Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said he would accept a $66 million payout as the state’s share of a $7.4 billion settlement with the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma. The family and their company created the drug OxyContin, which was marketed as treatment for chronic pain, but instead set off a prescription pill epidemic that deepened the nation’s opioid crisis.
“This settlement ensures Oregon communities receive much-needed resources like drug treatment and prevention programs,” Rayfield said in a statement Wednesday.
This latest nationwide settlement was announced in January after a previous settlement was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The new agreement forces Purdue Pharma to pay up to $900 million. The Sacklers must give up ownership of the company and pay up to $6.5 billion.
Technically, the deal is still not finalized. The Oregon Department of Justice said its acceptance “marks a significant step towards finalizing the deal.”
For Oregon, the money would get paid over the course of nine years, faster than most states, according to the state Department of Justice. Like other settlements the state has received as part of other national lawsuits connected to the opioid crisis, these funds would be divided up, with 55% going to cities and counties for local treatment and prevention programs. The remainder will go to the state’s Opioid Settlement Prevention, Treatment and Recovery Fund.
Since 2021 Oregon has received $645 million in legal settlements from pharmacies and other companies that profited from the sale of opioids, not including this latest agreement with Purdue and the Sacklers.
“We will not stop fighting to hold opioid companies accountable for the devastation they’ve caused,” Rayfield’s statement continued. “Oregon families deserve justice, and every dollar we recover will go toward healing our communities and building a future free from this crisis.”
This latest settlement has also received criticism in Oregon.
David Hart is a recently retired assistant attorney general at the Oregon Department of Justice where he ran the agency’s opioid litigation and recovery/pharmaceutical fraud unit. In an interview with OPB’s “Think Out Loud,” Hart argued the current settlement was too favorable and lenient towards the Sacklers.
“If you look at internal company emails and documents, as described in many of the complaints, they were aware of the dangers associated with their product. They were also aware of social problems that were increasing as a result of their product,” he said.
Hart also noted that despite the total settlement being billions of dollars “that’s over time, so it’s not as big a number as it sounds” because it’s paid out over years.
Despite the risk associated with not taking the deal, Hart argued the state has already received hundreds of millions of dollars from the other settlements. He said if the Sacklers are allowed to keep billions from their company and a sizable portion of their fortune, it creates what Hart called a “terrible precedent.”
“The Sacklers are particularly responsible,” he said. “Sometimes you have to focus on justice and sometimes you have to focus on deterrent.”
