In contrast, two Ohio counties recently wrested settlements worth $320 million from opioid distributors and manufacturers. The next opioid trial, currently set for March 20, will be brought by New York State and Suffolk and Nassau Counties against an array of opioid manufacturers and distributors with deep pockets, including Johnson & Johnson.
Months before the trial, Oklahoma had settled with Purdue Pharma and Teva, an Israel-based manufacturer of generic drugs, for a combined $355 million. Johnson & Johnson, which said that its sales of opioids were scarcely 1 percent of the market, instead chose to fight. In August, Judge Balkman ruled that Oklahoma had proved that the company’s aggressive marketing tactics had an outsized impact on the state’s crisis.
Judge Balkman’s order in August left essential questions unresolved. Friday’s order addressed them.
In suing to abate the continuing “public nuisance” exacerbated by opioids, Oklahoma said it would need $17 billion over 30 years to address drug treatment, pain management and prevention education. But in August, Judge Balkman had said that $572 million represented roughly only a year’s worth, because the state had not shown sufficient evidence to merit a 30-year award.
Both sides wondered whether he intended the judgment to be a one-time fine or subject to annual renewal. Friday’s order suggested it was one time.
Elizabeth Burch, a law professor at the University of Georgia who closely follows the opioid litigation, said that this aspect of the order was even more problematic for the state.
“What will a year’s worth of abatement money accomplish?” she asked.
Another point of contention was whether the judge would deduct $355 million from Johnson & Johnson, the amount from the earlier settlements.
That money has begun to flow to the state. Fees for the private lawyers who pressed the state’s case are about $75 million, before the Johnson & Johnson award, according to a person familiar with the arrangements.
Source : Nytimes
