States agree to $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma in opioid litigation
The settlement resolves pending litigation against Purdue Pharma, which, under the leadership of the Sackler families, invented, manufactured and aggressively marketed opioid products for decades, according to the lawsuits. States and cities across the country said it fueled waves of addiction and overdose deaths.
The attorneys general in 55 states and territories have signed on to the historic settlement, which they said will end the Sacklers' ownership of Purdue and bar them from making, selling or marketing opioids in the U.S.
MORE: Purdue Pharma, Sackler families boost contribution in opioid settlement to $7.4 billion
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia led the team that negotiated the settlement, which marks the largest of its kind involving the opioid crisis, officials said.
"As Pennsylvania families and communities suffered during an unprecedented addiction crisis, Purdue and the Sacklers reaped the mammoth profits from their products," Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday said in a statement. "This monumental settlement achieves the top priority of getting as much money as quickly as possible to prevention, treatment, and recovery programs across the Commonwealth. My office will continue engagement with municipal leaders to ensure millions of dollars reach every corner of the state."
Purdue introduced OxyContin, a brand name of oxycodone, in the 1990s and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 after the company was sued thousands of times.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a prior settlement in June 2024 that would have awarded $6 billion to state and local governments.
The Sacklers and Purdue subsequently boosted their settlement contribution to $7.4 billion.
"Today's announcement of unanimous support among the states and territories is a critical milestone towards confirming a Plan of Reorganization that will provide billions of dollars to compensate victims, abate the opioid crisis, and deliver opioid use disorder and overdose rescue medicines that will save American lives," Purdue said in a statement on Monday. "We appreciate the extraordinarily hard work of the state attorneys general and our other creditors in getting us to this point, and we look forward to soliciting creditor votes on the Plan after the disclosure statement is approved."
The $7.4 billion will support opioid addiction treatment, prevention and recovery programs over the next 15 years.
A significant amount of the funds will be distributed in the first three years, with the Sacklers paying $1.5 billion and Purdue paying approximately $900 million in the first payment, followed by $500 million after one year, an additional $500 million after two years, and $400 million after three years.
MORE: Supreme Court blocks Purdue Pharma opioid settlement that shields Sackler family of liability
'There will never be enough justice, accountability or money to restore the families whose lives have been wrecked or to right the terrible consequences of the Sackler family's craven misconduct," Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement on Monday. "What we announce today is both momentous and insufficient, the culmination of years of tumultuous negotiations and legal battles all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Now that the state sign-on period has ended, local governments across the country will be asked to join the settlement, contingent on bankruptcy court approval. A hearing on that matter is scheduled on Wednesday.
A board of trustees selected by participating states in consultation with other creditors will determine the future of Purdue, which will continue to be overseen by a monitor and will be prevented from lobbying or marketing opioids.
ABC News' Aaron Katersky contributed to this report.
States agree to $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma in opioid litigation originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Trump's tax plan won't help Tesla, but 2 other EV companies got a stock boost
President Donald Trump's tax bill led to a big stock boost for two Tesla rivals. American electric vehicle makers Rivian and Lucid rose as much as 4.6% and 8.8%, respectively, on Thursday. The gains came after an analyst note from BNP Paribas said that the two companies stand to benefit from Trump's tax bill ending EV tax credits. On Thursday, the House passed the final version of the bill, which would extend the president's 2017 tax cuts and make key changes to the tax system. The bill would also end the $7,500 EV tax credit awarded to buyers on September 30. The tax credit removal is expected to lower demand for EVs, and bigger automakers could be hit harder. Per the new bill, cars made by companies that sold more than 200,000 accepted EVs between December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2025, do not qualify for the tax credit. Tesla delivered more than 336,000 vehicles in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Rivian delivered 8,000 vehicles in the same quarter, while Lucid delivered 3,109 vehicles. Like Tesla, Rivian has been struggling with cars don't qualify for the tax credit, but the company has relied on a leasing loophole for customers to use it. Rivian does not qualify because a requirement mandates that a significant portion of the car battery's materials should be sourced from the US or its trade partners. Lucid vehicles qualify for the $7,500 federal EV tax credit. Tesla and Lucid are down 22% and 28.5% so far this year. Rivian's stock is down 2% in the same time period. Big hit to Tesla The loss of the EV tax credit could be a big hit to Tesla, analysts say. Last month, Seth Goldstein, an equity strategist at Morningstar, told Business Insider that the expedited elimination of the EV tax credit would be "the biggest area that could impact Tesla." "Consumers have increased long-range EV choices at similar price points as Tesla," Goldstein said. "It's on Tesla to make the case for consumers to even slightly pay up today versus some other EVs." Goldstein added that tax credit elimination could decrease sales volume, which the automaker has been struggling with. JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman wrote in a note last month that Trump's bill, combined with other proposed legislation, including ending the California Air Resources Board Program, threatened more than half of Tesla's 2025 profits. Brinkman said that the $7,500 consumer tax made up 19% of Tesla's 2024 earnings before interest and tax.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump officials ‘secretly' changed US health data in ‘gender ideology' crackdown, researchers allege
