--- title: "Evidence records" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/purdue-pharma/evidence-records/ as_of: 2026-10-22 keywords: ["Purdue Pharma L.P.","Purdue Pharma Inc.","OxyContin","Sackler family","Richard Sackler","Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P.","Beacon Company","Rosebay Medical Company L.P.","The Purdue Frederick Company","Rhodes Pharmaceuticals","Chapter 11","Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.","third-party releases","Knoa Pharma","McKinsey & Company","opioid litigation","guilty plea","Master Disbursement Trust","shareholder settlement","Mundipharma"] --- # Evidence records **Question.** Which records support the articles? **Answer.** Full assertions with source references, qualifications, responses and known outcomes. The topic articles explain these records in context. ## Purdue Pharma L.P.: owners, OxyContin cases and bankruptcy - Documented: Purdue Pharma L.P.'s voluntary Chapter 11 petition (Official Form 201), filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on September 15, 2019, gives the debtor's name as Purdue Pharma L.P. and its federal Employer Identification Number as 06-1307484; in the retained text the field for other names used in the previous eight years is blank. The petition gives the principal place of business as One Stamford Forum, 201 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901 (Fairfield County), the website www.purduepharma.com, the type of debtor as a partnership (excluding LLP) and NAICS code 3254. [src-001] - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement for the Thirteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan, dated July 1, 2025, states that Purdue Pharma L.P. was formed on June 12, 1991 as a Delaware limited partnership and has since been treated as a pass-through entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes, so that it was not itself subject to federal income tax and its taxable income was reportable by its owners (the Disclosure Statement says 'shareholders'). [src-015] - Unresolved: The OCR text of Purdue Pharma L.P.'s 2003 application by a foreign limited partnership for authorization to transact business in Florida, held in the Florida Division of Corporations' records, gives Delaware as the state of formation and reads the date-of-formation field as 'June 14, 1999' (rendered 'dune 14, 1999'). This differs from the formation date of June 12, 1991 stated in the debtors' Disclosure Statement. [src-110] [src-015] - Qualification: The scanned application is of poor recognition quality and the OCR reading has not been checked against the image or against a Delaware record. The debtors' own 2025 court filing (June 12, 1991) is the better-supported date, but the retained records do not resolve the discrepancy. - Response: The debtors' own July 2025 Disclosure Statement gives June 12, 1991 as the formation date; no retained record repeats the 1999 reading. - Documented: The same 2003 Florida application names Purdue Pharma Inc., One Stamford Forum, Stamford, Connecticut, as the only general partner of Purdue Pharma L.P. and Corporation Service Company as its Florida registered agent. The application and an accompanying affidavit of capital contributions were signed in October 2003 for Purdue Pharma Inc., as general partner, by Stuart D. Baker, Executive Vice President, Counsel to the Board and Secretary. The affidavit gives the limited partners' capital contributions as '$ 287.280, 567' in the OCR text (roughly 287 million dollars) and the contributions anticipated to be allocated to transacting business in Florida as $2,867,922. [src-110] - Unresolved: Purdue Pharma L.P.'s own Chapter 11 petition states its federal Employer Identification Number as 06-1307484, and the debtors' list of registration numbers gives 7484 as the last four digits for Purdue Pharma L.P. and 7486 for Purdue Pharma Inc. The Florida registry record of Purdue Pharma L.P. (B03000000381), however, shows FEI/EIN 06-1307486, the same number that appears on the Florida record of its general partner Purdue Pharma Inc. (F03000005558). [src-103] [src-015] [src-039] [src-001] [src-102] [src-016] - Qualification: The petition filed by the partnership itself is the primary statement of its own EIN. The Florida partnership record appears to carry the general partner's number, but no retained record explains the entry, so both numbers are reported with their sources. - Response: The debtors' own lists of registration numbers, in the first-day papers and again in the July 2025 Disclosure Statement and the Confirmation Order, consistently give 7484 for Purdue Pharma L.P. and 7486 for Purdue Pharma Inc. - Documented: The first-day declaration of Jon Lowne, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Purdue Pharma L.P., filed in support of the debtors' Chapter 11 petitions, lists the debtors with the last four digits of each debtor's registration number in its jurisdiction: Purdue Pharma L.P. (7484), Purdue Pharma Inc. (7486), Purdue Transdermal Technologies L.P. (1868), Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P. (3821), Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. (0034), Imbrium Therapeutics L.P. (8810), Adlon Therapeutics L.P. (6745), Greenfield BioVentures L.P. (6150), Seven Seas Hill Corp. (4591), Ophir Green Corp. (4594), Purdue Pharma of Puerto Rico (3925), Avrio Health L.P. (4140), Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. (3902), Purdue Neuroscience Company (4712), Nayatt Cove Lifescience Inc. (7805), Button Land L.P. (7502), Rhodes Associates L.P. (none given, 'N/A'), Paul Land Inc. (7425), Quidnick Land L.P. (7584), Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. (6166), Rhodes Technologies (7143), UDF L.P. (0495), SVC Pharma L.P. (5717) and SVC Pharma Inc. (4014). It gives the debtors' corporate headquarters as One Stamford Forum, 201 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901. [src-016] - Documented: By 2025 the debtor Avrio Health L.P. appeared under the name Purdue Products L.P. The Bankruptcy Court's order confirming the Eighteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan (Doc 8263, filed November 18, 2025) lists 'Purdue Products L.P. (f/k/a Avrio Health L.P.)' among the debtors, and the debtors' Disclosure Statement of July 1, 2025 lists Purdue Products L.P. with the registration-number ending 4140 that the first-day debtor list gave for Avrio Health L.P. Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. (3902) remains a separate debtor in both lists. [src-039] [src-015] [src-016] - Qualification: The same Disclosure Statement, in its section on governance changes, calls Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. 'formerly known as Avrio Health L.P.'; that wording conflicts with the Disclosure Statement's own debtor list and with the Confirmation Order, which keep the two entities separate. - Documented: A settlement agreement dated as of August 28, 2006 between the Purdue companies and the Endo companies, filed on the SEC's EDGAR system as Exhibit 99.1, names Purdue Pharma L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, 'on its own behalf and as successor in interest to The Purdue Pharma Company, a Delaware general partnership'. The other 'Purdue Companies' party to it are The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. d/b/a The Purdue Frederick Company, a New York corporation, The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, and Euro-Celtique S.A., a Luxembourg company. [src-046] - Documented: The District Court's decision of December 16, 2021 on the appeals from confirmation of the debtors' reorganization plan (Judge McMahon, S.D.N.Y.) recounts that Purdue, originally known as the Purdue Frederick Company, was founded by John Purdue Gray and George Frederick Bingham in 1892 and was sold to the brothers Arthur, Mortimer and Raymond Sackler in 1952. The 1952 purchase therefore concerned The Purdue Frederick Company; Purdue Pharma L.P., the present debtor, was formed as a Delaware limited partnership on June 12, 1991, according to the debtors' Disclosure Statement. [src-003] [src-015] - Documented: The same District Court decision states, in a footnote, that the Arthur Sackler family sold its interest in Purdue to the other two branches of the family before OxyContin was invented and has no involvement in the company or in the bankruptcy. The decision does not name the entity in which the interest was held or give the date of the sale. [src-003] - Attributed: A general reference work states that in 1952 Arthur M. Sackler arranged financing for his brothers to purchase the Purdue-Frederick Company, which came to sell over-the-counter products such as Betadine antiseptic, Senokot laxative and the earwax remover Cerumenex and also sold MS Contin, a time-release morphine, and that after Arthur's death in 1987 his estate sold his option on one third of that company to his brothers Mortimer and Raymond, who owned the separate company named Purdue Pharma and used Purdue-Frederick as a holding company. [src-030] [src-003] - Qualification: This account comes from a nonofficial general reference work, not from a court record or filing. The retained official record (the District Court's 2021 decision) confirms only that the Arthur Sackler family sold its interest to the other two branches before OxyContin was invented; the 1987 date, the one-third option and the holding-company structure are not confirmed by an official source. - Response: The District Court's 2021 decision confirms the 1952 sale of the company to the brothers Arthur, Mortimer and Raymond Sackler and that the Arthur Sackler family later sold its interest to the other two branches before OxyContin was invented; it gives no date, price or option terms. - Attributed: The same kind of reference work states that in 1952 Mortimer and Raymond Sackler became co-chairmen of a small Greenwich Village-based pharmaceutical company that Arthur had financed, The Purdue Frederick Company, which later became the Stamford, Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma, and that Mortimer and Raymond established pharmaceutical companies in Austria, Canada, Cyprus, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. [src-028] [src-003] [src-015] - Qualification: Nonofficial general reference work; the co-chairmanship and the foreign companies are not documented in the retained official records, and 'Purdue Pharma' is used loosely for the business rather than for Purdue Pharma L.P., which was formed in 1991. - Response: The District Court's 2021 decision records that Mortimer D. Sackler and Raymond Sackler served as co-chief executive officers of Purdue; it does not mention a co-chairmanship. - Attributed: A general reference work states that Raymond Sackler and his wife Beverly Sackler had two sons, Richard S. Sackler and Jonathan D. Sackler, and that Beverly Sackler died in October 2019. [src-029] [src-003] - Qualification: Nonofficial general reference work. The family relationships are also recorded by the District Court's 2021 decision, which names Beverly Sackler as Raymond Sackler's wife and Jonathan and Richard Sackler as his sons; the October 2019 date of Beverly Sackler's death rests on the reference work alone. - Response: The District Court's 2021 decision confirms that Raymond Sackler's wife, Beverly Sackler, and his two sons, Jonathan and Richard Sackler, served as Board members of Purdue. - Documented: According to the declaration of IRS Special Agent Phillip A. Barnett, attached to The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.'s 2007 plea agreement in support of a forfeiture complaint, The Purdue Pharma Company was a Delaware general partnership owned by and co-located with The Purdue Frederick Company and Purdue Pharma L.P., and was used to conduct pharmaceutical business until September 30, 2004, when the partnership was terminated. The declaration states that from approximately January 1996 until September 30, 2004 OxyContin sales were recorded by The Purdue Pharma Company, and after its termination by Purdue Pharma L.P. [src-105] - Documented: The same declaration states that Purdue Pharma L.P. was a Delaware limited partnership with the same headquarters and facilities as The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., a New York corporation headquartered in Connecticut, and that after The Purdue Pharma Company was terminated on September 30, 2004, The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. became an owner of Purdue Pharma L.P. The declaration does not state the size of that interest or how long it was held. [src-105] ## Purdue Pharma Inc., general partner of Purdue Pharma L.P. - Documented: Purdue Pharma Inc. (PPI) is a New York corporation. Its Secretary, Marc L. Kesselman, who signed as Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, certified that the resolutions attached to the bankruptcy petition were approved by PPI's Board of Directors on September 15, 2019. [src-001] - Documented: In records retrieved in October 2026, the Florida Division of Corporations lists PURDUE PHARMA L.P. as a foreign limited partnership of Delaware (document number B03000000381) and PURDUE PHARMA INC. as a foreign profit corporation of New York (document number F03000005558), both filed on November 6, 2003. Both records are inactive: the partnership's last event is an LP Notice of Cancellation and the corporation's a withdrawal, each filed on October 1, 2026. Both give 201 Tresser Blvd, One Stamford Forum, Stamford, CT 06901 as principal address and C T Corporation System as registered agent, and the partnership's record names Purdue Pharma, Inc. (F03000005558) as its general partner. [src-103] [src-102] - Documented: The United States' proof of claim, dated July 30, 2020, in the jointly administered cases (lead case No. 19-23649 (RDD), S.D.N.Y.) identifies the debtors, all with corporate headquarters at One Stamford Forum, 201 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901, by legal form and case number: Purdue Pharma L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (No. 19-23649); Purdue Pharma Inc., a New York corporation (No. 19-23648); the Delaware limited partnerships Purdue Transdermal Technologies L.P. (No. 19-23650), Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P. (No. 19-23651), Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. (No. 19-23652), Imbrium Therapeutics L.P. (No. 19-23653), Adlon Therapeutics L.P. (No. 19-23654) and Greenfield BioVentures L.P. (No. 19-23655); Seven Seas Hill Corp., described as a British Virgin Islands limited partnership (No. 19-23656); Ophir Green Corp., a British Virgin Islands corporation (No. 19-23657); Purdue Pharma of Puerto Rico, a Delaware general partnership (No. 19-23658); the Delaware limited partnerships Avrio Health L.P. (No. 19-23659) and Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. (No. 19-23660); Purdue Neuroscience Company, a Delaware general partnership (No. 19-23661); Nayatt Cove Lifescience Inc., a Delaware corporation (No. 19-23662); the Delaware limited partnerships Button Land L.P. (No. 19-23663), Quidnick Land L.P. (No. 19-23665) and Rhodes Associates L.P. (No. 19-23666); Paul Land Inc., a New York corporation (No. 19-23664); Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (No. 19-23667); Rhodes Technologies, a Delaware general partnership (No. 19-23668); the Delaware limited partnerships UDF L.P. (No. 19-23669) and SVC Pharma L.P. (No. 19-23670); and SVC Pharma Inc., a Delaware corporation (No. 19-23671). The claim states that all debtors filed voluntary petitions on September 15, 2019. The court-appointed claims agent's case website lists the same case numbers and shows case No. 19-23659 under the name Purdue Products L.P. (f/k/a Avrio Health L.P.). [src-038] [src-096] - Attributed: An undated business-profile aggregator page reproducing Connecticut registry data lists PURDUE PHARMA INC. as registered in Connecticut under the identifier CT-0265632, with Prentice Hall Corporation System as registered agent, and names Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Beverly Sackler, Cecil B. Pickett and David A. Sackler among its directors, without dates of service. [src-026] [src-004] [src-102] - Qualification: The page is a commercial aggregator's undated copy of registry data, not the Connecticut registry itself; it gives no appointment or cessation dates, so the officer entries may be historical and have not been checked against the state record. - Response: Official records confirm several of the listed directors: the United States' October 2020 settlement with the Named Sacklers gives the Purdue Pharma Inc. board tenures of David A. Sackler (7/19/2012 – 8/14/2018), Ilene Sackler Lefcourt (10/2/1990 – 2/4/2005; 5/16/2008 – 10/9/2018) and Beverly Sackler (approximately 1993 – 10/2017), and Purdue Pharma Inc.'s Florida registry record, retrieved in October 2026, lists Cecil Pickett as a director. ## Ownership and control of Purdue Pharma L.P. - Documented: Purdue Pharma Inc. (PPI), a New York corporation, was the general partner of Purdue Pharma L.P. In the resolutions its Board of Directors adopted on September 15, 2019 to commence the bankruptcy cases, PPI recites that it is the general partner of Purdue Pharma L.P. and the general partner or managing general partner of each entity listed on Schedule 1A to the resolutions, and that Purdue Pharma L.P. is a limited partner or partner of each Schedule 1A entity other than Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., Rhodes Technologies and UDF L.P. The District Court's decision of December 16, 2021 likewise records that PPI, also headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, is Purdue Pharma L.P.'s general partner and that PPI's board of directors manages Purdue Pharma L.P. [src-001] [src-003] - Documented: The debtors' Consolidated Corporate Ownership Statement, filed with the petitions of September 15, 2019, records that the non-debtor Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P. (PRA) directly owns 100% of the ownership interests of Purdue Pharma L.P., and that to the best of the debtors' knowledge no other person or entity directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of those interests. PRA was formerly named Purdue Holdings L.P. The District Court's decision of December 16, 2021 likewise describes Purdue Pharma L.P. as wholly owned by PRA, a Delaware limited partnership that is not a debtor. [src-001] [src-004] [src-003] - Documented: The same ownership statement records that the non-debtor PLP Associates Holdings L.P. directly owns approximately 99.5061% of the ownership interests of Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P.; it does not identify the holder of the remaining interest. [src-001] - Documented: The same ownership statement records that the non-debtor BR Holdings Associates L.P. directly owns 100% of the ownership interests of PLP Associates Holdings L.P. [src-001] - Documented: The same ownership statement records that the non-debtors Beacon Company and Rosebay Medical Company L.P. each directly own 50% of the ownership interests of BR Holdings Associates L.P. [src-001] - Documented: The same ownership statement records that the non-debtor Heatheridge Trust Company Limited, as Trustee under a Settlement dated 31 December 1993, directly owns 100% of the ownership interests of Beacon Company. The United States' settlement agreement of October 2020 with the Named Sacklers lists the same trustee among the released Purdue Parent Entities and describes the Settlement as 'F.B.O. the issue of Mortimer D. Sackler M.D., Theresa E. Sackler and certain charitable objects'. [src-001] [src-004] - Documented: The District Court's decision of December 16, 2021 states that PRA is 99.5% owned, in equal parts, by the non-debtors Beacon Company, a Delaware general partnership, and Rosebay Medical Company L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, which are in turn owned by trusts established for the benefit of the Sackler families, and that Beacon is the partnership of Side A of the Sackler family and Rosebay the partnership of Side B. The decision defines the Sackler family as the Mortimer D. Sackler family (Side A) and the Raymond R. Sackler family (Side B). The debtors' 2019 ownership statement shows that these holdings run indirectly: PLP Associates Holdings L.P. owns about 99.5061% of PRA, BR Holdings Associates L.P. owns all of PLP Associates Holdings L.P., and Beacon and Rosebay each own 50% of BR Holdings Associates L.P. [src-003] [src-001] - Documented: The debtors' 2019 ownership statement records that the non-debtor Banela Corporation directly owns 50% of the ownership interests of Purdue Pharma Inc., and the non-debtors Linarite Holdings LLC and Perthlite Holdings LLC each directly own 25%; to the best of the debtors' knowledge no other person or entity directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of PPI. [src-001] - Documented: The same ownership statement records that the non-debtor Millborne Trust Company Limited, as Trustee of the Hercules Trust under a Declaration of Trust dated 2 March 1999, directly owns 100% of the ownership interests of Banela Corporation. The United States' October 2020 settlement agreement with the Named Sacklers lists Millborne in that capacity among the released Purdue Parent Entities and describes the Hercules Trust as 'F.B.O. Theresa E. Sackler, the issue of Mortimer D. Sackler, M.D. and certain charitable objects'. [src-001] [src-004] - Documented: The same ownership statement records that the non-debtor Data LLC, as Trustee under a Trust Agreement dated December 23, 1989, directly owns 100% of the ownership interests of Linarite Holdings LLC. The United States' October 2020 settlement agreement lists Data LLC among the released Purdue Parent Entities as trustee of the Raymond R. Sackler Trust 1 dated 12/23/89 ('RSS 1989 Captain Trust A') and the Raymond R. Sackler Trust 1B dated 12/23/89 ('RSS 1989 Captain Trust B'); the records do not state which of these trusts holds Linarite. [src-001] [src-004] - Documented: The same ownership statement records that the non-debtor Cornice Fiduciary Management LLC (rendered 'Comice' in the OCR text), as Trustee under a Trust Agreement dated December 23, 1989, directly owns 100% of the