidemic, persuading doctors to prescribe painkillers with less regard for addiction dangers.

The drug and the Stamford, Connecticut-based company became synonymous with the crisis, even though the majority of pills being prescribed and used were generic drugs. Opioid-related overdose deaths have continued to climb, hitting 80,000 in recent years. Most of those are from fentanyl and other synthetic drugs.

The Purdue Pharma settlement would be among the largest reached by drug companies, wholesalers and pharmacies to resolve epidemic-related lawsuits filed by state, local and Native American tribal governments and others. Those settlements have totaled more than $50 billion.

But the Purdue Pharma settlement would be one of only two so far that include direct payments to victims from a $750 million pool. Payouts are expected to range from about $3,500 to $48,000.

Sackler family members no longer are on the company’s board, and they have not received payouts from it since before Purdue Pharma entered bankruptcy. In the decade before that, though, they were paid more than $10 billion, about half of which family members said went to pay taxes.

A decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, 22-859, is expected by early summer.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post The Supreme Court wrestles with OxyContin maker’s bankruptcy deal, with billions of dollars at stake appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Even though one judge rejected OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s sweeping settlement of thousands of lawsuits over the opioid crisis, another refused Wednesday to allow litigation to move ahead just yet against members of the Sackler family who own the company — but also ordered negotiations for a reworked settlement.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain on Wednesday granted Purdue’s request to extend an injunction until Feb. 1 protecting the company and the Sacklers from litigation. He also ordered Purdue, the Sacklers, the states and other parties to negotiate a new settlement.

In a hearing conducted Wednesday via video conference, the White Plains, New York-based judge warned the family and others that he would end the protections early if there are not serious talks toward a new settlement. “If the parties do not negotiate in good faith,” he said, “they will face the consequences of the injunction unraveling.”

Drain is the same judge who approved the company’s settlement in September.

The deal had been hashed out over two years of negotiations and mediation in bankruptcy court. Eventually, lawyers for the overwhelming majority of local governments and states signed on. The plan called for members of the Sackler family to give up ownership of Purdue, which would be transformed into a new company whose profits would be used to fight the opioid crisis.

Sackler family members would also contribute $4.5 billion in cash and charitable assets, with the money to go to victims of the crisis and efforts to end the crisis, which has been linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the U.S. since 2000, counting overdoses of both prescription opioids and illicit ones, such as heroin and illegally produced fentanyl.

In exchange for the contributions, Sackler family members were also granted protections from lawsuits over opioids.

But eight states and one office in the U.S. Department of Justice objected. They said it was improper for them to be forced to give up their right to sue members of the Sackler family, who themselves were not seeking bankruptcy protection. The holdout states argued that the $4.5 billion does not properly hold the family members accountable.

In December, U.S District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled in favor of those states, finding that judges do not have authority to grant third-party releases as Drain did.

Purdue said it would appeal that ruling while also trying again to strike a settlement deal that all the states would be willing to join. The Stamford, Connecticut-based company also asked Drain to protect it and the family from lawsuits while that’s sorted out. A injunction previously in place was to expire Thursday.

Two states — Connecticut and Washington — argued that suits against the Sacklers should be allowed to move ahead immediately. Those states said they would not move ahead now with litigation against the company.

Irve Goldman, a lawyer for Connecticut, said in court Wednesday that their suits against the Sacklers won’t be resumed immediately if the family members are in good-faith settlement negotiations. He also said that the Sacklers have not been in such talks so far since the settlement was dissolved on Dec. 16.

Lawyers for Sackler family did not speak at Wednesday’s hearing. Representatives of the family did not immediately respond to questions from The Associated Press.

Connecticut and Washington said in a filing that the Sacklers would agree to an appropriate settlement only if lawsuits can move ahead and they “are then forced to come to grips with the prospect of continued litigation against them.”

But Benjamin Kaminetzky, a lawyer for Purdue, told Drain in court that the opposite was true. “If the stay is lifted, everyone will be scrambling to get their claims on file as quickly as possible,” he said. “In this environment, negotiations would be an afterthought at best, likely a no-thought.”

Still, he said that if the Sackler family does not negotiate in January, Purdue would not seek further injunctions to protect the family from lawsuits.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Suits against OxyContin owners on hold; negotiations ordered appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A federal bankruptcy judge gave conditional approval Wednesday to a sweeping settlement that will remove the Sackler family from ownership of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma and devote potentially $10 billion to fighting the opioid crisis that has killed a half-million Americans over the past two decades.

