Amid Bankruptcy Whispers, Purdue Pharma Seeks Delay of Okla. Opioid Trial
Purdue Pharma has sought to delay a May 28 trial against the Oklahoma AG, citing a “belated tidal wave of documents,” but the move comes amid reports of its possible Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
March 06, 2019 at 07:01 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Purdue Pharma has sought to delay a trial that is set to begin May 28 in Oklahoma, citing a “belated tidal wave of documents,” but the move comes amid reports that the opioid manufacturer could soon file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
In a case brought by the Oklahoma attorney general, the trial would be the first time a jury would decide whether Purdue was responsible for the opioid addiction crisis. Last week, Purdue filed a motion for continuance based on a massive data dump handed over by the attorney general's office. On Friday, Attorney General Mike Hunter countered that Purdue's motion was a ruse that, along with a potential bankruptcy filing, were all part of a “desperate” attempt to avoid trial.
“There is no way—no way—any of these defendants can face a jury,” wrote Hunter and the state's Oklahoma City attorneys, former federal judge Michael Burrage of Whitten Burrage, and Bradley Beckworth, co-head of Nix Patterson's complex litigation group. “Defendants know they can't hide anymore. Now they're trying to run.”
Purdue, in a reply Wednesday, chastised the “inflammatory rhetoric, speculation, and misleading, irrelevant assertions” raised in the attorney general's response.
Purdue's lawyers in the case are Sanford Coats of Crowe & Dunlevy in Oklahoma City and Mark Cheffo, a partner in Dechert's New York office.
Outside of court, the language on both sides was more tempered.
In an emailed statement, Hunter said, “Our focus over the next several months is on trial preparation and ensuring the facts and evidence in this case will be heard by Oklahoma triers of fact in an Oklahoma courtroom.”
Purdue spokesman Robert Josephson denied that the continuance motion had anything to do with a possible bankruptcy.
“We categorically deny that a failure to win the motion for a continuance will have a determinative effect on the company's decisions about whether or not to file for bankruptcy,” he wrote. “As previously stated, the company is looking at all of its options, but we have made no decisions, and have not set any timetables.”
On Monday, Reuters reported that Purdue Pharma was exploring bankruptcy to address its growing liabilities over the opioid epidemic. A Chapter 11 filing would halt the lawsuits, folding them into bankruptcy court.
Bankruptcy rumors began infiltrating the Oklahoma trial last month. The case, filed on 2017, alleged that Purdue and two other opioid manufacturers, Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, helped create an epidemic over the prescription painkillers by marketing them as a safe and non-additive treatment for chronic pain.
On Feb. 14, Cleveland County District Court Judge Thad Balkman ordered both sides to submit briefs on whether he had the legal authority to sever the claims against all three defendants and consolidate them for trial—a move that Purdue called an “unprecedented procedural tactic” pushed by the attorney general's office to head off concerns about its imminent bankruptcy.
“Yet Purdue is still here—ready, willing, and eager to prove in this court that the state's claims are baseless,” Purdue's lawyers wrote Feb. 22.
Purdue, and the other defendants, in separate motions, supported severing the claims but not consolidating them for trial, which would be premature and prejudicial. In fact, Teva filed a motion for severance Feb. 26, arguing that a trial with all defendants would be unfair. Among other things, the motion says, the case alleges that Purdue—and, more specifically, its private owners, the Sackler family—first created the epidemic when introducing OxyContin in 1996, five years before Teva's products hit the market.
“The state's focus on Purdue throughout this case has been marked by extraordinary, inflammatory rhetoric, with the state repeatedly labeling the Purdue defendants 'liars,' 'criminals,' 'above the law,' and just 'bad company,'” wrote Teva's attorneys. “Those statements and other evidence and arguments directed at Purdue cannot be attributed to any other party—but will undoubtedly inflame the jury against all defendants before them at trial.”
Neither Teva attorney Robert McCampbell of GableGotwals in Oklahoma City, nor Johnson & Johnson's lawyer, Benjamin Odom of Odom Sparks & Jones in Norman, Oklahoma, responded to requests for comment.
On Feb. 28, Purdue filed its motion for continuance, and an emergency motion to stay expert deadlines, citing the attorney general's “belated tidal wave of documents” produced in discovery —specifically, nearly 1.6 million pages of documents, nearly double the volume of the entire case so far. In Wednesday's reply, Purdue's lawyers noted much more discovery was missing.
“It is obvious that the state is far behind on its discovery obligations,” they wrote. It is long past time for the state to get going. Defendants cannot be punished for the state's failure to comply with its basic discovery obligations and court orders compelling such discovery.”
A continuance would delay the trial to Sept. 16, but it still would be the first opioid case to go before jurors. On Jan. 29, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, who is overseeing multidistrict litigation of more than 1,600 lawsuits by cities and counties, rescheduled the first federal trial to Oct. 21.
“There is no reason to move the trial date,” Hunter wrote. “Defendants' attempt to do so with this motion is frivolous, desperate, and disingenuous—as is their last-minute request to once again delay their expert disclosures. This court has been clear: we are going to trial on May 28, 2019.”
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
© 2025 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 AllLitigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
Litigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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