ownership interests of Perthlite Holdings LLC. The United States' October 2020 settlement agreement lists Cornice among the released Purdue Parent Entities as trustee of the AJ Irrevocable Trust and of the Raymond R. Sackler Trust 2 and Trust 2B, both dated 12/23/89 ('JDS 1989 Captain Trust A' and 'JDS 1989 Captain Trust B'); the records do not state which trust holds Perthlite. [src-001] [src-004] - Documented: The United States' October 2020 settlement agreement also lists among the released Purdue Parent Entities Cedar Cliff Fiduciary Management Inc., as Trustee of Trust U/A 11/5/74 fbo Beverly Sackler ('74A Trust'), and Exhibit X to the plan's shareholder settlement describes the Trust U/A 11/5/74 fbo Beverly Sackler as an RRS Family trust indirectly owning Purdue. [src-004] [src-001] [src-058] - Qualification: The trust date matches the Trust Agreement dated November 5, 1974 under which Richard S. and Jonathan D. Sackler, as trustees, held 98% of Rosebay Medical Company L.P. at the September 15, 2019 petition date, but no retained record states that it is the same trust or when, if ever, its trusteeship passed to Cedar Cliff. - Documented: Exhibit X ('Certain Shareholder Released Parties') describes five trusts as an 'RRS Family trust indirectly owning Purdue': the Trust U/A 11/5/74 fbo Beverly Sackler and the Raymond R. Sackler Trusts 1, 1B, 2 and 2B, each dated 12/23/89. It lists many other Raymond Sackler family trusts without that description. [src-058] - Documented: In the recitals of their October 2020 settlement agreement, the United States and Dr. Richard Sackler, David Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe Sackler and the Estate of Jonathan Sackler (the 'Named Sacklers') state that the Named Sacklers are beneficiaries of trusts that indirectly own Purdue Pharma L.P., a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut; for that recital the term includes Jonathan Sackler himself rather than his estate. [src-004] - Attributed: Addendum A to the same settlement agreement, which sets out the conduct on which the United States bases its civil claims against the Named Sacklers, states that Purdue Pharma L.P. and its affiliates are owned by trusts for the benefit of the Sackler family, that Purdue was owned (through trusts) and controlled by the Sackler family, and that from at least 1996 through 2018 members of the family served at various points as directors, officers, consultants and employees of Purdue and in those roles directed and oversaw Purdue's development, manufacture, marketing, promotion, sales and distribution of opioids, including OxyContin. [src-004] [src-045] [src-015] - Qualification: Addendum A describes the conduct the United States alleged. The agreement states that it is neither an admission of liability by the Named Sacklers nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded; ownership through trusts is not disputed elsewhere in the record, but the statements on control and direction are allegations. - Response: The Named Sacklers expressly deny the allegations regarding the Covered Conduct. - Outcome: Under the agreement the Named Sacklers agreed to pay the United States $225,000,000 plus interest. The Justice Department described the payment as resolving the family's civil False Claims Act liability and stated that the resolutions did not include a criminal release of any individual; the debtors' Disclosure Statement records the $225 million as already paid directly to the DOJ outside the plan. - Documented: Both the United States' October 2020 settlement agreement (Addendum C) and Exhibit X list 'Purdue Parent Entities' released under the respective settlements. Exhibit X's A-side list names Banela Corporation, Beacon Company, BR Holdings Associates Inc. and BR Holdings Associates L.P., Heatheridge Trust Company Limited and Millborne Trust Company Limited as trustees of the 1993 Settlement and the Hercules Trust, Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P. (formerly Purdue Holdings L.P.), PLP Associates Holdings Inc. and PLP Associates Holdings L.P., and Stanhope Gate Corp. Addendum C's list also includes Purdue Pharma Inc., Linarite Holdings LLC, Perthlite Holdings LLC, Moonstone Holdings LLC, Roselite Holdings LLC, Rosebay Medical Company L.P. and Rosebay Medical Company, Inc., and the trustees Cedar Cliff Fiduciary Management Inc., Cornice Fiduciary Management LLC and Data LLC, among others. [src-058] [src-004] - Attributed: In the same letter rogatory the State of New York is recorded as having identified the nonparty Banela Corporation as an entity controlled directly or indirectly by the Sackler Defendants that it had reason to believe served as a conduit of monies or intermediary between or among the defendants. The court found that Banela was likely to have knowledge or documents related to the State's claims and asked the British Virgin Islands authorities to have Banela produce documents held at its office in Road Town, Tortola. [src-014] [src-003] [src-004] [src-058] - Qualification: The conduit description is the State's belief stated in support of a discovery request, not a finding; the court's own finding was limited to Banela being likely to hold relevant information. - Response: No statement by Banela Corporation is in the retained record; the letter rogatory's service list names Debevoise & Plimpton LLP as attorneys for Banela Corporation, together with Stillwater Holdings LLC, Stanhope Gate Corporation, Millborne Trust Company Limited, Heatheridge Trust Company Limited and Jonathan G. White. - Outcome: The Bankruptcy Court's injunction of 11 October 2019 halted the Suffolk County litigation against Purdue and the non-debtor related parties. Banela Corporation is among the Purdue Parent Entities released from the United States' civil claims in the October 2020 settlement with the Named Sacklers, and it is listed among the Purdue Parent Entities in Exhibit X to the confirmed plan's shareholder settlement. - Attributed: The State of New York's First Amended Complaint, filed as an exhibit to the letter rogatory, describes Purdue Pharma Inc. as the general partner of, and the entity that ultimately controls, Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Holdings L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (now Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P.), as wholly owning the limited partnership interest in Purdue Pharma L.P.; PLP Associates Holdings L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, as a limited partner of Purdue Holdings L.P. whose partners are PLP Associates Holdings Inc. and BR Holdings Associates L.P.; Rosebay Medical Company L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, as ultimately owned by trusts for the benefit of one or more of the individual defendants, with Rosebay Medical Company, Inc. as its general partner and Richard S. Sackler and Jonathan D. Sackler among that company's directors; and Beacon Company, a Delaware general partnership, as ultimately owned by trusts for the benefit of members of one or more of the individual defendants. [src-014] [src-003] [src-078] [src-058] - Qualification: These are allegations in the State's complaint. The complaint pleads that the individual defendants used these entities as vehicles to transfer funds from Purdue directly or indirectly to themselves; that allegation was not adjudicated in the retained records. The ownership descriptions are broadly consistent with the debtors' ownership statement and with SEC filings on Rosebay's general partner. - Response: The complaint as reproduced with the letter rogatory carries the note that no answers had been filed in the proceeding to date; no answer by the defendants is in the retained record. - Outcome: The Suffolk County case was not tried: on 11 October 2019, after the bankruptcy filings, the Bankruptcy Court temporarily halted all such litigation and then enjoined actions against Purdue and non-debtor related parties, including members of the Sackler family; the related parties covered include Beverly, Richard and Jonathan Sackler as trustees under the Trust Agreement dated November 5, 1974. Exhibit X to the confirmed plan's shareholder settlement lists PRA, the PLP Associates Holdings and BR Holdings Associates entities, Beacon Company and the Rosebay entities among the Shareholder Released Parties. - Attributed: The State of Connecticut's amended complaint of May 6, 2019 against Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., members of the Sackler family and other individuals alleges that Purdue Pharma Inc. controlled Purdue Pharma L.P. as its general partner and is liable for the partnership's misconduct as a matter of law; that the directors and CEO of Purdue Pharma Inc. controlled Purdue Pharma L.P. and the two companies had the same CEO; that Purdue Pharma Inc. is also the general partner of Purdue Holdings L.P., which holds the limited partnership interest in Purdue Pharma L.P.; and that Purdue Pharma L.P. employed the sales representatives and paid the doctors who promoted Purdue's drugs. [src-003] [src-044] [src-051] - Qualification: Allegations in the State of Connecticut's complaint; liability was not adjudicated in the retained records. The statement that Purdue Pharma Inc. is general partner of Purdue Holdings L.P. differs from the New York letter rogatory, which names BR Holdings Associates, Inc. as general partner of that partnership (PRA); the retained records do not resolve the point. - Outcome: Connecticut's suit was halted by the Bankruptcy Court's injunction of October–November 2019 covering Purdue and non-debtor related parties. In 2022 Connecticut was among the eight states and the District of Columbia that, with the debtors and the Sacklers, filed a revised settlement providing additional Sackler contributions and withdrew their opposition to the plan, including the shareholder releases. - Attributed: In its proof of claim of July 30, 2020 the United States asserts that PRA LP, the parent company of Purdue, is not a party to the bankruptcy and is ultimately owned and controlled by other entities owned and controlled by or for the benefit of the Sacklers, and that the Sackler family owns and controls PRA LP and the PLP Associates Holdings and BR Holdings Associates entities. [src-038] [src-045] - Qualification: Assertions in a creditor's proof of claim. The ownership element is consistent with the debtors' own ownership statement; the assertion of control by the family was not adjudicated in the retained records. - Outcome: On October 21, 2020 the Justice Department announced resolutions in which Purdue agreed to a $2.8 billion civil settlement of its False Claims Act liability and the Sackler family separately agreed to pay $225 million to resolve its civil False Claims Act liability; the proof of claim's assertion of family ownership and control was not adjudicated. - Documented: The same Disclosure Statement, describing the Special Committee's assessment, states that the independent associated companies (IACs) are owned equally by the A-Side and B-Side families. It describes the B-Side wealth as concentrated in a number of trusts and companies