Skip to main content

OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP asked a U.S. bankruptcy judge on Friday to pause litigation against the company and its owners over the objections of U.S. states that allege the company is trying to protect the controlling Sackler family.

Purdue’s request promises to be one of the most contentious of the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, which was filed in September to try to implement a settlement proposal it values at more than US$10-billion.

Privately held Purdue said last month it needed to pause more than 2,600 lawsuits so the company can reduce legal costs and try to win over more plaintiffs to its proposed deal.

Story continues below advertisement

The lawsuits accuse Purdue and the Sacklers of fuelling a public health crisis by aggressively marketing opioids while downplaying their overdose risks, contributing to some 400,000 deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to U.S. statistics.

The company said it has the support of a majority of the local governments that brought the bulk of the lawsuits, although at least 24 states oppose the deal.

Massachusetts Attorney-General Maura Healey, a settlement opponent, has accused Purdue of protecting the billionaire Sacklers.

The family has not filed for bankruptcy protection, which generally automatically pauses litigation but also imposes obligations to open financial records. The family has pledged to contribute at least US$3-billion to the settlement and will relinquish ownership of Purdue to the plaintiffs.

States opposed to the settlement disclosed in a court filing last week that Purdue steered about US$12-billion in profits to the Sacklers.

At a Thursday court hearing, a lawyer for Purdue challenged that characterization and said it covered a period dating back to 1995, and was disclosed to plaintiffs a year ago. “The $12-billion figure is in fact not new at all,” said Marshall Huebner, a Davis Polk & Wardwell lawyer who represents Purdue.

Among other things, Purdue will have to convince U.S. bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain in White Plains, N.Y., that pausing litigation is in the public interest.

Story continues below advertisement

Holdout states said their cases are aimed in part at uncovering the extent of the company’s misconduct.

“This court should not strip the states of their core function to enforce their own regulatory laws in their own courts and administrative bodies,” said a filing last week by the states opposed to the deal.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies