Billionaire Sackler Family Gets Immunity From Civil Lawsuits Over Opioid Crisis

A federal appeals court docket on Tuesday dominated that members of the Sackler household can obtain immunity from all present and future civil litigation associated to their position in creating and fueling the opioid epidemic. The billionaire Sacklers personal Purdue Pharma, maker of the extremely addictive opioid OxyContin. The authorized protect might result in a settlement within the vary of $6 billion for 1000’s of plaintiffs, together with states, native governments and tribes. Opioid overdoses have killed over 500,000 folks within the U.S. over the previous twenty years, in line with the CDC. For extra, we converse with Ed Bisch, founding father of the group Family members In opposition to Purdue Pharma, whose 18-year-old son, Eddie, died of an OxyContin-related overdose in 2001. He says drug firm executives liable for the opioid disaster must be prosecuted by the Division of Justice. And in Mexico Metropolis, Christopher Glazek is the investigative reporter who was the primary to publicly report how the Sackler household had considerably profited from promoting OxyContin whereas totally conscious it was instantly fueling the opioid epidemic in America. “The Sacklers did what they’ve at all times performed: They struck a deal, they paid a bribe, and so they’re getting away with it,” Glazek says of the newest settlement.


This can be a rush transcript. Copy is probably not in its closing kind.

AMY GOODMAN: That is Democracy Now!,, The Conflict and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

This week, a federal appeals court docket dominated members of the Sackler household, the billionaire homeowners of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, can obtain full immunity from all present and future civil litigation associated to their position in creating and fueling the opioid epidemic. The authorized protect might result in a settlement within the vary of $6 billion for 1000’s of plaintiffs, together with states, native governments and tribes. Tuesday’s ruling reverses a 2021 court docket determination that didn’t defend Sackler members of the family from legal responsibility as a part of Purdue Pharma’s chapter declaration. The case can nonetheless be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court docket.

Opioid overdoses have killed over half one million folks in the US over the previous 20 years, this in line with the CDC, together with prescription and illicit medicine.

Banner 3

For extra, we’re joined by two company. Ed Bisch’s 18-year-old son Eddie died of an OxyContin-related overdose in 2001. He was 18. Ed Bisch based RAPP — that’s Family members In opposition to Purdue Pharma. He wrote an essay for STAT Information titled “My son died of an Oxy overdose. Drug firm execs who’re accountable must be despatched to jail.” Ed Bisch has lengthy known as on the Division of Justice to prosecute the Sacklers. And in Mexico Metropolis, Christopher Glazek joins us, investigative reporter who was the primary to publicly report how the Sackler household had considerably profited from promoting the opioid OxyContin whereas totally conscious that the extremely addictive drug was instantly fueling the opioid epidemic in America.

We welcome you each to Democracy Now! Ed Bisch, let’s start with you. If you happen to can discuss why you oppose this court docket determination this week, what it means for you and your loved ones?

ED BISCH: Nicely, what it means is, the perfect a part of this deal is it doesn’t — has nothing to do with prison prosecution. So, for that, I’m pleased. In any other case, that’s, in my view, the one good a part of this deal. There’s many causes. Many of the information tales are saying that 95% of the “victims” permitted of the deal. Nicely, solely 20% of the “victims” voted. So, you recognize, that’s very deceptive. I imply, I’ve an extended checklist. Primary, the whole deal’s valued about $10 billion. The victims get $750 million. OK? That’s 7.5%. Out of that — that’s earlier than the lawyer charges and bills. So, the “victims” are going to wind up with round 4%. Does that sound honest to you?

AMY GOODMAN: What does that come to per individual, Ed?

ED BISCH: Nicely, that’s one other factor. They’ve a degree system. And also you want legitimate information. So, I talked to at least one woman who truly acquired hooked on OxyContin, went to jail for forging OxyContin prescriptions to feed her personal habit — went to jail. She filed, and the lawyer stated, “Nicely, we’d like proof.” She stated, “I went to jail for 2 years. What sort of proof do you” — they need plenty of information, and a few of them return — lots of people couldn’t get the information. There’s lots of people who’re going to be very disenchanted. And please comply with up with these folks in a yr or two.

AMY GOODMAN: Ed, simply to be clear, you’ve been calling for the prosecution of the Sackler household. This court docket dominated they get whole immunity. Your response to that?

ED BISCH: Nicely, they get civil immunity. They don’t get prison immunity. Maura Healey, the Massachusetts governor, has said she has seen the proof, and the DOJ ought to do their job and prosecute. “Punishable by high-quality” means authorized for a value. You already know, these corporations, not simply Purdue, they take a look at it as the price of doing enterprise. They made billions and billions. They pay a portion in a high-quality, and so they stroll away. On this case, the Sacklers get to stroll away with civil immunity. They get to sleep like a child at night time. They’re nonetheless billionaires. With none prison prosecutions, that is going to go on and on.

