Bankruptcy hearings over Purdue Pharma’s settlement drew broad support from government entities and most victims, with relatively few objections. If approved by Judge Sean Lane, the deal could resolve thousands of claims tied to an opioid crisis blamed for about 900,000 U.S. deaths since 1999 and require up to $7 billion in contributions from Sackler family members. The plan would reorganize Purdue under a new name, dedicate future profits to combating the epidemic, and set aside roughly $850 million for individual claimants, including funds for infants born with withdrawal.
Few Objections as Court Hears Major Purdue–Sackler Opioid Settlement
Bankruptcy hearings over Purdue Pharma’s settlement drew broad support from government entities and most victims, with relatively few objections. If approved by Judge Sean Lane, the deal could resolve thousands of claims tied to an opioid crisis blamed for about 900,000 U.S. deaths since 1999 and require up to $7 billion in contributions from Sackler family members. The plan would reorganize Purdue under a new name, dedicate future profits to combating the epidemic, and set aside roughly $850 million for individual claimants, including funds for infants born with withdrawal.
12:01 PM, 11/14/2025Society
Few objections as bankruptcy court hears major Purdue–Sackler opioid settlement
Lawyers for Purdue Pharma, branches of the Sackler family that own it, city and state officials, Native American tribes, people with addiction and other plaintiffs told a bankruptcy judge this week they largely support a plan to resolve thousands of opioid-related lawsuits against the maker of OxyContin.
If U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane approves the proposal, it could mark the end of a long legal battle over Purdue’s role in an opioid epidemic linked to roughly 900,000 deaths in the U.S. since 1999 — a toll that includes fatalities tied to heroin and illicit fentanyl.
What happened at the hearing
Closing arguments were presented on the third day of hearings over a Chapter 11 plan. Purdue filed for bankruptcy protection six years ago as litigation against it swelled, at times producing claims that reached into the trillions of dollars. This time, opposition has been far quieter.
The years-long saga has been emotional and often contentious as many parties who sued Purdue clashed over whether the bankruptcy process can deliver both compensation and accountability. The U.S. Supreme Court previously rejected an earlier settlement because it treated Sackler family members as broadly immune from future lawsuits. Under the current agreement, parties that decline to join the settlement would still be able to sue individual Sackler family members.
Key terms of the proposed deal
- Payments and ownership: Sackler family members would contribute up to $7 billion and surrender ownership of Purdue. The family has not served on the company's board or received payments from Purdue since 2018.
- Company reorganization: Purdue would be reorganized under a new name, governed by trustees who would dedicate future profits to combating the opioid crisis.
- Individual claimants: About $850 million would be set aside for individuals harmed by Purdue’s opioids, including more than $100 million for infants born with opioid withdrawal. Attorneys estimate eligible claimants with prescriptions of six months or more could receive roughly $16,000, while those with shorter histories might receive about $8,000 — amounts that would be reduced by legal fees. Many claimants lack proof they were prescribed Purdue products and therefore may receive nothing.
- Nonfinancial provisions: Certain Sackler family members would give up involvement in opioid businesses abroad and be barred from attaching their names to institutions in exchange for donations. Company documents normally shielded by attorney–client privilege are also slated for broader public disclosure.
Objections and unresolved concerns
Despite broad institutional support, a small number of individual objectors spoke at the hearing. Of more than 54,000 personal-injury claimants who voted on the plan, only 218 opposed it — though many did not cast ballots. Some objectors argued settlement funds should go only to victims rather than to state and local governments; others urged criminal findings against Sackler family members, which Judge Lane said is beyond the bankruptcy court’s authority (the settlement does not block criminal prosecutors from pursuing charges).
“The natural laws of karma suggest the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma should pay for what they have done,” said Pamela Bartz Halaschak, whose husband developed an addiction after receiving OxyContin following an accident.
Critics at the hearing also said the proposed payouts will do little to help people currently living with substance use disorder. Supporters counter that the bulk of settlement funds will be directed to state and local governments to support prevention, treatment and harm-reduction programs — efforts that experts credit with part of a recent decline in overdose deaths.
Where things stand
The Purdue arrangement would be among the largest opioid settlements to date. Most other major cases involving drugmakers, wholesalers and pharmacies have already been resolved in separate deals totaling about $50 billion, with the bulk of that money earmarked for fighting the opioid crisis. Judge Lane’s decision on the current plan will determine whether this chapter of litigation closes or proceeds to further appeals.