By Nate Raymond

2 minute read



an 7 (Reuters) - The state of Georgia has decided to join a proposed $26 billion nationwide settlement resolving lawsuits alleging that three large drug distributors and drugmaker Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) fueled the deadly U.S. opioid epidemic.

Friday's announcement by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr marked the latest instance of a holdout state opting into the landmark agreements with J&J, McKesson Corp (MCK.N), AmerisourceBergen Corp (ABC.N) and Cardinal Health Inc (CAH.N). read more

"We are confident that joining the settlement at this time will prove beneficial to our state, our citizens and our communities, as we continue our fight to end this epidemic and address the widespread damage it has caused," Carr said.

AmerisourceBergen said it was "pleased to see the increased commitment to participation in the global settlement process." J&J referred to an earlier statement saying the deal supports state and local efforts address the epidemic.

More than 3,300 lawsuits, largely by state and local governments, are pending seeking to hold those and other companies responsible for an opioid abuse crisis that led to hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths.

Under a proposal unveiled in July, the distributors and J&J agreed to pay up to $21 billion and $5 billion, respectively.

How much the companies ultimately must pay and how much outstanding litigation they will face depends on state and local government participation.

Settlement supporters recently extended to Jan. 26 a deadline for cities and counties in states that backed the proposal to opt-in to the deals, citing the potential for more states to join. read more

Nevada did so Tuesday, and New Mexico in December backed the distributors' deal. Five states are left for the distributors to contend with, including the state of Washington, which has taken them to trial.

Six states have not settled with J&J, including New Hampshire, where a judge on Friday cleared the way for the state to take J&J to trial on Feb. 1 for creating a public nuisance.

Có ai biết gì về vụ kiện opioid này hông?? căn bản tui chỉ hiểu J&J bị kiện vì sản xuất và phân phân không kiểm soát chất gây nghiện khiến nhiều người chết.
Nhưng toa thuốc là bác sĩ cho, phát thuốc là dược sĩ làm, sao liên can đến hãng chế thuốc Johnson & Johnson?

kiện tới 26 Tỷ đô !... stock và tài sản của J&J nhiều dữ dậy sao??

Thì bs, dược sĩ nói tao dựa vào nhà bào chế

Họ có cho link bài củ:


Drug companies say enough U.S. states join $26 bln opioid settlement to proceed
By Nate Raymond

2 minute read

Sept 4 (Reuters) - Three large U.S. drug distributors and drugmaker Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) will proceed with a proposed $26 billion settlement resolving claims that they fueled the opioid epidemic after "enough" states joined in, the companies said on Saturday.

The companies had until Saturday to decide whether enough states back the $21 billion proposed settlement with McKesson Corp (MCK.N), AmerisourceBergen Corp (ABC.N) and Cardinal Health Inc (CAH.N) and a $5 billion agreement with J&J.

The distributors said 42 states, five territories and Washington, D.C., signed on to their agreement.

Alabama, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Washington, West Virginia are not participating in the settlement, a person familiar with the matter said. New Hampshire agreed to settle only with the distributors, while Rhode Island joined only J&J’s deal, the person said.

The companies will make their first annual settlement payment into escrow on or before Sept. 30, the distributors said. The final amount will depend on several factors, including the final participation rate of states and political subdivisions, they added.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, a lead settlement negotiator, called the support level a "remarkable showing of unity and commitment across the country to address this problem."

The settlement's complex formula envisioned at least 44 states participating, but ultimately the companies got to decide whether a "critical mass" had joined and whether to finalize the deal.

Cities and counties within participating states have through Jan. 2 to join as well. Ultimately, $10.7 billion is tied to the extent localities participate.

The deal, unveiled by 14 state attorneys general on July 21, is designed to resolve more than 3,000 lawsuits accusing the distributors of ignoring red flags that pain pills were being diverted into communities for illicit uses and that J&J played down the risks of opioid addiction.

The money would fund treatment and other services.

The companies deny wrongdoing, saying the drugs were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and that responsibility for ballooning painkiller sales lies with doctors, regulators and others.

The deal is separate from a settlement resolving similar claims against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP and its wealthy Sackler family owners. A bankruptcy judge on Wednesday approved that deal, which Purdue values at more than $10 billion.

Judge will approve Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that shields Sacklers

By Tom Hals and Mike Spector
5 minute read



Bottles of prescription painkiller OxyContin made by Purdue Pharma LP sit on a shelf at a local pharmacy in Provo, Utah, U.S. April 25, 2017. REUTERS/George Frey/File Photo

Sept 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge said on Wednesday he would approve OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP’s bankruptcy reorganization plan, clearing a path to resolve thousands of opioid lawsuits and shielding the company's wealthy Sackler family owners from future opioid litigation.

Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain said that with small changes he would approve the plan, which overcame opposition to garner support from nearly all states, local governments, tribes, hospitals and other creditors that voted on the restructuring. They became creditors in the bankruptcy by virtue of suing Purdue and Sackler family members over their alleged contributions to the nationwide opioid epidemic.

Drain said it was clear the wrongful marketing of the company's opioid products contributed to the addiction crisis, which touched every corner of the country. "That makes the bankruptcy case before me highly unusual and complex," said Drain, who spent more than six hours reading his ruling from the bench.

The plan, which Purdue values at more than $10 billion, dissolves the drugmaker and shifts assets to a new company not controlled by Sackler family members. The new company will be owned by a trust run to combat the opioid epidemic.

It also includes legal releases shielding Sackler family members from future opioid litigation, a controversial provision that some states opposed. Congressional Democrats in recent weeks introduced legislation to block such legal releases.

The Sacklers have denied allegations, raised in lawsuits and elsewhere, that they bear responsibility for the opioid addiction crisis. They have said they acted ethically and lawfully while serving on Purdue's board.

The Purdue bankruptcy plan includes a $4.5 billion contribution from Sackler family members. The contribution is in the form of cash that will be paid over roughly a decade and also includes $175 million in value from relinquishing control of charitable institutions.

Drain noted that he had expected a larger contribution from the Sacklers and said the evidence showed more might have been secured through litigation, although that was hard to predict.

"This is a bitter result," he said. He also said he would not jeopardize what the plan achieved by rejecting it and asked for small changes to secure his final approval.

Still, the evidence showed the plan was negotiated by the creditors who all viewed the Sacklers as "the other side, the opposition, the potential defendants," Drain said. "This is not the Sacklers' plan."

'INSULTING TO VICTIMS'

The Stamford, Connecticut, drugmaker pleaded guilty to criminal charges in November stemming from its handling of opioids. At the outset of its bankruptcy case, Purdue said there were a number of legal defenses it could mount in response to lawsuits alleging improper conduct.

Several state attorneys general opposed the plan.

“This order is insulting to victims of the opioid epidemic who had no voice in these proceedings,” said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who said his office would appeal.

A lawyer for the Office of the U.S. Trustee, a bankruptcy watchdog and part of the Department of Justice, said his office would file a motion for a stay of the order confirming the plan during the appeal.

More than 95% of creditors voting approved Purdue's restructuring, far above the legal threshold required for a bankruptcy judge's blessing.

Ryan Hampton resigned on Tuesday as the co-chair of the official creditors committee, which included governments and other creditors. Even though the committee helped negotiate the plan, he called the outcome a "total injustice."

He said people like himself who were recovering from addiction were the real victims and they had to fight states and local governments during plan negotiations for the $750 million set aside for them.

"At no point were the victims listened to," he said.

Sackler family members behind Purdue were prolific philanthropists, with their names on museum wings and other cultural institutions. They have also agreed to a prohibition on associating their name with charitable contributions until litigation settlement funds are fully paid, according to court records.

Much of the plan's value is contingent on future donations of overdose reversal and addiction treatment medications that Purdue has under development.

Drain noted that Sackler family owners who testified showed little remorse. "A forced apology is not really an apology," he said. "And so we will live without one."

Purdue filed for bankruptcy in September 2019 in the face of 3,000 lawsuits against the company and Sackler family for contributing to a public health crisis that has claimed the lives of about 500,000 people since 1999.

Drain, the judge overseeing the case in a White Plains, New York, bankruptcy court, agreed early in the case to halt litigation against Purdue and Sackler family members, who had not filed for bankruptcy themselves.

Sackler family members have not been criminally charged. They previously agreed to pay $225 million to resolve separate civil allegations with the Justice Department. The family members have denied those allegations.

Rễ Sim wrote:Có ai biết gì về vụ kiện opioid này hông?? căn bản tui chỉ hiểu J&J bị kiện vì sản xuất và phân phân không kiểm soát chất gây nghiện khiến nhiều người chết.
Nhưng toa thuốc là bác sĩ cho, phát thuốc là dược sĩ làm, sao liên can đến hãng chế thuốc Johnson & Johnson?

kiện tới 26 Tỷ đô !... stock và tài sản của J&J nhiều dữ dậy sao??

Rễ Sim rảnh thì coi miniseries Dopesick thì sẽ hiểu sơ sơ về Opioid drugs .. (wonder drug)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9174558/

Hoặc nếu có Amazon Prime thì coi show Goliath season 4 - Season này nói về cái Opioid Industry nè .