in the United States and names Richard, Jonathan (now deceased) and David Sackler as historical members of the Board (which the Disclosure Statement defines as the board of directors of Purdue Pharma Inc.) from the B-Side; it describes the A-Side wealth as overwhelmingly in foreign jurisdictions and dispersed across family units, companies and dozens of trusts, and names Theresa, Kathe, Mortimer D.A. and Ilene Sackler and Samantha Hunt as A-Side members who participated in the governance of Purdue Pharma, while other family members had no direct role in managing the debtors. [src-015] - Documented: A Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. resale prospectus dated May 3, 2010, filed with the SEC, states that voting and investment control over Beacon Company's holdings lay with Jonathan G. White, Joerg Fischer and Steven Meiklejohn as directors of Stanhope Gate Corp., the managing general partner of Beacon Company. [src-025] - Documented: Besides the directors of Stanhope Gate Corp., Beacon Company's managing general partner, the same prospectus names Jonathan G. White, Joerg Fischer, Stuart D. Baker, Christopher B. Mitchell, Leslie J. Schreyer and Charles G. Lubar, as directors of Beacon Trust Company Ltd., as also holding voting and investment control over Beacon Company's holdings, Beacon Trust Company Ltd. acting as trustee of the Beacon Trust, which is the general partner of Beacon Company. [src-025] - Documented: A Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. resale prospectus dated February 13, 2017, filed with the SEC, states that the board of directors of Stanhope Gate Corp., the managing general partner of Beacon Company, has the power to vote or dispose of the securities held by Beacon Company, and that its board members are Joerg Fischer, Jonathan G. White and Philip J. Le Cornu. [src-073] - Documented: The May 3, 2010 Novelos prospectus states that voting and investment control over Rosebay Medical Company L.P.'s holdings lay with Dr. Richard S. Sackler, Jonathan D. Sackler and Stephen A. Ives as directors and/or officers of Rosebay Medical Company, Inc., the general partner of Rosebay Medical Company L.P. [src-025] - Documented: The February 13, 2017 Celldex prospectus states that the board of directors of Rosebay Medical Company, Inc., the general partner of Rosebay Medical Company L.P., has the power to vote or dispose of the securities held by Rosebay Medical Company L.P., and that its board members are Richard S. Sackler, M.D. and Jonathan D. Sackler. [src-073] - Documented: Exhibit X ('Certain Shareholder Released Parties'), filed on the bankruptcy docket as part of Doc 9132, divides the released shareholder parties by family, under the headings 'Certain A-Side Release Parties' and 'Certain B-Side Released Parties'. It defines a 'II-way entity' as one directly or indirectly owned by persons or trusts associated with both the Raymond Sackler family (the 'RRS Family') and the Mortimer Sackler family (the 'MDS Family'), with equal interests associated with each family, and an 'I-way entity' as one directly or indirectly owned by persons or trusts associated solely with either the RRS Family or the MDS Family. [src-058] - Documented: Exhibit X classifies the entities in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s ownership chain. It describes BR Holdings Associates Inc. (New York), BR Holdings Associates L.P. (Delaware), PLP Associates Holdings Inc. (New York), PLP Associates Holdings L.P. (Delaware) and Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P. (Delaware) as II-way entities in the chain, held in equal interests by the two families, and Moonstone Holdings LLC, Linarite Holdings LLC, Perthlite Holdings LLC, Roselite Holdings LLC, Rosebay Medical Company L.P. and Rosebay Medical Company, Inc. (all Delaware) as RRS Family I-way entities in the chain, held solely by interests associated with the Raymond Sackler family. [src-058] - Documented: Among the B-side released parties, Exhibit X describes Raymond R. Sackler (and his estate), Beverly Sackler (and her estate), Jonathan D. Sackler (and his estate), Richard S. Sackler, M.D. and David A. Sackler each as a family member, trust beneficiary and current and/or former director, manager and/or officer of a II-way entity in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s chain of ownership. It also describes Richard S. Sackler and Jonathan D. Sackler as current and/or former directors, managers and/or officers of an RRS I-way entity in the chain and of a trust company, and Raymond R. Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Richard S. Sackler and Jonathan D. Sackler as current and/or former trustees. Exhibit X does not name the entities or give periods. [src-058] - Documented: Exhibit X describes Stuart D. Baker and Anthony M. Roncalli as current and/or former directors, managers and/or officers of a II-way entity in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s chain of ownership and of a trust company, and as current and/or former trustees, and describes Philip C. Strassburger, Edward B. Mahony, Peter Boer, Paulo Costa, Ralph Snyderman and William Loomis as current and/or former directors, managers and/or officers of a II-way entity in that chain. Exhibit X does not name the entity or entities concerned or the periods of service. [src-058] - Documented: Exhibit X describes Stephen A. Ives and Leslie J. Schreyer as current and/or former directors, managers and/or officers of an RRS I-way entity in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s chain of ownership and of a trust company, and as current and/or former trustees; Ives is also described as an employee of an RRS Family I-way entity. The entities are not named. [src-058] - Documented: Exhibit X's A-side list of 'Trusts, Trustees and Protectors' includes, besides numerous trusts and trust companies such as Heatheridge Trust Company Limited, Hillside Trust Company Limited, Maydean Trust Company Limited and Millborne Trust Company Limited, the individuals Joerg Fischer, Jonathan G. White, Leslie J. Schreyer, Jeffrey A. Robins, Stuart D. Baker, Anthony M. Roncalli, Charles G. Lubar and Christopher B. Mitchell (and his estate), without stating each person's capacity. Stuart D. Baker, Anthony M. Roncalli, Leslie J. Schreyer and Jeffrey A. Robins also appear among the B-side released parties. [src-058] - Documented: Exhibit X lists Data LLC, Cornice Fiduciary Management LLC and Cedar Cliff Fiduciary Management Inc., all Wyoming entities, as RRS Family I-way entities, that is, entities owned solely by persons or trusts associated with the Raymond Sackler family, and lists each of them among the B-side released parties as a current and/or former trustee. [src-058] - Documented: The Wyoming Secretary of State's record of Cedar Cliff Fiduciary Management Inc., as retrieved in October 2026, shows a Wyoming domestic profit corporation (filing ID 2019-000880252) first filed on October 11, 2019, of perpetual duration, active and in good standing, with Frontier Registered Agency Services LLC as registered agent and a secretary as the only officer listed. Its latest annual report was filed on August 5, 2026, and tax delinquency notices were recorded in 2020 and 2022. The record does not show the company's owners. [src-104] - Documented: Exhibit X lists North Bay Associates (a Delaware general partnership), North Bay Eagle LLC (Delaware) and North Bay Trust Company Inc. (Oklahoma) as RRS Family I-way entities. The United States' October 2020 settlement agreement lists North Bay Trust Company Inc., as trustee of The 1974 Irrevocable Investment Trust, among the released Purdue Parent Entities, and the May 3, 2010 Novelos prospectus gives Rosebay Medical Company L.P.'s address as care of Northbay Associates in Oklahoma City. [src-058] [src-004] [src-025] - Documented: Exhibit X lists Coventry Technologies L.P. (United States) as a II-way entity, that is, one held in equal interests by persons or trusts associated with the Raymond and Mortimer Sackler families. The United States' proof of claim lists 'Equity of Coventry Technologies, L.P.', valued in Purdue's records at $52,328,000 with an estimated date of January 1, 2008, among the assets Purdue transferred to PRA LP, its parent. [src-058] [src-038] - Documented: A Form 4 filed with the SEC in April 2015 for Key Technology, Inc. shares states that M3C Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is wholly owned by a trust dated January 15, 2004 whose co-trustees are Richard S. Sackler, M.D. and the trust's sole beneficiary, a member of Jonathan D. Sackler's immediate family, and that M3C Holdings also reports beneficial ownership through a Schedule 13G filed jointly by Leslie J. Schreyer, as trustee under a Trust Agreement dated December 23, 1989 FBO the issue of Jonathan D. Sackler, M3C Holdings LLC and a Kokino portfolio manager. Exhibit X lists M3C Holdings LLC as an RRS Family I-way entity. [src-054] [src-058] - Documented: Amendment No. 4 to a Schedule 13D on shares of Amtech Systems, Inc. reports that on November 20, 2018 Leslie J. Schreyer resigned as trustee of the trust under a Trust Agreement dated December 23, 1989 FBO the issue of Jonathan D. Sackler and that Cornice Fiduciary Management LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, was appointed successor trustee. It names Leslie J. Schreyer and Jeffrey Robins, attorneys at Norton Rose Fulbright (US) LLP, as officers of Cornice, and describes the trust as a Wyoming trust whose principal business is to make investments for the benefit of the issue of Jonathan D. Sackler. The debtors' 2019 ownership statement names Cornice, as trustee under a Trust Agreement of the same date, as the 100% owner of Perthlite Holdings LLC; the filings do not say whether these are the same trust. [src-112] [src-001] - Documented: In the same Schedule 13D/A, Kokino LLC, of 201 Tresser Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Stamford, Connecticut, is described as a single-family office that provides investment management services only to its 'Family Clients', including the trust for the issue of Jonathan D. Sackler (of which Cornice Fiduciary Management LLC is trustee), M3C Holdings LLC and Piton Capital Partners LLC. Piton is managed by Piton Capital Management LLC, which is in turn managed by Kokino, and the filing states that Kokino and Piton Capital Management are each a family office of the same family, without naming the family. The filing names Kokino's portfolio manager and its President and Chief Investment Officer; Stephen A. Ives signed as Vice President for M3C Holdings LLC and for Kokino LLC as managing member of Piton Capital Management. Exhibit X lists Kokino LLC as an RRS Family I-way entity. Kokino's street address, 201 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, is also the address of the debtors' corporate headquarters. [src-112] [src-058] [src-038] - Documented: The Second Circuit's 2023 opinion in In re Purdue Pharma L.P. notes that the District Court defined the Sackler family as the Mortimer D. Sackler family ('Side A') and the Raymond R. Sackler family ('Side B'). It quotes the Mortimer side's brief