If it withstands appeals, the deal will resolve a mountain of 3,000 lawsuits from state and local governments, Native American tribes, unions and others that accuse the company of helping to spark the overdose epidemic by aggressively marketing the prescription painkiller.

Under the settlement, the Sacklers will have to get out of the opioid business altogether and contribute $4.5 billion. But they will be shielded from any future lawsuits over opioids.

The drugmaker itself will be reorganized into a new charity-oriented company with a board appointed by public officials and will funnel its profits into government-led efforts to prevent and treat addiction.

Also, the settlement sets up a compensation fund that will pay some victims of drugs an expected $3,500 to $48,000 each.

After an all-day hearing in which he analyzed the plan’s pros and cons for a nonstop 6 1/2 hours, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain said he would approve it as long as two relatively small changes were made. If so, he said, he will formally enter the decision on Thursday.

He said that while he does not have “fondness for the Sacklers or sympathy for them,” collecting money from them through lawsuits instead of a settlement would be complicated.

The deal comes nearly two years after the Stamford, Connecticut-based company filed for bankruptcy under the weight of the lawsuits.

Under the settlement, the Sacklers were not given immunity from criminal charges, though there have been no indications they will face any.

State and local governments came to support the plan overwhelmingly, if grudgingly in many cases. But nine states and others had opposed it, largely because of the protections granted to the family.

The attorneys general of Connecticut, the District of Columbia and Washington state immediately announced they will either appeal the ruling or explore the possibility of doing so.

The Sacklers “should not be allowed to manipulate bankruptcy laws to evade justice and protect their blood money,” Connecticut’s William Tong said.

Some families who lost loved ones to drugs also came out against the settlement, including Ed Bisch, of Westampton, New Jersey, whose 18-year-old son died of an overdose nearly 20 years ago. “The Sacklers are buying their immunity,” he said.

But other families said they did not want to risk losing the money that will go toward treatment and prevention.

“If they gave me a million dollars, would it help bring back my son?” said Lynn Wencus, of Wrentham, Massachusetts. “Let’s help the people who are really struggling with this disease.”

In a statement, members of the Sackler family said: “While we dispute the allegations that have been made about our family, we have embraced this path in order to help combat a serious and complex public health crisis.”

Purdue chairman Steve Miller said the settlement averts “years of value-destructive litigation” and “ensures that billions of dollars will be devoted to helping people and communities who have been hurt by the opioid crisis.”

The bankruptcy judge, based in White Plains, New York, had urged the holdouts to work out an agreement for the same reason.

“Bitterness over the outcome of this case is completely understandable,” Drain said. “But one also has to look at the process and the issues and risks and rewards and alternatives of continued litigation versus the settlement laid out in the plan.”

Some of the opioid deaths over the past two decades have been attributed to OxyContin and other prescription painkillers, but most are from illicit forms of opioids such as heroin and illegally produced fentanyl. Opioid-linked deaths in the U.S. continued at a record pace last year, hitting 70,000.

The crisis devastated the reputation of the Sackler family, major philanthropists whose name was once emblazoned on the walls of museums and universities around the world. With the settlement, family members who have owned the company will still be worth billions.

Whether the deal holds the Sacklers sufficiently accountable was the most contentious question through the proceedings. Those suing succeeded in boosting the amount the Sacklers would pay from a likely $3 billion.

David Sackler, a former Purdue board member, had testified that family members would not accept the agreement unless it protected them from lawsuits. Otherwise, he said, the family would defend itself in litigation that could drag on for years and eat up the company’s and the family’s assets in lawyers’ fees.

His father, Richard Sackler, a former Purdue president and board chairman, said under questioning that he, his family and the company did not bear responsibility for the opioid crisis.

Drain noted that none of the four Sacklers who testified offered an explicit apology. “A forced apology is not really an apology, so we will have to live without one,” he said.

The judge requested two somewhat technical changes to the plan: one clarifying that Sackler family members would be protected only from lawsuits involving opioids, and one on the procedure for bringing non-opioid claims against them.

One projection commissioned by a group of attorneys general found that the family’s wealth could rise from the current estimate of $10.7 billion to more than $14 billion by 2030 despite the required payments. That’s because the family could continue to benefit from investment returns and interest as they make their gradual contributions over a decade under the deal.

Lawyers for Purdue and branches of the Sackler family disputed the assumptions used in the projection.

