'It Was a Late Night': How Attorneys Reached a Last-Minute $260M Opioid Settlement
Paul Hanly of New York's Simmons Hanly Conroy said co-lead counsel were finalizing details of a deal until 1 a.m. on Monday.
October 21, 2019 at 12:13 PM
6 minute read
About 60 lawyers in Cleveland hammered out a last-minute settlement on the eve of the first jury trial over the opioid crisis, arriving bleary-eyed on what would have been opening statements on Monday.
"It was a late night," said Paul Hanly of New York's Simmons Hanly Conroy, outside the courtroom after the judge dismissed the case on Monday morning in light of the settlement. He negotiated the deal with Joe Rice, of Motley Rice, and Paul Farrell of Greene Ketchum, Farrell, Bailey & Tweel in Huntington, West Virginia. All three are co-lead counsel of the multidistrict litigation over the opioid crisis.
The $260 million settlement includes $215 million in cash from three of the nation's largest distributors of opioid pharmaceuticals—McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Corp.—and $20 million from the sole manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, paid out in lump sums over 18 months. Teva also will provide $25 million in treatment pills, delivered over three years.
Walgreens, which did not settle, could go to trial next year, Rice said on Monday.
The trial before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in the Northern District of Ohio was supposed to be a bellwether for more than 2,600 lawsuits brought by cities, counties, states and other governments against opioid manufacturers and distributors. Two Ohio counties, Cuyahoga and Summit, were the plaintiffs.
Lawyers, media and spectators turned out before sunrise to attend the trial, filling the courtroom and two overflow rooms.
Before the trial was set to begin, Polster asked the lawyers to go into his chambers. When he returned, he thanked the "best lawyers in the country" who spent "a lot of work" on picking a jury last week. He said he would dismiss the claims of the Ohio counties against the settling defendants and sever Walgreens from the case. Walgreens now joins several other defendant companies that plan to go to trial against both Ohio counties at a later date. Polster has set no trial date for that case.
It was a disappointing end to those who sought to watch the trial and a planned performance by plaintiffs attorney W. Mark Lanier, who said he was prepared to do a "kicker opening."
But the settlement, lawyers and county officials said, provided cash to two counties in a state among the most hard hit from the opioid crisis.
"The proposed settlement will make significant progress to abate the epidemic by providing resources for and applying funds directly to necessary opioid-recovery programs," wrote Rice, Farrell and Hanly on behalf of the plaintiffs' executive committee in the opioid multidistrict litigation. "Throughout this process, Summit and Cuyahoga Counties have tirelessly investigated, litigated, and prepared for the bellwether trial that would have begun today if not for this agreement. In doing so, the communities revealed facts about the roles of the opioid industry that created and fueled the opioid epidemic."
They said that although the trial didn't happen, discovery revealed new facts about the opioid crisis.
"Additionally, through the discovery process, we learned that this country's pharmacy system has played a greater role in the opioid epidemic than previously realized," they wrote. "Cuyahoga and Summit will continue to litigate against pharmacy defendants to further understand the industry's failings and potential wrongdoing."
Outside the courthouse after the settlement's announcement, Rice said lawyers were in a "war room" in the U.S. Post Office building across from the Ritz-Carlton in downtown Cleveland, finalizing last-minute details of a deal until 1 a.m. on Monday. He said negotiations took place with the defendants by phone.
When asked about how much of the settlement would go to attorney fees, Cuyahoga County Executive Armond Budish said the fees would be held in an escrow account based on their contractual agreement with the two Ohio counties, which provides 25%, but that the fees would not come from the settlement fund. Neither he nor Rice gave dollar figures.
Meanwhile, Lanier said he was in his own "war room" at the Ritz-Carlton with the trial team, which included other lawyers from his firm, as well as Don Migliori of Motley Rice and Hunter Shkolnik of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, who were planning to make arguments to the jury. Lanier said Peter Weinberger, of Cleveland's Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, who serves as liaison counsel in the multidistrict litigation, was his "right-hand man."
The trial team was going through 150 slides for the opening when they kept getting interrupted by phone calls from Rice with updates on settlement talks going on across the street.
When asked why a settlement with the two Ohio counties did not happen sooner, Lanier replied: "As bizarre as it sounds, every dollar makes a difference. There are people who will die from an opioid death today."
"It's worth staying awake until 1 a.m. in the morning," Lanier said.
The settlement comes after talks over a possible global settlement worth $48 billion broke down on Friday. That settlement, which had the support of some state attorneys general, who were part of the talks, would have resolved all the opioid lawsuits across the nation. In court, Polster said he was with the lawyers and attorneys general until 7:40 p.m. that day trying to reach a deal.
"I want these discussions to continue," Polster said on Monday.
Later that day, attorneys general from Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee and North Carolina announced they had sealed the $48 billion deal without the involvement of the plaintiffs' lawyers representing cities and counties.
Outside the courthouse earlier Monday, many lawyers and county officials said the global settlement wasn't enough actual cash and it wasn't soon enough, allowing the defendants to pay over several years.
"There should be a global settlement, but it's got to be fair and it's got to be now," Rice said. "They wanted to pay less, and we wanted them to pay more."
"We still want a global settlement," Rice said. "We're a long way from being through."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute read'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250