The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
Victims’ families seek support for Purdue deal
STAMFORD — More than 1,000 people who say they have lost loved ones as a result of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma’s actions are calling on the Department of Justice to accept a settlement with the Stamford-based company because they are concerned that continued opposition might jeopardize the proposed compensation for opioid victims and family members.
Victims and relatives are still fretting about the settlement, which is not a done deal because of pending litigation. DOJ, including the U.S. Trustee representing it in Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings, has maintained its opposition despite the growing support for a resolution of the thousands of lawsuits filed against the company. Last month, eight states, including Connecticut, that had appealed a bankruptcy judge’s approval of Purdue’s settlement plan announced they would accept a $6 billion national agreement with the company and the Sackler family members who own the firm.
“You claim to be acting on our behalf,” more than 1,000 signatories, including about 20 people from Connecticut, said in a letter sent this week to top DOJ officials, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. “However, we have reached out to you and asked for a meeting several times, and you did not even give us the courtesy of a response. So let us set the record straight. We, the undersigned direct, individual victims of Purdue, and tens of thousands more like us, strongly support the bankruptcy plan.”
Those who signed the letter are particularly worried about possibly losing the personal-injury funds that would be included in the settlement. Purdue has agreed to pay eligible opioid victims and victims’ relatives between $3,500 and $48,000 each, for a total of up to $750 million.
“It is no secret that if this plan does not go through, we will likely get nothing. In fact, in all the recent nonbankruptcy opioid settlements, the individual victims got nothing,” the letter said. “Moreover, if this plan is not implemented, the states would have to wait years to recover money to be used for abating the opioid crisis. With drug overdoses occurring at record rates, that is time we cannot afford.”
The letter also said, “as we speak, there are thousands of victims waiting for desperately needed funds. For some, it is funds to pay off the debt they incurred when they buried their son, daughter, or spouse. For others, it is funds to pay for the rehab of a loved one.”
A message left for DOJ was not returned.
In a statement, Purdue expressed support for the letter’s goals.
“The U.S. Trustee’s position stands in conflict with all 50 states and virtually all local governments and creditors, including personal injury victims, schools, hospitals and others, who understand that the enhanced plan of reorganization is the best option for people and communities suffering from the opioid crisis, the most fair and expeditious way to resolve the Purdue litigation, and the only way to deliver billions of dollars in value to fund programs specifically for abatement of the opioid crisis,” the statement said.
Elizabeth Benton, a spokesperson for Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, said: “Connecticut does not have a role in the DOJ appeal, and it would be inappropriate to comment on this letter directed to DOJ regarding their appeal.”
The letter’s signatories also said they were unpersuaded by the reasons for DOJ’s opposition, including its objection to the settlement plan’s stipulation that “third-party releases” from current and future lawsuits related to Purdue’s opioids be granted to parties, including the Sacklers who own the company.
“To be sure, the settlement is not perfect,” the letter added. “There may always be an opportunity for a more perfect resolution, but we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There will be other bankruptcies for you to pursue your policy objectives where people won’t die as a result of a delay. But those who died because of your delay in this case will never come back.”
To enact its settlement plan, Purdue needs court approval. Bankruptcy judge Robert Drain confirmed the plan last September, but his ruling was overturned last December by district judge Colleen McMahon.
On Friday, a hearing for Purdue’s appeal of McMahon’s ruling will take place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If the Second Circuit finds that the bankruptcy court properly confirmed the settlement plan, Purdue officials anticipate it could take about two to three months before the company emerges from bankruptcy.
If a party disagrees with the Second Circuit’s ruling, they could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In another scenario, the Second Circuit might not answer all the legal questions and might send the case back to district court with instructions.