Purdue Pharma L.P. Receives Court Approval of Disclosure Statement Filed in Connection with its Plan of Reorganization

STAMFORD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Purdue Pharma L.P. ('Purdue') today announced that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the 'Bankruptcy Court') approved the Company's disclosure statement for its Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization. The disclosure statement provides creditors with detailed information on the terms of the Plan and will accompany the ballots that will be sent to the more than 600,000 claimants eligible to vote.
The court has set a September 30 voting deadline and a November confirmation hearing.
'Following the 2024 Supreme Court ruling, we doubled down on our commitment to work with our creditors to design a new Plan that delivers unprecedented value to those affected by the opioid crisis. Today's disclosure statement approval is a major milestone in that effort,' said Purdue Board Chairman Steve Miller. 'We and our creditors have worked tirelessly in mediation to build consensus and negotiate a settlement that will increase the total value provided to victims and communities, put billions of dollars to work on day one, and serve the public good. We sincerely thank our stakeholders for their dedication and collaboration, and we look forward to having the plan confirmed and consummated as quickly as possible.'
Purdue's Plan of Reorganization includes the following elements:
Assuming full creditor participation, the Sacklers will make settlement payments of approximately $6.5 billion in installments over the next 15 years, subject to certain reserves. They will pay $1.5 billion on the day the Plan becomes effective.
Purdue will contribute 100% of its assets, with an expected $900 million in cash available for distribution on the day of emergence.
Notably, the Plan is the only opioid settlement to date that meaningfully compensates individual victims. Assuming full participation, individual victims will receive more than $850 million.
In addition to this cash value, the Plan creates a new company with a public minded mission. The new company will provide millions of doses of lifesaving opioid use disorder treatment and overdose reversal medicines at no profit.
The Sacklers, who exited the Board of Purdue by the end of 2018 and have had no involvement in Purdue since that time, will have no role whatsoever in the new company.
Purdue Pharma L.P. will be liquidated following emergence.
The Plan also provides a historic level of transparency. It creates a document repository that will make available to the public millions of documents, including privileged documents, related to Purdue's historical sales and marketing practices.
The Plan does not contain third-party releases and fully complies with the Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in Harrington.
The disclosure statement approved today provides the full details about the material aspects of the plan. The Plan is subject to confirmation by the Bankruptcy Court. This release is not intended as a solicitation of a vote on the Plan.
Purdue Pharma and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture and market medications to meet the evolving needs of healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers. Purdue and its subsidiaries focus on balancing innovative science with clinically effective, compassionate care. The Company's goals are to serve patients who rely on its medicines, pursue public health initiatives intended to help abate the opioid crisis, advance its pipeline of branded and generic medications, and introduce medicines that will help save and improve lives.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNBC

an hour ago

• CNBC

Supreme Court rejects fast track of Trump tariff challenge by toy companies

Key Points President Donald Trump's tariffs, a key part of his trade agenda, have drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority to implement the high levies. The Supreme Court ruling gives the Trump administration more time to file its response to the challenge from two toy companies. The two toy companies argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give Trump the authority to implement his tariffs. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from two toy companies to expedite their challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs. The ruling from the nation's high court means that the Trump administration now has the standard 30-day window to file its response to the challenge. Two small family-owned companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, argued that Trump lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his April 2 tariffs. The companies earlier this week asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of their challenge and bypass a federal appeals court. "In light of the tariffs' massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process," the companies argued in their request. Rick Woldenberg, the chairman and CEO of Learning Resource and hand2mind, told CNBC that the Friday Supreme Court decision "was a disappointment but honestly just another twist in the road." "You want to win every motion but sometimes you don't," he said, adding that, "ultimately this showdown will be at the Supreme Court." Trump declared a national economic emergency under the IEEPA to justify implementing his tariffs without first getting congressional approval, a strategy that has drawn legal challenges from businesses and individuals questioning his authority The U.S. Court of International Trade last month temporarily blocked Trump's tariffs, saying that the IEEPA, which became law in 1977, does not authorize a president to implement universal duties on imports. But a federal appeals court earlier this month allowed Trump's tariffs to remain in effect until it hears arguments on that case at the end of next month. — CNBC's Lori Ann Wallace contributed reporting.

Boston Globe

2 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Purdue Pharma's $7B opioid settlement is set for votes from victims and cities

Government entities, emergency room doctors, insurers, families of children born into withdrawal from the powerful prescription painkiller, individual victims and their families, and others will have until Sept. 30 to vote on whether to accept the deal. Advertisement The settlement is a way to avoid trials with claims from states alone that total more than $2 trillion in damages. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up This month, 49 states announced they had signed on to the proposal. Only Oklahoma, which has a separate settlement with the company, is not involved. Massachusetts is in line for up to $105 million from the settlement, Attorney General Andrea Campbell said Tuesday. If approved, the settlement would be among the largest in a wave of lawsuits over the past decade as governments and others sought to hold drugmakers, wholesalers, and pharmacies accountable for the opioid epidemic that started rising in the years after OxyContin hit the market in 1996. The other settlements together are worth about $50 billion, and most of the money is to be used to combat the crisis. Advertisement In the early 2000s, most opioid deaths were linked to prescription drugs, including OxyContin. Since then, heroin and then illicitly produced fentanyl became the biggest killers. In some years, the class of drugs was linked to more than 80,000 deaths, but that number dropped sharply last year. Last year, the US Supreme Court rejected a version of Purdue's proposed settlement. The court found it was improper to protect members of the Sackler family from lawsuits over opioids, even though they themselves were not filing for bankruptcy protection. In the new version, groups that don't opt in to the settlement would still have the right to sue members of the wealthy family whose name once adorned museum galleries around the world, as well as programs at several prestigious US universities. Under the plan, the Sackler family members would give up ownership of Purdue. They resigned from the company's board and stopped receiving distributions from its funds before the company's initial bankruptcy filing in 2019. The remaining entity would get a new name and its profits would be dedicated to battling the epidemic. Most of the money would go to state and local governments to address the nation's addiction and overdose crisis, but potentially close to $900 million would go directly to individual victims. That makes it different from the other major settlements. The payments would not begin until after a hearing, likely in November, in which Lane would be asked to approve the entire plan if enough affected parties agree.

Newsweek

3 hours ago

• Newsweek

Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.