as stating that the 'Mortimer-side Initial Covered Sackler Persons' include Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Kathe Sackler and Mortimer D.A. Sackler, the trusts of which they are beneficiaries and the trustees of those trusts, and Beacon Company, and the Raymond Sackler family's brief as stating that the family comprises natural persons who are descendants of Raymond R. Sackler and current and former spouses of their descendants. [src-044] - Documented: Justice Kavanaugh's dissent in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (decided June 27, 2024), citing the Bankruptcy Court's findings, describes the Sacklers as 'a large family divided into two sides, Side A and Side B, with eight pods or groups of family members within those divisions' and states that their assets are spread across trusts that are likely beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. [src-040] ## Who sat on Purdue's board, and who ran the company? - Documented: Purdue Pharma L.P. was managed through the board of directors of its general partner, Purdue Pharma Inc. (PPI), a New York corporation. The District Court (S.D.N.Y., McMahon, J.) stated in its decision dated 16 December 2021 that "the board of directors of PPI manages Purdue Pharma" and that Purdue Pharma L.P. has 22 wholly owned subsidiaries in the United States and the British Virgin Islands. The debtors' Disclosure Statement for the Thirteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan (dated 1 July 2025) likewise states that PPI is the general partner of Purdue Pharma L.P. and that PPI's board "effectively manages the Debtors"; it names the debtors' senior management as Craig Landau (President and Chief Executive Officer) and Marc L. Kesselman (Executive Vice President, General Counsel). [src-003] [src-015] - Documented: In sworn declarations dated March and April 2019 and filed in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 1884-cv-01808(B) (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk County), a case concerning events after 15 May 2007, the director defendants each stated that they had served on the Board of Directors of Purdue Pharma Inc. and not as directors of Purdue Pharma L.P., "which has no directors". The declarations were made in support of the directors' motions to dismiss the Commonwealth's First Amended Complaint. [src-007] - Attributed: A memorandum of the majority staff of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform dated 8 December 2020, listing the witnesses for the Committee's December 2020 hearing, described Dr. Richard Sackler as "Former President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Purdue Pharma L.P.", Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Dr. Kathe Sackler each as "Former Vice President and Member of the Board of Directors, Purdue Pharma L.P.", David Sackler as "Former Member of the Board of Directors, Purdue Pharma L.P." and Craig Landau as President and CEO of Purdue Pharma L.P. [src-037] - Qualification: These are the committee staff's witness titles, not a corporate record. The directors' sworn declarations state that Purdue Pharma L.P. has no directors and that their board seats were on the board of its general partner, Purdue Pharma Inc.; the District Court described Richard Sackler's roles as president (2000-2003), co-chair and later chair of the board, not as chief executive officer. - Documented: The District Court found that from approximately 1993 until 2018 there were always at least six or seven members of the Sackler family on the board of Purdue Pharma Inc., and that independent directors never equaled or outnumbered the Sackler family directors. Mortimer Sackler's side of the family is known as "Side A" and Raymond Sackler's side as "Side B". [src-003] - Documented: The District Court recorded that Mortimer D. Sackler, who died in 2010, served as co-chief executive officer of Purdue with his brother Raymond Sackler until the end of his life, and that Raymond Sackler, who died in 2017, served as co-chief executive officer with Mortimer D. Sackler. [src-003] - Qualification: The decision uses "Purdue" as its collective term for Purdue Pharma L.P. and its affiliated debtors and gives no start dates; it does not identify which company (for earlier decades possibly The Purdue Frederick Company) employed them as co-chief executives. - Documented: Richard S. Sackler was a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. from 2 October 1990 to 24 July 2018, according to the tenure list in Addendum A to the United States' 2020 civil settlement agreement with the Named Sacklers. In his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action he stated that he served as a PPI director until July 24, 2018, never as a director of Purdue Pharma L.P., and that after 15 May 2007 he was not an employee or officer of either company. The District Court described him as serving on the board from 1990 until 2018. [src-004] [src-007] [src-003] - Attributed: The State of Rhode Island's Third Amended Complaint (C.A. No. PC-2018-4555, submitted 22 March 2022) alleges that Richard S. Sackler is a board member of "Purdue Pharma, L.P." and of Rhodes Technologies, that he was President of Purdue Pharma from 1999 to 2003 and Co-Chairman from 2003 through 2014, that he joined Purdue in 1971 as an assistant to his father, Dr. Raymond Sackler, then Purdue's CEO, that he headed Purdue's marketing and research and development departments, that he oversaw the launch of OxyContin from 1995 to 2003, and that he has long held and continues to hold an ownership interest in Purdue and Rhodes. [src-055] [src-007] [src-003] [src-044] - Qualification: Allegations, partly made "upon information and belief", in a state complaint; they conflict with the District Court's finding (president 2000-2003, co-chair 2003-2007, chair about 2008 to 2010 or 2011) and with the DOJ tenure list ending his PPI directorship on 24 July 2018, and Purdue Pharma L.P. itself has no directors. - Response: Richard Sackler's own March 2019 declaration in the Massachusetts action states that he served on PPI's board until 24 July 2018 and was not an employee or officer of either Purdue company after 15 May 2007; the District Court, relying on the 2021 confirmation-hearing transcript, records his roles as president 2000-2003, co-chair 2003-2007 and chair from about 2008 until 2010 or 2011. - Outcome: Rhode Island was one of the eight states that, with the District of Columbia, the debtors and the Sacklers, filed the new settlement approved by the Bankruptcy Court on 10 March 2022; the retained records contain no ruling on the complaint's account of his titles. - Documented: Jonathan D. Sackler was a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. from 2 October 1990 to 8 December 2018 according to the DOJ settlement's tenure list; in his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action he stated that he served on the PPI board until December 8, 2018 and never as a director of Purdue Pharma L.P. The District Court described Jonathan and Richard Sackler, Raymond Sackler's sons, as serving on the board from 1990 until 2018. [src-004] [src-007] [src-003] - Documented: Kathe A. Sackler was a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. from 2 October 1990 to 27 September 2018 according to the DOJ settlement's tenure list; in her sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action she stated that she served on the PPI board until September 27, 2018 and never as a director of Purdue Pharma L.P. The District Court said that she, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt and Mortimer D.A. Sackler, three of Mortimer D. Sackler's children, sat on the board for nearly 30 years. [src-004] [src-007] [src-003] - Documented: Mortimer D.A. Sackler was a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. from 15 January 1993 to 16 January 2019 according to the DOJ settlement's tenure list, the latest end date of any family member on that list; in his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action he stated that he served on the PPI board until January 16, 2019 and never as a director of Purdue Pharma L.P. The District Court said he sat on the board for nearly 30 years. [src-004] [src-003] [src-007] - Documented: Three family directors declared officer roles that ended in 2007: Jonathan Sackler and Kathe Sackler each stated in their sworn Massachusetts declarations that they served as Senior Vice President of Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P. until 31 May 2007, and Mortimer D.A. Sackler stated that he served as Vice President of both companies until 31 May 2007; each said that otherwise they were not employees or officers of either company after 15 May 2007. [src-007] - Documented: Theresa E. Sackler, Mortimer D. Sackler's wife, was a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. from 15 January 1993 to 7 September 2018 according to the DOJ settlement's tenure list; in her sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action she stated that she served on the PPI board until September 7, 2018 and was not a director of Purdue Pharma L.P. The District Court likewise found that she served on the board from 1993 until 2018. [src-004] [src-003] [src-007] - Documented: Ilene Sackler Lefcourt served two terms as a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. according to the DOJ settlement's tenure list: from 2 October 1990 to 4 February 2005 and from 16 May 2008 to 9 October 2018. In her sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action she stated that she served on the PPI board until October 9, 2018 and was not a director of Purdue Pharma L.P. The District Court described her as sitting on the board for nearly 30 years, without mentioning the 2005-2008 gap. [src-004] [src-003] [src-007] - Documented: Beverly Sackler, Raymond Sackler's wife, was a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. from approximately 1993 to October 2017 according to the DOJ settlement's tenure list; in her sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action she stated that she served on the PPI board until October 17, 2017 and was never an employee, officer or director of Purdue Pharma L.P. The District Court described her term as approximately 1993 until 2017. [src-004] [src-003] [src-007] - Documented: David A. Sackler, Richard Sackler's son, was a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. from 19 July 2012 to 14 August 2018 according to the DOJ settlement's tenure list; his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action gives the same dates and states that he was not an employee or officer of PPI, or an employee, officer or director of Purdue Pharma L.P., after 15 May 2007. The District Court described him as serving on the board from 2012 until 2018. [src-004] [src-003] [src-007] - Documented: Most Sackler family directors left the board of Purdue Pharma Inc. during 2018 and the last in January 2019; Beverly Sackler had left in October 2017. The District Court found that members of the family served as directors until early 2019, that the last Sackler's resignation became effective at the