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B09D2N1H3C/ref=atv_dp_season_select_s4

Rễ Sim wrote:Có ai biết gì về vụ kiện opioid này hông?? căn bản tui chỉ hiểu J&J bị kiện vì sản xuất và phân phân không kiểm soát chất gây nghiện khiến nhiều người chết.
Nhưng toa thuốc là bác sĩ cho, phát thuốc là dược sĩ làm, sao liên can đến hãng chế thuốc Johnson & Johnson?

kiện tới 26 Tỷ đô !... stock và tài sản của J&J nhiều dữ dậy sao??

Họ đá trách nhiệm sang cho nhà sản xuất thôi. Trường hợp xấu nhất thì thằng bảo hiểm gánh.

Thanks bác Tư cho cái links ... Oxycodone thì tui biết vì hồi xưa bác sĩ có cho ba tui dùng để giảm đau, họ dặn rất kỹ cách xử dụng và nói nó là chất gây nghiện.... Cái tui thắc mắc là FDA phải chấp thuận thì J&J mới xản xuất và bán ra thị trường, bây giờ thì bị kiện? ...

Rễ Sim wrote:Thanks bác Tư cho cái links ... Oxycodone thì tui biết vì hồi xưa bác sĩ có cho ba tui dùng để giảm đau, họ dặn rất kỹ cách xử dụng và nói nó là chất gây nghiện.... Cái tui thắc mắc là FDA phải chấp thuận thì J&J mới xản xuất và bán ra thị trường, bây giờ thì bị kiện?  ...

Phía dân sự và luật sư thì vì tiền, còn phía chính phủ thì đá trách nhiệm.

Tu* Khoai wrote:

Rễ Sim wrote:Có ai biết gì về vụ kiện opioid này hông?? căn bản tui chỉ hiểu J&J bị kiện vì sản xuất và phân phân không kiểm soát chất gây nghiện khiến nhiều người chết.
Nhưng toa thuốc là bác sĩ cho, phát thuốc là dược sĩ làm, sao liên can đến hãng chế thuốc Johnson & Johnson?

kiện tới 26 Tỷ đô !... stock và tài sản của J&J nhiều dữ dậy sao??

Rễ Sim rảnh thì coi miniseries Dopesick thì sẽ hiểu sơ sơ về Opioid drugs .. (wonder drug)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9174558/

Hoặc nếu có Amazon Prime thì coi show Goliath season 4 - Season này nói về cái Opioid Industry nè .

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B09D2N1H3C/ref=atv_dp_season_select_s4

Show Goliath season 4 này hay.

Đúng là FDA approved their drug. Lawsuit theo tui hiểu là vì lý do
1. deceptive, lấp liếm downplayed việc xử dụng dẫn tới nghiện. Đây là Thí dụ của tui và made up number nha: 2 tuần là nghiện nhưng họ nói 3 tháng hoặc dùng 100 mg là nghiện nhưng thực chất là 20 mg là nghiện.
2. những thuốc đó có chất nghiện nhưng rất dễ xin toa vì thuốc đó oversupplied. JnJ là người supply nên có trách nhiệm monitor product của mình và nên có hành động kịp thời khi có những nghiên cứu về sự lien hệ giữa số người chết và nghiện về opiod với số tăng của toa thuốc của họ.

Giải thích như Impatience dễ nhìn sự việc hơn ,,, thanks a bunch!

tóm gọn 1 câu , giây tờ phức tạp, nhà nước câm cán không có cầm lưỡi đâu nên không bao giờ đứt tay 

8DonCo wrote:tóm gọn 1 câu , giây tờ phức tạp, nhà nước câm cán không có cầm lưỡi đâu nên không bao giờ đứt tay 

Bên luật sự & states dùng số đông để kiện. Xác xuất thắng thì chỉ có 10% thôi anh. Nhiều khả năng Johnson sẽ kháng lên toà cao, và toà cao sẽ overwrite it nếu toà dưới phán bất lợi cho Johnson. Bởi vì bên Johnson & FDA đều đã có khuyến cáo inked trên chai thuốc rất rõ ràng là có chất gây nghiện, và người dùng phải hỏi bác sĩ. Và trách nhiệm của bác sĩ là phải theo dõi diễn biến của bệnh nhân sau khi dùng. Not Johnson có trách nhiệm phải theo dõi người dùng, mà là các bác sĩ phải report với Johnson nếu bệnh nhân có triệu chứng xấu gì sau khi dùng. Cái case này just for the money mà bên luật sư tìm cách ăn được bao nhiêu hay bấy nhiêu và của phía nộp đơn khếu kiện là chính.