AMY GOODMAN: I need to carry Christopher Glazek into this dialog. You will have been overlaying this for many years, simply as Ed Bisch has been dwelling the horror of shedding his son for over 20 years now. He misplaced him in 2001. Are you able to discuss this newest deal, the way it differs from earlier ones, and the general scope of it, Chris?

CHRISTOPHER GLAZEK: Yeah. You already know, wanting on the settlement, you’d must say that the Sacklers did what they’ve at all times performed: They struck a deal, they paid a bribe, and so they’re getting away with it. There’s no admission of wrongdoing anyplace within the settlement. And the query is: Is that this actually accountability?

It’s actually vital for folks to grasp the deal has this massive fancy quantity in it, just like the Sacklers are going to pay $6 billion. Nicely, they’re going to pay that over 18 years. And when you may have an enormous fortune that’s greater than $10 billion, simply the curiosity you earn yearly goes to be sufficient to pay out that settlement. So it’s vital for folks to grasp, the Sacklers will not be shedding their fortune. In actual fact, their fortune will most likely be greater in 5 years than what it was 5 years in the past. So, you recognize, there’s an actual query whether or not there’s any accountability right here in actuality. You already know, the query is: How did they get this sweetheart deal?

AMY GOODMAN: Wait a second. Wait, wait, I need to comply with up —


AMY GOODMAN: I need to comply with up on what you simply stated. You’re saying that their earnings will develop. What do you imply?

CHRISTOPHER GLAZEK: I’m saying, when you may have a fortune that’s greater than $11 billion, you recognize, simply out of your investments alone, from curiosity, even in the event you purchased T-bills, Treasury payments from the federal authorities, you’re incomes a lot cash yearly out of your investments. And so it’s not just like the Sacklers are going to ship a wire over tomorrow for $6 billion. They’ve 18 years to pay plenty of the cash. That implies that the impression on them, on their day-to-day lives, on the variety of {dollars} of their checking account is approach, approach, approach, smaller than it first seems.

AMY GOODMAN: In 2019 —

CHRISTOPHER GLAZEK: And in literal greenback phrases — go forward.

AMY GOODMAN: No, go forward, Chris.

CHRISTOPHER GLAZEK: Oh, no. Simply that, you recognize, in literal greenback phrases, their fortune isn’t going to shrink. And it most likely will develop even bigger. And so, you recognize, once we ask the query, “Have the Sacklers paid? Is that this a giant judgment for them? Is that this going to vary their lives?” the reply might be not.

After which the query turns into: How did they get such a sweetheart deal? And there’s a pair issues to say about that. The primary, the unique choose on this case was handpicked by the Sacklers. They did this loopy authorized maneuver the place they modified their headquarters on the final minute to White Plains, New York, as a result of there was just one chapter choose in that district. After which that choose ended up being very favorable for the Sacklers. He introduced through the case that it will be his final case ever, he was retiring. After which, since retiring, he acquired a job with one of many regulation companies representing the Sacklers. That’s primary.

Quantity two — and that is actually vital for folks to grasp — the Sacklers had an enormous fortune, most of which is held in offshore accounts. Lots of it’s within the Isle of Jersey within the English Channel. And it’s past the attain of U.S. authorities prosecutors. So, the Sacklers stated within the court docket case — they made the argument, “Hey, in the event you don’t take this deal, it doesn’t matter what judgment you get in opposition to us sooner or later. Possibly a court docket will award you $30 billion. You’re not going to get a cent, as a result of all the cash is offshore, and you may’t get at it.”

So the Sacklers had this actually massive leverage within the negotiation, which is that their cash was protected. U.S. regulators couldn’t get at their cash. And for that purpose, they stated, “Hey, in the event you don’t take this deal, you’re going to get nothing.” So, you recognize, these two issues are actually vital to level out.


CHRISTOPHER GLAZEK: After which, the opposite factor, which — go forward.

AMY GOODMAN: Go forward.

CHRISTOPHER GLAZEK: Nicely, after which, the third factor, you recognize, how did this deal come about? They use this sort of novel authorized process to insulate themselves from any future civil prosecution. And the explanation that it’s elevating eyebrows is as a result of they’d this firm that went bankrupt. Nicely, they extracted all the cash out of the corporate, so it was actually like a shell. After which, as a part of the chapter settlement, they stated, you recognize, “You possibly can’t ever go after us,” as if the household had declared chapter, as a result of it’s regular, once you declare chapter, folks can’t go after you for civil judgments. However on this case, the household didn’t declare chapter. And much from being bankrupt, they continue to be among the many very richest folks within the historical past of the world. They usually’re going to stay so for generations to return.

AMY GOODMAN: In 2019, the investigative information group ProPublica revealed video of Dr. Richard Sackler of Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. Part of his deposition he gave in a 2015 lawsuit in Kentucky, we’re going to play a clip of. The corporate waged a three-year authorized battle to maintain the video secret. Sackler was questioned by legal professional Tyler Thompson.