beginning of that year and that many family members stepped down during 2018; the debtors' July 2025 Disclosure Statement states that the last member of the Sackler Families to serve on the board resigned in January 2019 and that, as of that statement, no family member was a director or employed by the debtors. The DOJ tenure list gives 16 January 2019 as the end of Mortimer D.A. Sackler's term, the latest of the family directors. [src-003] [src-015] [src-004] - Documented: Peter Boer stated in his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action that he had served as a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. since April 18, 2008, that he had never been an employee or officer of PPI and that he had never been an employee, officer or director of Purdue Pharma L.P. Connecticut's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 names him as defendant "Frank Peter Boer" and says he had been a director from April 2008 to the present; the Florida corporate registry record of Purdue Pharma Inc. still lists "Boer, Peter" as a director. [src-007] [src-051] [src-102] [src-015] - Qualification: He is not among the six directors listed in the debtors' July 2025 Disclosure Statement, so the registry entry may be out of date; no retained record gives the end of his term. - Attributed: The New York Attorney General's First Amended Complaint in People of the State of New York v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. (Supreme Court, Suffolk County), filed as an exhibit to a letter rogatory on 13 September 2019, alleges that Peter Boer "was no stranger to Purdue or the Sacklers" when he joined Purdue's board, having served on the board of Rhodes Technologies, the Sacklers' Rhode Island-based opioid manufacturing company, and directed Purdue's oxycodone pipeline there for a decade. [src-014] - Qualification: An allegation in a state complaint against Sackler family members and Purdue entities; Peter Boer is not a defendant in that action, and no retained registry or company record confirms a Rhodes Technologies board seat or its dates. - Documented: Judith C. Lewent stated in her sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action that she served on the Board of Directors of Purdue Pharma Inc. from March 20, 2009 to December 31, 2014 and was not a director of Purdue Pharma L.P. Connecticut's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 instead says she was a director from March 2009 to October 2015. [src-007] [src-051] - Qualification: The end of her term differs between the two records (31 December 2014 in her own declaration, October 2015 in the State of Connecticut's complaint); neither retained source explains the difference, so both dates are kept with attribution. - Documented: Cecil B. Pickett stated in his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action that he had served on the board of Purdue Pharma Inc. since January 21, 2010 and was not an employee or officer of either Purdue company after 15 May 2007; Connecticut's complaint gives January 2010 to the present. The debtors' July 2025 Disclosure Statement lists him as a Class A Director appointed in January 2010 and describes him as a former President of Research and Development at Biogen who previously held research posts at Schering-Plough and Merck. [src-007] [src-015] [src-051] - Documented: Paulo Costa stated in his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action that he served as a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. between April 25, 2012 and January 30, 2018 and was never an employee or officer of PPI or an employee, officer or director of Purdue Pharma L.P. Connecticut's amended complaint says he was a director from April 2012 to January; the year after "January" is missing from the retained text of the complaint. [src-007] [src-051] - Documented: Ralph Snyderman stated in his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action that he served as a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. between August 1, 2012 and October 30, 2017 and was never an employee, officer or director of Purdue Pharma L.P.; Connecticut's amended complaint gives the same period as August 2012 to October 2017. [src-007] [src-051] - Attributed: The State of Connecticut's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 alleges that the Sacklers always held the controlling majority of the Purdue board, which gave them full power over Purdue, and that the non-family directors Peter Boer, Judith Lewent, Cecil Pickett, Paulo Costa and Ralph Snyderman "did not act independently from the Sacklers" and voted with them on every one of the hundreds of votes during their tenures. It further alleges that the individual defendants had authority to control Purdue's business practices, knew of and took no action to stop the deceptive practices alleged, and that the current CEO, Craig Landau, had acknowledged that the board served as a de facto CEO. [src-051] [src-007] [src-044] [src-006] [src-058] [src-101] - Qualification: Allegations of the State of Connecticut in a pleading, not findings. The Sackler majority on the board is separately found by the District Court; the voting and knowledge allegations were not adjudicated in the retained records, and the five directors' own declarations (made in the Massachusetts action) deny directing Purdue's marketing in that state. - Response: No answer to the Connecticut complaint itself is in the retained records. In sworn declarations dated March 2019 and filed in the parallel Massachusetts action, Peter Boer, Cecil Pickett, Ralph Snyderman, Paulo Costa and Judith Lewent each stated that, to the best of their knowledge, no meetings of PPI's board took place in Massachusetts and that they did not direct the management of either Purdue company, its sales representatives or any marketing, sales or promotional activities in Massachusetts. - Outcome: No ruling on these allegations appears in the retained records. While the appeal from the original plan confirmation was pending, Connecticut was one of eight states that, with the District of Columbia, the debtors and the Sacklers, filed a new settlement providing for additional Sackler contributions, approved by the Bankruptcy Court on 10 March 2022; Connecticut's Attorney General was also among those joining the $7.4 billion Purdue-Sackler settlement that took effect on 1 May 2026. Exhibit X to that shareholder settlement lists Peter Boer, Paulo Costa and Ralph Snyderman among the 'Certain Shareholder Released Parties' as current or former directors, managers or officers of a jointly owned entity in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s ownership chain; under the confirmed plan such releases bind only claimants who opt in. - Attributed: The New York Attorney General's First Amended Complaint alleges that Purdue, a collection of private companies, has at all relevant times been controlled by members of the extended Sackler family, the ultimate intended beneficiaries of virtually all of its profit distributions, and that the board of Purdue Pharma Inc. functioned as the nexus of decision-making for all of Purdue; it adds that under Purdue's by-laws the board met in New York or Connecticut. The individual defendants were the living Sackler family members who had served on the PPI board. [src-014] [src-094] [src-003] [src-005] - Qualification: Allegations of the State of New York in a pleading filed in Suffolk County Supreme Court and attached to a September 2019 letter rogatory; not findings of the court. - Response: Certain defendants moved to dismiss the New York action in 2019; at an August 2019 status conference Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Kathe A. Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Theresa Sackler appeared without conceding that they were proper parties and reserved all defences, including lack of personal jurisdiction as to Kathe and Theresa Sackler. A press report on the later settlement states that the Sackler family has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. - Outcome: The District Court recorded that state courts denied the Sackler defendants' motions to dismiss in at least three of the state cases, citing an order of 21 June 2019 in the Suffolk County coordinated opioid litigation (No. 400000/2017). On 1 May 2026 the New York Attorney General announced that Purdue had shut down and ceased operations under the bankruptcy plan, as part of the $7.4 billion settlement with members of the Sackler family; the Attorney General expected New York to receive up to $250 million from the settlement with Purdue and the Sacklers. - Documented: Purdue Pharma L.P.'s press release of 22 June 2017 announced that "The Board of Directors of the independently associated worldwide Purdue/Napp/Mundipharma network of companies" had appointed Dr. Craig Landau President and CEO for the U.S. operations, Purdue Pharma L.P., with immediate effect, and that he would retain responsibility for Purdue Pharma (Canada); it also announced that CEO Mark Timney was leaving Purdue. [src-074] - Qualification: The release attributes the appointment to a board of the worldwide network of independent associated companies rather than to the board of Purdue Pharma Inc.; no retained record identifies that body's legal form or members. - Documented: In written testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform dated 17 December 2020, Craig Landau, CEO of Purdue Pharma L.P., stated that it had been almost two years since any member of the Sackler family served on the board of directors, that in 2018 Purdue added a new independent Chairman of the Board, and that in 2019 it added three other previously unaffiliated directors with restructuring and pharmaceutical industry experience; he also listed accepting the Sackler family's resignations from the board among the changes made during his tenure. [src-100] - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement dated 1 July 2025 lists the six directors of Purdue Pharma Inc., stating that a majority of them have no prior connection to the Sackler Families: Robert S. "Steve" Miller (Chairman of the Board, appointed July 2018), Kenneth Buckfire (At-Large Director, appointed May 2019), John S. Dubel (At-Large Director, appointed July 2019), Michael Cola (Class A Director, appointed February 2019; At-Large Director, appointed July 2019), Anthony Roncalli (Class B Director, appointed December 2018) and Cecil Pickett (Class A Director, appointed January 2010). [src-015] - Documented: Steve Miller became Chairman of the Board in July 2018. Purdue Pharma L.P.'s press release of 24 July 2018 announced, effective immediately, that he "has been named Chairman of the Board of Directors of Purdue"; the debtors' Disclosure Statement lists him as Chairman of the Board of Purdue Pharma Inc. appointed in July 2018, and the Florida registry record of Purdue Pharma Inc. lists "Miller, Robert S." as Chairman of the Board. An online reference profile gives 1 July 2018 as the start date. [src-015] [src-021] [src-008] [src-102] - Qualification: The exact start date differs between the company's announcement (24 July 2018) and the online