NY AG Announces Country's 'Most Extensive' Lawsuit Against Opioid Companies
Attorney General Letitia James announced the new litigation Thursday morning in Manhattan, where she said it will be the country's most extensive lawsuit aimed at addressing the ever-growing opioid epidemic.
March 28, 2019 at 10:53 AM
6 minute read
New York expanded its lawsuit against opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma on Thursday to include claims against several other manufacturers, opioid distributors and the family that owns Purdue over allegations that their actions negligently exacerbated the state's opioid crisis.
Attorney General Letitia James announced the new litigation Thursday morning in Manhattan, where she said it will be the country's “most extensive” lawsuit aimed at addressing the ever-growing problem of opioid addiction.
“In an effort to address the very root of this crisis, today my office filed the nation's most extensive lawsuit about the very companies and the family behind them,” James said. “Those who make, distribute and have misled the American people about the true dangers of these drugs.”
The lawsuit includes claims against six national prescription opioid manufacturers, four drug distributors and the Sackler family, which owns Purdue Pharma. James said the amended complaint was filed today in the commercial division of Suffolk County Supreme Court, where Justice Jerry Garguilo is presiding over the litigation.
It builds significantly on the original complaint filed solely against Purdue Pharma in August by the state, which sued the company for allegedly misleading consumers about the addictive nature of opioids. The amended complaint made the same claim against five other opioid manufacturers whose products are sold in New York.
“This lawsuit alleges that throughout years of false and deceptive marketing, the following manufacturers of opioids … have grossly misled the public about the true risk and dangers of opioids,” James said.
The manufacturers named in the amended complaint include Purdue Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (including its parent company Johnson & Johnson), Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo Health Solutions Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Allergan Finance, LLC.
James said the four opioid distributors named in the lawsuit violated the New York Controlled Substances Act when they allegedly ignored several “red flags” that she claimed would have indicated suspicious orders from pharmacies and other opioid dispensers. The law requires those distributors to maintain compliance systems to prevent and report those kinds of orders to the state, which they did not, she claimed.
“The four distributors not only lacked sufficient compliance functionalities but actually incentivized sales representatives to sell as much product as possible,” James said. “In the cases when a suspicious opioid order was flagged, investigations were not conducted, the orders were not blocked and they were not reported to the state.”
“Simply put, they put profit over patients,” James continued.
The lawsuit also targets the manufacturers, distributors and Sackler family over allegations that they encouraged the sale of opiods that were allegedly medically unnecessary when those drugs were paid for by state-sponsored health programs, like Medicaid. That behavior was a violation of the state False Claims Act, James said, which bars fraudulent payments made to individuals or entities using public money.
“The gross misconduct exhibited by these defendants enabled countless New Yorkers to obtain prescriptions that were not medically necessary,” James said. “Prescriptions that New York state taxpayers footed the bill for because they were paid under state health programs, including but not limited to, Medicaid.”
The state's claims against the Sackler family are, in some ways, similar to what's already been alleged in other litigation against those individuals. Those lawsuits have alleged that Purdue Pharma transferred money to the Sackler family, members of which had downplayed the addictive nature of opioids. James claimed the family then transferred that money to private trusts, where it couldn't be touched by litigation and enforcement actions.
“This lawsuit contains detailed allegations about the Sackler family and their attempts to hide the vast fortunes they collected at the expense of actual lives,” James said. “In an attempt to shield these fortune from families whose loved ones have been killed by their products, we allege that the family has illicitly transferred funds from Purdue to personal trusts so they are potentially outside the reach of law enforcement and our efforts to seek restitution or penalties.”
Members of the Sackler family jointly issued a statement Thursday on the amended complaint, which they called “headline-seeking” and vowed to fight.
“Expanding this baseless lawsuit to include former directors of Purdue Pharma is a misguided attempt to place blame where it does not belong for a complex public health crisis,” the family said. “We strongly deny these allegations, which are inconsistent with the factual record, and will vigorously defend against them.”
Purdue Pharma issued its own statement on the amended complaint, largely echoing the argument that the litigation was favorable to press reports, but wouldn't hold up in court.
“Purdue Pharma and the individual former directors of the company vigorously deny the allegations in the New York State Attorney General's amended complaint, and will continue to defend themselves against these misleading allegations,” Purdue said. “The public announcement of the amended complaint is part of a continuing effort to try these cases in the court of public opinion rather than the justice system.”
The lawsuit seeks to compel members of the Sackler family to return the money transferred to them from Purdue and set aside those funds as part of the litigation. The lawsuit does not seek an exact amount from any of the companies, but it does outline several civil penalties they would be responsible for if found liable.
The money collected from the litigation, according to the amended complaint, would be used partly to endow a fund to “eliminate the public nuisance they are responsible for creating, exacerbating, and/or perpetuating.” In other words, it would be used to fund the state's efforts against the opioid epidemic, which James said kills nine individuals in New York each day.
Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family reached a $270 million settlement earlier this week with the state of Oklahoma, which had brought similar claims related to the opioid crisis in their own lawsuit.
READ MORE:
Underwood Sues Purdue Pharma Over Opioid Marketing Practices
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 AllWhat Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
7 minute readJudge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
Trending Stories
- 1Pro Hac Vice in Georgia: Rule Change for Nonresident Attorneys
- 2The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
- 3AI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
- 4A Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
- 5‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
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