TYLER THOMPSON: Sitting right here right now, in any case you’ve come to be taught as a witness, do you imagine Purdue’s conduct in advertising and selling OxyContin in Kentucky brought about any of the prescription drug habit issues now plaguing the commonwealth?

DR. RICHARD SACKLER: I don’t imagine so.

TYLER THOMPSON: Sitting right here right now, in any case you’ve come to be taught as a witness, do you imagine that Purdue’s conduct in Kentucky has led to an extreme or pointless quantity of opioids being situated all through the commonwealth of Kentucky?

DR. RICHARD SACKLER: I don’t imagine so.

TYLER THOMPSON: Do you imagine that any of Purdue’s conduct has led to a rise in folks being addicted within the commonwealth of Kentucky?


AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Richard Sackler was chairman and president of Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. Ed Bisch, you misplaced your son in 2001 on the age of 18. Your response to what he says on this testimony, that was lengthy hid?

ED BISCH: I’m glad that it acquired out, it noticed the sunshine of day. Much more paperwork are going to see the sunshine of day. Am I shocked? Not even a bit. How he sleeps at night time, I don’t know.

The crimes are properly documented. Chris has written some nice articles. Dopesick on Hulu, Crime of the Century on HBO, and on August tenth, Painkiller goes to point out on Netflix. 2003, the very first ebook documenting their crimes, Painkiller, was revealed.

2001 was the very first congressional listening to on OxyContin deaths. 2001! I went to that listening to. And, you recognize, I learn the headline, “Purdue Going Out of Enterprise.” “Oh, lastly!” As quickly as I began studying it and I noticed the Sacklers have been demanding immunity, I stated, “This can be a chapter rip-off.” And that’s one factor this chapter rip-off has uncovered, the loopy chapter legal guidelines, like choose buying, like these third-party releases. And I hope it does go to the Supreme Court docket and so they do the proper factor. Will they? I don’t know.

The one factor that may make up for this travesty is, DOJ, do your job. Observe the proof. Maura Healey says she’s seen the proof. She was the legal professional common. And they need to prosecute. And so I pray each night time that they do their job.

AMY GOODMAN: Christopher Glazek, we’re going to do Part 2 of this dialogue and publish it at However I wished to ask you concerning the many organizations which have dropped the Sackler identify from buildings, just like the Guggenheim, just like the Louvre, most not too long ago Oxford College. Are you able to speak concerning the significance of this, and in addition, you recognize, simply the truth that you say their wealth is ever-increasing of their offshore accounts?

CHRISTOPHER GLAZEK: Yeah. Nicely, so, there’s one provision within the chapter settlement which is sort of fascinating and vital. And it says that any establishment that has the Sackler identify on it might take down the identify, and the Sacklers can not problem that, even when they’d some contracts, some prior settlement. And also you’ve seen over the previous couple of years, within the wake of media protection and activism, there’s been this sort of domino impact of first museums after which universities taking down the Sackler identify. And it was actually fascinating to see this course of play out.

You already know, I wrote this piece. There have been different articles. There was plenty of media consideration across the Sacklers in late 2017. However at first, you recognize, I known as all these museums, and so they stated, “We’re not doing something. We’re not taking this down. This isn’t our enterprise.” I known as universities, you recognize, Yale; they stated, “No. No, thanks.” After which the activism began. And, you recognize, there had at all times been activism. However Nan Goldin, specifically, within the artwork world, carried out a collection of actually public actions that acquired plenty of media consideration and actually hit the Sacklers the place it harm. And he or she, utilizing her personal affect within the artwork world and gathering all these folks collectively, basically compelled plenty of museums to take down the identify.

AMY GOODMAN: Chris Glazek —

CHRISTOPHER GLAZEK: Academia took a bit longer.

AMY GOODMAN: — we’re going to have to go away it there, however we’re going to speak about that activism in Part 2. Thanks a lot for being with us, investigative reporter, and Ed Bisch, founding father of Family members In opposition to Purdue Pharma. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for becoming a member of us.

​​Not everybody will pay for the information. However in the event you can, we’d like your help.

Truthout is broadly learn amongst folks with decrease ­incomes and amongst younger people who find themselves mired in debt. Our web site is learn at public libraries, amongst folks with out web entry of their very own. Individuals print out our articles and ship them to members of the family in jail — we obtain letters from behind bars commonly thanking us for our protection. Our tales are emailed and shared round communities, sparking grassroots mobilization.

We’re dedicated to preserving all Truthout articles free and accessible to the general public. However so as to try this, we’d like those that can afford to contribute to our work to take action.

We’ll by no means require you to offer, however we will ask you from the underside of our hearts: Will you donate what you possibly can, so we will proceed offering journalism within the service of justice and reality?