Articles by Geoff Mulvihill

Business

Opioid settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue and Sackler family could end years of legal battles (Business)

Lawyers representing OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, branches of the Sackler family that own it, cities, states, counties, Native American tribes, people with addiction and others across the U.S. delivered a nearly unanimous message for a bankruptcy court judge Friday: Approve a plan to settle thousands of opioid-related lawsuits against the company. If U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane abides, it will close a long chapter — and maybe the entire book — on a legal odyssey over efforts to hold the company to account for its role in an opioid crisis connected to 900,000 deaths in the U.S. since 1999, including deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Friday's closing arguments were wrapping up a three-day hearing over the bankruptcy plan for the company, which filed for protection six years ago as it faced lawsuits with claims that grew to trillions of dollars. The opposition is much quieter this time around The saga has been emotional and full of contentious arguments between the many groups that took Purdue to court, often exposing a possible mismatch between the quest for justice and the practical role of bankruptcy court. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a previous deal because it said it was improper for Sackler family members to receive immunity from lawsuits over opioids. In the new arrangement, entities who don't opt into the settlement can sue them. Family members are collectively worth billions, but much of their assets are held in trusts in offshore accounts that would be hard to access through lawsuits. This time, the government groups involved have reached an even fuller consensus and there's been mostly subdued opposition from individuals. Out of more than 54,000 personal injury victims who voted on whether the plan should be accepted. Just 218 said no. A larger number of people who are part of that group didn't vote. A handful of objectors spoke Thursday at the hearing, sometimes interrupting the judge. Some said that only the victims, not the states and other government entities, should receive the funds in the settlement. Others wanted the judge to find the members of the Sackler family criminally liable — something Lane said is beyond the scope of the bankruptcy court, but that the settlement doesn't bar prosecutors from pursuing. A Florida woman whose husband struggled with addiction after being given OxyContin following an accident told the court that the deal isn't enough. “The natural laws of karma suggest the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma should pay for what they have done,” Pamela Bartz Halaschak said via video. Deal would be among the biggest opioid settlements A flood of lawsuits filed by government entities against Purdue and other drugmakers, drug wholesalers and pharmacy chains began about a decade ago. Most of the major ones have already settled for a total of about $50 billion, with most of the money going to fight the opioid crisis. There’s no mechanism for tracking where it all goes or overarching requirement to evaluate whether the spending is effective. Those hit the hardest generally haven’t had a say. The Purdue deal would rank among the largest of them. Members of the Sackler family would be required to pay up to $7 billion and give up ownership of the company. None have been on its board or received payments since 2018. Unlike a similar hearing four years ago, none were called to testify in this week's hearing. The company would get a name change and new overseers who would dedicate future profits to battling the opioid crisis. There are also some non-financial provisions. Certain members of the Sackler family would be required to give up involvement in companies that sell opioids in other countries. Family members would also be barred from having their names added to institutions in exchange for charitable contributions. The name has already been removed from museums and universities. And company documents, including many that would normally be subject to lawyer-client privilege, are to be made public. Some people hurt by Purdue’s opioids would receive some money Unlike the other major opioid settlements, individuals harmed by Purdue’s products would be in line for some money as part of the settlement. About $850 million would be set aside for them, with more than $100 million of that amount carved out to help children born dealing with opioid withdrawal. About 139,000 people have active claims for the money. Many of them, however, have not shown proof that they were prescribed Purdue’s opioids and will receive nothing. Lawyers expect that those who had prescriptions for at least six months would receive about $16,000 each and those who had them more briefly would get around $8,000, before legal fees that would reduce what people actually receive. One woman who had a family member suffer from opioid addiction told the court by video Thursday that the settlement doesn't help people with substance use disorder. “Tell me how you guys can sleep at night knowing people are going to get so little money they can’t do anything with it,” asked Laureen Ferrante of Staten Island, New York. Most of the money is to go to state and local governments to be used in their efforts to mitigate damage of the opioid epidemic. Overdose death numbers have been dropping in the past few years, a decline experts believe is partly due to the impact of settlement dollars.

Politics

What to know about the status of SNAP food aid as a vote nears to end the shutdown

Many Americans who rely on SNAP benefits to help buy groceries are approaching their third week without aid after President Donald Trump's administration cut off the program amid the federal government shutdown. The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday opted not to order the government to fully fund a program that serves about 1 in 8 Americans, staying out of a legal debate on whether lower courts were right to make such an order - and keeping uncertainty in place about when millions of people will see their benefits. But the U.S. House could send Trump legislation as soon as Wednesday to end the shutdown, a move that would also restore full SNAP funding for November, ending a bitter legal battle. Here are things to know about how it could go. When SNAP funds become available could vary by state Seesawing court rulings and messages from the USDA, which administers SNAP, have meant that beneficiaries in some states already have received their full monthly allocations while in others they have received nothing. Some states have issued partial payments. States say it's faster to provide full benefits than it is to do the calculations and computer programming required for partial amounts. At least 19 states plus the District of Columbia issued full benefits to at least some recipients last week, an Associated Press tally found. Among those are Minnesota and New Jersey. Many of them managed to do it in a day or so, in the narrow window between the Nov. 6 court ruling that required the federal government to make full payments and one Nov. 7 from the U.S. Supreme Court that stopped it. Carolyn Vega, a policy analyst with the advocacy group Share Our Strength, said she expects most SNAP participants who haven't received anything in November so far - states in that group include South Carolina and West Virginia - to receive their benefits within about a week. But there's a complication. So far, 16 states - including Illinois and Texas - have loaded the EBT cards used in SNAP with partial benefits. Vega said some of those states might run into some technical hurdles to issue the remaining amount. Delays in benefits can be a problem for recipients Even if there's some clarity that benefits are on the way, exactly when they arrive will matter to millions of Americans. About 42 million lower-income Americans receive the food aid, with average benefits of about $190 monthly per person. Many have said that even with careful budgeting, the benefit doesn't cover the full cost of groceries in a regular month - nor are they intended to for most recipients. It's worse when benefits are delayed. Doretha Washington, 41, of St. Louis, and her husband have themselves and six children to feed and not enough money to cover that cost. Her husband works servicing heating and cooling systems, but the family still needs SNAP to get by. They had received nothing in November, although Missouri said Tuesday that partial benefits were being issued. "Now it's making things difficult because we can't pay our bills in full and keep food in here," Washington said earlier this week. "I'm down to three days of food and trying to figure out what to do." She's resorted to rationing what they have on hand. Other people have turned to food charities, but are sometimes finding long lines and low supplies. Cutting off funds left state governments scrambling The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs SNAP, told states on Oct. 24 that it would not fund the program for November if the shutdown continued. That left states scrambling. Most Democratic-led ones eventually sued, seeking to have the money restored. Some states - both Democratic and Republican-led ones - launched efforts to pay for SNAP benefits using state money, boost food banks and deploy the National Guard to help with food distribution. Another group of states used their money allotted for SNAP benefits only after a judge ordered the Trump administration to cover the full cost for the month. The legislation to reopen the government passed by the Senate on Monday calls for states to be reimbursed for spending their funds to run programs usually paid for by the federal government. It's not immediately clear, though, which situations might qualify in the case of SNAP.