profile (1 July 2018); the board he chairs is that of the general partner, Purdue Pharma Inc., since Purdue Pharma L.P. has no directors. - Documented: Before joining Purdue, Robert S. "Steve" Miller had a long career in corporate restructuring. The debtors' Disclosure Statement cites his roles at Chrysler (Vice Chairman and CFO), Delphi Corp. (Chairman and CEO) and American International Group (Non-Executive Chairman); Purdue's 2018 release gives his AIG chairmanship as 2010 to 2015. An online reference profile adds that he became CEO of Delphi Corporation in July 2005, presided over its restructuring in bankruptcy and left in October 2009, was named chairman of AIG in July 2010 and was CEO of Hawker Beechcraft from February 2012 to 2013. [src-021] [src-015] [src-008] - Documented: The Disclosure Statement describes Kenneth A. Buckfire, appointed At-Large Director of Purdue Pharma Inc. in May 2019, as President of Miller Buckfire & Co., LLC, which he co-founded in 2002, and a Vice-Chairman of Stifel Financial Corporation's Institutional Banking Group, specialising in the restructuring of highly leveraged companies; before 2002 he was a Managing Director and Co-Head of the Financial Restructuring Group of Wasserstein Perella & Co. [src-015] - Documented: John S. Dubel, appointed At-Large Director of Purdue Pharma Inc. in July 2019, is described in the Disclosure Statement as Chief Executive Officer of Dubel & Associates, LLC, a restructuring and turnaround firm he founded in 1999, and as a former Chief Executive Officer of SunEdison and of Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC) and a former partner in Gradient Partners, L.P. SunEdison, Inc.'s Form 8-K reports that on 22 June 2016 it appointed him Chief Executive Officer, a post he held together with that of Chief Restructuring Officer, which he had held since 29 April 2016; the filing also states that he was then serving on the board and as Liquidating Trust Manager of the ResCap Liquidating Trust. [src-015] [src-035] - Documented: The Disclosure Statement describes Michael Cola, Class A Director of Purdue Pharma Inc. from February 2019 and At-Large Director from July 2019, as the former CEO of Avalo Therapeutics Inc (formerly Cerecor) and former President and CEO of Aevi Genomic Medicine, a former President of Specialty Pharmaceuticals at Shire plc (2007 to April 2012), and a director of Sage Therapeutics and Phathom Pharmaceuticals. [src-015] - Documented: Anthony Roncalli, appointed Class B Director of Purdue Pharma Inc. in December 2018, is described in the Disclosure Statement as an attorney and former partner at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP with extensive experience advising the debtors, the independent associated companies (IACs) and other pharmaceutical companies on corporate governance and complex tax and structure planning. [src-015] - Qualification: The Disclosure Statement says only that a majority of the six directors have no prior connection to the Sackler Families and does not say which ones do; its biographies disclose Roncalli's advisory work for the debtors and the IACs and Pickett's former seats on IAC boards, which he resigned on or before 9 August 2018. - Documented: An undated listing by a commercial company-information aggregator of the officers recorded for Purdue Pharma Inc. in Connecticut names as directors Beverly Sackler, David A. Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Jonathan D. Sackler, Kathe A. Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Raymond R. Sackler, Richard S. Sackler, Theresa E. Sackler, Cecil B. Pickett, Paulo F. Costa, Peter Boer and Ralph Snyderman. [src-026] - Qualification: The listing is undated, is not the registry itself and mixes people whose terms ended at different times (Raymond R. Sackler died in 2017; Mark Timney, listed as president and chief executive officer, left in June 2017), so it does not show who held office at any particular date. Raymond R. Sackler does not appear in the DOJ settlement's list of family directors' tenures. - Documented: Purdue Pharma Inc. has Class A and Class B shareholders, and its board seats follow the share classes: under the A&R Certificate of Incorporation, Class A Directors are elected by the Class A Shareholders, Class B Directors by the Class B Shareholders, and At-Large Directors jointly by the Class A and Class B Shareholders. [src-015] - Documented: On 14 May 2019 the shareholders of Purdue Pharma Inc. adopted an Amended and Restated Shareholders' Agreement establishing a "Transaction Committee", and PPI filed a corresponding Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The committee was to consist of the independent Chairman of the Board, as its chair, and other directors appointed by a majority of the board, none of whom could be a member of the Sackler Families. It received exclusive authority over all dividends by PPI to its shareholders and all distributions by Purdue Pharma L.P. to its general and limited partners, and authority over "Affiliate Transactions" between PPI, Purdue Pharma L.P. or its subsidiaries and any Class A or Class B Shareholder, persons they specify, or their affiliates. [src-015] - Documented: On 3 September 2019 PPI's shareholders amended the Shareholders' Agreement to rename the Transaction Committee the "Special Committee", and PPI filed a Certificate of Amendment (the A&R Certificate of Incorporation) giving it, in addition, authority over "Affiliate Litigation" - the prosecution, defense or settlement of claims between the debtors and the Sackler Families, their trusts and other Sackler-related entities, including the IACs - and providing that no dividend, distribution, Affiliate Transaction or Affiliate Litigation could take place without its approval. The amendment allowed any At-Large Director to chair the committee and still barred members of the Sackler Families from serving on it. [src-015] - Documented: The Disclosure Statement names Chairman Steve Miller and At-Large Directors Kenneth Buckfire, Michael Cola and John S. Dubel as the members of the Special Committee of the board of Purdue Pharma Inc., with Dubel as its chairman, and states that none of them has any prior relationship with either of the Sackler Families. The District Court's 2021 decision likewise records that Dubel, appointed to the board in July 2019, chaired the Special Committee investigating potential claims against the Sacklers. [src-015] [src-003] - Documented: To protect the Special Committee members from removal by the shareholders, a letter agreement executed by PPI's shareholders dated 6 November 2019 (the "2019 Letter Agreement") irrevocably delegated to the General Counsel of Purdue Pharma Inc., as proxy for the shareholders, several shareholder rights, including the right to appoint and remove the Chairman of the Board and the At-Large Directors, all of whom serve on the Special Committee. The General Counsel must act in accordance with the vote of two-thirds of PPI's Directors in Office and, on any decision to remove a director, disregard the vote of the affected director. [src-015] - Documented: In its modified bench ruling of 20 November 2025 confirming the Eighteenth Amended Plan, the Bankruptcy Court (S.D.N.Y.) recorded, citing John Dubel's declaration, that the Special Committee of the debtors' board was formed in May 2019 with exclusive authority over all transactions between Purdue and the Sackler Parties and over claims the debtors might assert against their shareholders and the Sackler Parties, that it consisted of four restructuring and pharmaceutical professionals with no prior connection to the Sackler Parties, and that PPI's shareholders had granted PPI's general counsel an irrevocable proxy over the appointment and removal of the chairman and certain directors. It noted that a court-appointed independent examiner selected by the DOJ had determined that the committee "acted independently" and "was not controlled or influenced, or subjected to attempted control or influence, by the Sackler Parties." [src-101] - Qualification: The ruling's May 2019 formation date matches the creation of the Transaction Committee on 14 May 2019, which the Disclosure Statement says was renamed the Special Committee on 3 September 2019. - Documented: Craig Landau, M.D., was chief executive of Purdue from June 2017. In a sworn declaration in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (Civil Action No. 18-1808-BLS2) he stated that he was Chief Executive Officer of Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P. and had been CEO since June 2017; the debtors' July 2025 Disclosure Statement describes him as President and CEO of Purdue Pharma LP since June 2017, and in his December 2020 testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform he described himself as President and CEO of Purdue Pharma L.P. since June 2017. [src-011] [src-015] [src-100] - Documented: Before 2013 Landau worked for Purdue Pharma L.P. in the United States. Purdue Pharma L.P.'s press release of 22 June 2017 says he entered the pharmaceutical industry in 1997, joined Purdue Pharma L.P. two years later and, during 14 years with the U.S. organisation, became its Chief Medical Officer and Vice President of R&D Innovation, Clinical and Medical Affairs; his sworn Massachusetts declaration states that he served as Chief Medical Officer and Head of Clinical Development for Purdue until 2013. [src-011] [src-074] - Documented: From July 2013 to June 2017 Landau was President and CEO of Purdue Pharma (Canada), according to the debtors' Disclosure Statement; the June 2017 release announcing his appointment as President and CEO of Purdue Pharma L.P. says he had been appointed to the Canadian post in 2013 and would retain responsibility for Purdue Pharma (Canada). Purdue Canada is a separate company: the District Court described it as an independent associated company (IAC), not a debtor, and described the IACs as ultimately owned by the Sackler family. [src-015] [src-003] [src-074] - Documented: According to the Disclosure Statement, since 2022 Landau had also overseen the debtors' vertically integrated generic medicine business, Rhodes Pharma - Purdue Pharma's subsidiary Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. - which it says had introduced six generic medicines since then. [src-015] - Documented: Landau stated in his sworn Massachusetts declaration that in February 2018, soon after he became CEO and at his direction, Purdue ceased deploying sales personnel to promote its opioid medications to prescribers; in his December 2020 House testimony he said the company had eliminated its entire opioid sales force, a measure first implemented under his leadership in February 2018, and later committed in a voluntary injunction in the bankruptcy to continue refraining from such promotion. [src-011] [src-100] - Attributed: A July 2018 local press report on Purdue's leadership changes said that since Landau took over as CEO in June 2017 Purdue had carried out sweeping changes: the previous month it had announced the elimination of its already downsized sales force, cutting 175 jobs, with another 175 positions cut