The settlement also requires members of the Sackler family, who are scattered across the U.S., Britain and elsewhere in Europe, to get out of the opioid business worldwide.

Several attorneys general won another provision that will create a massive public repository of company documents, including ones that normally would be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Purdue has said the settlement overall will be worth about $10 billion, which includes the value of addiction treatment and overdose antidote drugs it is developing.

The bankruptcy case is not the first time Purdue had faced legal trouble over the marketing of its painkillers.

The company pleaded guilty in 2007 to federal charges it misled regulators and others about the addiction dangers of OxyContin and agreed to pay more than $600 million in penalties.

Last November, as part of a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, Purdue pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States and violating anti-kickback laws.

Purdue’s bankruptcy has been the highest-profile case in a complicated universe of opioid litigation.

Drugmaker Johnson & Johnson and the three largest U.S. drug distribution companies recently announced a settlement that could be worth up to $26 billion if state and local governments agree.

Individual trials also remain, including one scheduled to start in October in Cleveland over the role pharmacies played in the crisis. Other trials have been held this year in California, New York and West Virginia, though verdicts have yet to be reached.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Judge conditionally approves Purdue Pharma opioid settlement appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A bipartisan congressional investigation released Wednesday found that key players in the nation’s opioid industry have spent $65 million since 1997 funding nonprofits that advocate treating pain with medications, a strategy intended to boost the sale of prescription painkillers.

The report from Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Wyden of Oregon found the contributions continued in recent years, even as the industry’s practices and the toll of opioid addiction came under greater scrutiny.

The senators, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, are considering legislation to expand an existing federal system that tracks payments from companies to doctors so it will include payments to nonprofit organizations.

They also want guidelines to require more transparency on the federal task forces and panels that help the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services develop policies.

“We’ve found that the possibility of donor influence could and has undermined the efforts to develop and advocate good policy,” Grassley said in a statement. “When it comes to opioids, we need to make sure there is transparency and accountability to prevent what, in this case, led to serious public misunderstanding of the risks of these highly addictive drugs.”

Opioids include prescription drugs such as OxyContin and Vicodin as well as illegal ones like heroin and illicitly-made fentanyl. They have been linked to 470,000 deaths in the U.S. since 2000. In a 2016 investigation, The Associated Press and Center for Public Integrity found that opioid makers were backing advocacy groups that supported access to the drugs.

For the report released Wednesday, the senators’ staffs examined financial records for 10 advocacy groups that endorsed access to powerful prescription painkillers from 2012 through 2019. The investigation added the new findings to previous Senate investigations that tracked similar information back to 1997.

Wednesday’s report identified a series of connections between the contributions and the work done by the groups.

In 2017, one of the groups, the Alliance for Patient Access, took over the Alliance for Balanced Pain Management, a project previously run by Mallinckrodt. The company, one of the nation’s biggest makers of generic prescription opioids, paid the group $200,000 that year to help support its efforts.

The nonprofit has said that it alone determines the group’s advocacy efforts, which include using physical therapy, chiropractic care and yoga as alternatives to opioids for pain treatment after surgery. It said it would have a response to the Senate report later Wednesday. Mallinckrodt did not immediately respond to questions.

Mallinckrodt this year announced a $1.6 billion settlement of thousands of lawsuits over its opioids and later declared bankruptcy, in part to allow it to pay the settlement over time.

The report also found that the drugmaker Daiichi Sankyo paid the American Chronic Pain Association $75,000 in 2018 as part of the group’s efforts to promote formulations of opioids that were supposed to deter abuse. That type of drug has not been found to be less addictive than other types of opioids, though it is harder to crush or dissolve to get a faster or more powerful high. The American Chronic Pain Association did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

A month after the payment, the advocacy group posted a video on its website in which a doctor seems to downplay the addiction risk of that type of drug, saying it’s an “unusual” occurrence. In a statement, company spokeswoman Kimberly Wix described the payment as an unsolicited grant intended to support the nonprofit’s online survey on abuse-deterrent formulations.

“Daiichi Sankyo has no influence over content, communications, activities, etc., developed by third-party organizations to which we provide financial support through grants or charitable contributions,” she said.

Daiichi Sankyo was the fifth-largest contributor to the groups from 2012 to 2019. The top four, all of which gave at least $2 million over that span, were Teva, Pfizer, Insys and Purdue Pharma. Daiichi Sankyo did not immediately respond to messages from the AP.