The Trump administration quietly altered massive US health datasets to remove any mention of gender, according to a new analysis. Scientists around the world rely on health data from US government agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But since President Donald Trump took office in January, these agencies have been altering data labels, mostly without disclosure, according to the investigation published in The Lancet, a leading medical journal. The authors argue that the 'hidden' changes could cast doubt on the integrity of American science. The database edits 'might be politically motivated and [are] not transparent,' Dr Aaron Kesselheim, a professor at Harvard Medical School, and Janet Freilich, a law professor at Boston University, said in the paper. Related Will Trump's funding cuts help Europe lure top research talent from the US? Their analysis included 232 US health datasets that were edited from late January to late March, covering veterans' health care use, global tobacco consumption, stroke deaths, nutrition, exercise, and obesity. It did not include datasets that are updated on a regular basis. About half of these datasets were 'substantially altered' during the two-month period, but only 15 acknowledged that changes had been made, the study found. The parts of the datasets meant for these disclosures remained empty as of early May, the researchers said. In most of the edited datasets – 106 of them – the word 'gender' was swapped out for 'sex'. Related US demands that EU companies comply with anti-diversity order US agencies have not confirmed or explained the changes, but Freilich and Kesselheim suspect they were made to comply with a Trump order to remove 'messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology'. The executive order, issued on Trump's first day in office, said it aimed to restore 'biological truth' to US agencies, and set a national policy 'to recognise two sexes, male and female,' they said. It was part of a flurry of activity to clamp down on LGBTQ protections. Some data was initially removed from federal websites, but was largely restored due to a court order. Related Trump administration's funding freeze for foreign medical research to hit European scientists The Lancet analysis indicates that not all changes were reversed. It is not clear if the actual numbers were altered, or only the labels about gender or sex. But Freilich and Kesselheim said the distinction is important because some people will respond to surveys differently based on each term. That can undermine the quality of the data and lead researchers to draw inaccurate conclusions, they said. They described the undisclosed changes as a 'crisis' that could make US data 'untrustworthy and unusable'. They called on governments elsewhere in the world to invest in other data sources.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court allows Trump admin. to deport 8 migrants to South Sudan
Police stand guard outside the Supreme Court in Washington on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Trump administration can deported eight migrants to South Sudan. Photo by Aaron Schwartz/UPI | License Photo July 4 (UPI) -- The conservative-leaning Supreme Court has allowed the United States to deport eight migrants being held at a military base in Djibouti to war-torn South Sudan, handing the Trump administration a victory in its crackdown on immigration. The justices issued their ruling Thursday, which was the second time they have weighed in on the case. On June 23, the Supreme Court stayed an April 18 preliminary injunction that prevented the federal government from removing any noncitizen to a third country other than their own without permitting them the opportunity to argue they would be subjected to tortured or receive degrading treatment. Later that same day, a district court ruled in favor of lawyers representing eight migrants already deported to Djibouti, ordering that the Trump administration must maintain custody of them. The Trump administration then filed a request with the U.S. high court for clarification that its June ruling also applied to the men being held in the East African country. In its two-page, unsigned ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court said, "Our June 23 order stayed the April preliminary injunction in full." Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in a strongly worded dissent that the Supreme Court's refusal to justify its decisions in this case "is indefensible." "What the government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death," Sotomayor wrote. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial." The eight migrants are natives of Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam. Only one is from South Sudan. All have been convicted in the United States of serious crimes, including murder. The government flew them to Djibouti in May with the intentions of sending them to South Sudan, despite the State Department having issued the highest level of warning -- Level 4: Do Not Travel -- against Americans going to South Sudan due to threats posed by crime, kidnapping and armed conflict. The flight prompted a mad dash by their lawyers to ensure the Trump administration maintains custody of their clients. On Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security celebrated the Supreme Court ruling. "These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day," Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. Independence Day is Friday. "A win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people." The Trump administration sent the migrants to Djibouti amid its crackdown on immigration, which includes mass deportations and efforts to prevent migrants from entering the country via the southern border.