“The potential dangers presented by opioids makes this Trojan horse-style of marketing particularly troubling,” Wyden said in a statement. “But make no mistake that such practices are widespread across the pharmaceutical industry, and consumers are often left in the dark.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Senate report: Opioid industry has paid advocacy groups $65M appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty Tuesday to three criminal charges, formally taking responsibility for its part in an opioid epidemic that has contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths but also angering critics who want to see individuals held accountable, in addition to the company.

In a virtual hearing with a federal judge in Newark, New Jersey, the OxyContin maker admitted impeding the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s efforts to combat the addiction crisis.

Purdue acknowledged that it had not maintained an effective program to prevent prescription drugs from being diverted to the black market, even though it had told the DEA it did have such a program, and that it provided misleading information to the agency as a way to boost company manufacturing quotas.

It also admitted paying doctors through a speakers program to induce them to write more prescriptions for its painkillers.

And it admitted paying an electronic medical records company to send doctors information on patients that encouraged them to prescribe opioids.

The guilty pleas were entered by Purdue board chairperson Steve Miller on behalf of the company. They were part of a criminal and civil settlement announced last month between the Stamford, Connecticut-based company and the Justice Department.

The deal includes $8.3 billion in penalties and forfeitures, but the company is on the hook for a direct payment to the federal government of only a fraction of that, $225 million. It would pay the smaller amount as long as it executes a settlement moving through federal bankruptcy court with state and local governments and other entities suing it over the toll of the opioid epidemic.

Members of the wealthy Sackler family who own the company have also agreed to pay $225 million to the federal government to settle civil claims. No criminal charges have been filed against family members, although their deal leaves open the possibility of that in the future.

“Having our plea accepted in federal court, and taking responsibility for past misconduct, is an essential step to preserve billions of dollars of value” for the settlement it is pursuing through bankruptcy court, the company said in a statement.

“We continue to work tirelessly to build additional support for a proposed bankruptcy settlement, which would direct the overwhelming majority of the settlement funds to state, local and tribal governments for the purpose of abating the opioid crisis,” the statement read.

Purdue’s plea to federal crimes provides only minor comfort for advocates who want to see harsher penalties for the OxyContin maker and its owners.

The ongoing drug overdose crisis, which appears to be worsening during the coronavirus pandemic, has contributed to the deaths of more than 470,000 Americans over the past two decades, most of those from opioids both legal and illicit.

Cynthia Munger, whose son is in recovery from opioid addiction after being prescribed OxyContin more than a decade ago as a high school baseball player with a shoulder injury, is among the activists pushing for Purdue owners and company officials to be charged with crimes.

“Until we do that and we stop accusing brick and mortar and not individuals, nothing will change,” said Munger, who lives in Wayne, Pennsylvania.

The attorneys general for about half the states opposed the federal settlement, as well as the company’s proposed settlement in bankruptcy court. In the bankruptcy case, Purdue has proposed transforming into a public benefit corporation with its proceeds going to help address the opioid crisis.

The attorneys general and some activists are upset that despite the Sacklers giving up control of the company, the family remains wealthy and its members will not face prison or other individual penalties.

The activists say there’s no difference between the actions of the company and its owners, who also controlled Purdue’s board until the past few years.

Last week, as part of a motion to get access to more family documents, the attorneys general who oppose the deals filed documents that put members of the Sackler family at the center of Purdue’s continued push for OxyContin sales even as opioid-related deaths rose.

The newly public documents include emails among consultants from McKinsey & Corp. hired by the company to help boost the business. One from 2008, a year after the company first pleaded guilty to opioid-related crimes, says board members, including a Sackler family member, “‘blessed’ him to do whatever he thinks is necessary to ‘save the business.’”

Another McKinsey internal email details how a midlevel Purdue employee felt about the company. It offers more evidence of the Sacklers being hands-on, saying, “The brothers who started the company viewed all employees like the guys who ‘trim the hedges’ — employees should do exactly what’s asked of them and not say too much.”

The documents also describe the company trying to “supercharge” opioid sales in 2013, as reaction to the overdose crisis was taking a toll on prescribing.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma pleads guilty in criminal case appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Drugmaker Purdue Pharma, the company behind the powerful prescription painkiller OxyContin that experts say helped touch off an opioid epidemic, will plead guilty to federal criminal charges as part of a settlement of more than $8 billion, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.

The deal does not release any of the company’s executives or owners — members of the wealthy Sackler family — from criminal liability, and a criminal investigation is ongoing. Family members said they acted “ethically and lawfully,” but some state attorneys general said the agreement fails to hold the Sacklers accountable.

The company will plead guilty to three counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and violating federal anti-kickback laws, the officials said, and the agreement will be detailed in a bankruptcy court filing in federal court.

The Sacklers will lose all control over their company, a move already in the works, and Purdue will become a public benefit company, meaning it will be governed by a trust that has to balance the trust’s interests against those of the American public and public health, officials said.

The settlement is the highest-profile display yet of the federal government seeking to hold a major drugmaker responsible for an opioid addiction and overdose crisis linked to more than 470,000 deaths in the country since 2000.

It comes less than two weeks before a presidential election where the opioid epidemic has taken a political back seat to the coronavirus pandemic and other issues, and gives President Donald Trump’s administration an example of action on the addiction crisis, which he promised early on in his term.

Ed Bisch, who lost his 18-year-old son to an overdose nearly 20 years ago, said he wants to see people associated with Purdue prosecuted and was glad the Sackler family wasn’t granted immunity.

He blames the company and Sacklers for thousands for deaths. “If it was sold for severe pain only from the beginning, none of this would have happened,” said Bisch, who now lives in Westampton, New Jersey. “But they got greedy.”

Brooke Feldman, a 39-year-old Philadelphia resident who is in recovery from opioid use disorder and is a social worker, said she is glad to see Purdue admit wrongdoing. She said the company had acted for years as “a drug cartel.”

Democratic attorneys general criticized the agreement as a “mere mirage” of justice for victims.

“The federal government had the power here to put the Sacklers in jail, and they didn’t,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement. “Instead, they took fines and penalties that Purdue likely will never fully pay.”

But members of the Sackler family, once listed as one of the nation’s wealthiest by Forbes magazine, said they had acted “ethically and lawfully” and that company documents required under the settlement to be made public will show that.

“Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts,” Steve Miller, who became chairman of the company’s board in 2018, said in a statement. No members of the Sackler family remain on that board, though they still own the company.

Family members, in a statement, expressed “deep compassion for people who suffer from opioid addiction and abuse and hope the proposal will be implemented as swiftly as possible to help address their critical needs.”

As part of the resolution, Purdue is admitting that it impeded the Drug Enforcement Administration by falsely representing that it had maintained an effective program to avoid drug diversion and by reporting misleading information to the agency to boost the company’s manufacturing quotas, the officials said.

Purdue is also admitting to violating federal anti-kickback laws by paying doctors, through a speaking program, to induce them to write more prescriptions for the company’s opioids and for using electronic health records software to influence the prescription of pain medication, according to the officials.

Purdue will make a direct payment to the government of $225 million, which is part of a larger $2 billion criminal forfeiture. In addition to that forfeiture, Purdue also faces a $3.54 billion criminal fine, though that money probably will not be fully collected because it will be taken through a bankruptcy, which includes a large number of other creditors, including thousands of state and local governments. Purdue will also agree to $2.8 billion in damages to resolve its civil liability.

Part of the money from the settlement would go to aid in medication-assisted treatment and other drug programs to combat the opioid epidemic. That part of the arrangement echoes the plan the company is pushing in bankruptcy court and which about half the states oppose.

As part of the plea deal, the company admits it violated federal law and “knowingly and intentionally conspired and agreed with others to aid and abet” the dispensing of medication from doctors “without a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of professional practice,” according to the plea agreement.

While some state attorneys general opposed the prospect of Purdue becoming a public benefit company, the lead lawyers representing 2,800 local governments in lawsuits against Purdue and other drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies put out a statement supporting the principle but saying more work needs to be done.

The Sackler family has already pledged to hand over the company itself plus at least $3 billion to resolve thousands of suits against the Stamford, Connecticut-based drugmaker. The company declared bankruptcy as a way to work out that plan, which could be worth $10 billion to $12 billion over time. In their statement, family members said that is “more than double all Purdue profits the Sackler family retained since the introduction of OxyContin.”

“Both the company and the shareholders are paying a very steep price for what occurred here,” Deputy U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said Wednesday.

While there are conflicting views of whether it’s enough, it’s clear the Sacklers’ reputation has taken a hit.

Until recently, the Sackler name was on museum galleries and educational programs around the world because of gifts from family members. But under pressure from activists, institutions from the Louvre in Paris to Tufts University in Massachusetts have dissociated themselves from the family in the last few years.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma to plead to 3 criminal charges appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.