at the same time; about 550 employees remained, some 250 of them at the Stamford headquarters, compared with about 1,100 reported four months earlier. [src-056] - Qualification: Workforce figures as reported by the newspaper, not taken from a company filing; the debtors' later Disclosure Statement gives different, later headcounts. - Attributed: A December 2019 wire-service report stated that Landau, a Purdue employee since 1999 who rose to the top job in 2017, was named as a defendant in lawsuits filed by Colorado, Massachusetts, five local governments and more than 100 hospitals, and that the two states alleged he blamed the dangers of opioids on patients, knowingly put patients at risk by having his sales team encourage more prescribing without disclosing addiction risks, pushed opioids for elderly and opioid-naive patients, falsely claimed reformulated OxyContin was safe and pushed longer prescribing. [src-091] [src-011] [src-047] - Qualification: Allegations of the States of Colorado and Massachusetts as summarised in a press report; the retained records contain no finding against Landau personally. - Response: Purdue denied the claims against it and Landau asked the courts to dismiss the complaints against him; in his Massachusetts declaration, executed in February 2019, he stated that many of the complaint's allegations against him were not supported by, and in some instances were directly contradicted by, the documents the Commonwealth cited, that he did not oversee opioid sales or marketing in his two earlier executive jobs, had no direct day-to-day sales or marketing role as CEO and ordered the company to stop marketing opioids to prescribers after about eight months as CEO. - Outcome: No ruling on the claims against Landau personally is in the retained records. After the September 2019 bankruptcy filing, the Bankruptcy Court on 11 October 2019 granted a preliminary injunction extending the halt on litigation to the debtors' 'Related Parties'; the retained records do not say whether Landau was among them. - Attributed: According to the same December 2019 wire-service report, the bankruptcy judge was to consider whether Landau, whose base salary was $2.6 million, should receive a bonus equal to half his salary; attorneys general representing about half the states opposed it, arguing in court filings that he bore some responsibility for the opioid epidemic, while Purdue said its bonus programme was essential to retain employees and had capped and split his bonus. [src-091] - Qualification: Press account of positions taken in the bankruptcy; the retained report predates the hearing and its outcome is not in the retained records. - Documented: Mark Timney stated in his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action that he is a former Chief Executive Officer of Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc. and served as CEO from January 2014 to June 2017. Purdue Pharma L.P.'s release of 22 June 2017 says he joined Purdue Pharma L.P. as President and Chief Executive Officer in 2014 and announced that he was leaving Purdue. [src-032] [src-074] - Documented: Before becoming Purdue's CEO, Timney was President of Merck US, as stated in his Massachusetts declaration; Purdue's June 2017 release says he had held leadership roles with Merck for 15 years in the United States and abroad. [src-032] [src-074] - Attributed: A November 2019 trade press report said that Mark Timney, the former Purdue Pharma CEO named in dozens of lawsuits against the OxyContin maker, stood to earn over $85 million in Novartis's $9.7 billion buyout of The Medicines Company. [src-093] [src-032] - Qualification: Press account; only the article's opening was retained, and it does not state Timney's position at The Medicines Company or the basis of the expected payment. - Response: In his 2019 declaration supporting the former executives' motion to dismiss the Massachusetts complaint, Timney stated that many of its allegations against him were not supported by, and in some instances were directly contradicted by, the documents the Commonwealth cited. - Documented: John Stewart stated in his sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action that he is a former Chief Executive Officer of Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc. and served as CEO from June 2007 to December 2013. [src-033] - Documented: Marc L. Kesselman became general counsel in July 2018. Purdue Pharma L.P.'s press release of 24 July 2018, which also announced Steve Miller's appointment as Chairman of the Board, said Kesselman had been appointed Senior Vice President and General Counsel, effective immediately, reporting directly to President and CEO Craig Landau and responsible for legal strategy, ethics and compliance, government affairs and corporate governance. The debtors' Disclosure Statement says he was appointed General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Purdue Pharma in July 2018. [src-008] [src-015] - Documented: Kesselman's later titles: the debtors' July 2025 Disclosure Statement lists him in senior management as Executive Vice President, General Counsel; a biography page of a legal organisation, normally supplied by the person, says he was appointed General Counsel of Purdue Pharma L.P. in July 2018 and has since been promoted to Chief Legal Officer and EVP Strategy & Corporate Affairs, overseeing also strategy, business development, human resources, security and communications. The Florida registry record of Purdue Pharma Inc. lists him as Secretary. [src-098] [src-015] [src-102] - Documented: Before Purdue, Kesselman held corporate general counsel posts: according to the Disclosure Statement he was Chief Legal Officer, Corporate Secretary & Chief Public Policy Officer of YUM! Brands, Inc., joined YUM! from Dean Foods, where he held a similar role, and earlier was Senior Vice President & General Counsel at PepsiCo Americas Foods. Dean Foods Company's press release of 21 January 2015 announced that he would join it on 26 January as Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary & Government Affairs, coming from PepsiCo, where he was Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Frito-Lay North America and PepsiCo's food businesses in North and South America. Early in his career he was an attorney in the Washington, DC office of Ropes & Gray. [src-015] [src-043] - Documented: Kesselman previously held U.S. federal government legal posts: General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 2006 through 2008, after nomination by the President and Senate confirmation according to Dean Foods' 2015 release; Deputy General Counsel in the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2003 to 2006; and earlier Senior Counsel in the Office of Legal Policy and Trial Attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. These posts are listed consistently in Purdue's July 2018 release, the Disclosure Statement, the Dean Foods release and his own biography page. [src-008] [src-098] [src-015] [src-043] - Documented: Maria Barton preceded Kesselman as head of Purdue's law department: Purdue Pharma L.P.'s release of 24 July 2018 said that Kesselman succeeded Maria Barton, who had led the company's law department and would remain during a brief transition period before pursuing opportunities outside Purdue. A same-day local press report said she had been promoted to general counsel in February 2017, having joined the company a year earlier. [src-008] [src-056] - Qualification: The February 2017 promotion date and her joining date come only from the press report. - Documented: Jon Lowne stated in his sworn first-day declaration in support of the debtors' chapter 11 petitions (Case No. 19-23649, Doc 3, filed 16 September 2019) that he is a Senior Vice President and the Chief Financial Officer of Purdue Pharma L.P.; that he was first employed by Purdue as Senior Internal Auditor in 1995; that he was Controller from 2005 to July 2017 and Acting Chief Financial Officer from August 2017 to February 2018; and that he has been CFO of Purdue Pharma L.P. since March 2018. [src-016] [src-001] - Documented: Jon Lowne signed Purdue Pharma L.P.'s voluntary chapter 11 petition and its Official Form 202 declaration under penalty of perjury for non-individual debtors on 15 September 2019, describing his position or relationship to the debtor as "Authorized Person". [src-001] - Attributed: The State of Connecticut's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 describes Russell Gasdia as Purdue's Vice President of Sales and Marketing. It alleges that the directors Richard, Jonathan, Mortimer D.A., Kathe, Beverly and Theresa Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Peter Boer and Judith Lewent authorized him to hire a new staff member to contact prescribers electronically and promote Purdue opioids through the "Partners Against Pain" website, and that in 2013 Gasdia and other staff told the board that Purdue's opioid savings cards were keeping patients on its opioids longer and were being pushed by sales representatives, online and by email. Gasdia was also among the defendants named in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' action. [src-051] [src-007] [src-044] [src-006] - Qualification: Allegations in a state complaint, in which Gasdia is not himself a defendant; they concern the directors' alleged authorisations and knowledge and were not adjudicated in the retained records. - Response: No response by Gasdia is in the retained records. The family directors named in the allegation stated in sworn declarations of March-April 2019 in the Massachusetts action that they did not direct the management of either Purdue company or any sales representative to visit doctors, send emails for savings cards to practitioners or otherwise market in Massachusetts. - Outcome: No ruling on these allegations appears in the retained records; Connecticut later joined the March 2022 settlement among the debtors, the Sacklers and the Nine, and the $7.4 billion Purdue-Sackler settlement that took effect on 1 May 2026. - Documented: James J. Dolan, Senior Vice President, Licensing and Business Development, signed the Strategic Alliance Agreement with Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. dated as of 19 November 2008 on behalf of Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., acting through its general partner Purdue Pharmaceutical Products Inc.; the agreement was filed with the SEC as Exhibit 10.1 by Infinity. [src-024] - Documented: An undated listing by a commercial company-information aggregator of the officers recorded for Purdue Pharma Inc. in Connecticut names Mark Timney as president and chief executive officer, Edward B. Mahony and Stuart D. Baker as executive vice presidents and Robin Abrams as a vice president, alongside other vice presidents and the directors. [src-026] - Qualification: Undated third-party compilation, not the registry itself; it mixes officers from different periods and gives no dates of appointment or departure, so it shows only that these names were recorded at some time as PPI officers. - Documented: The confirmed plan provides that on the Effective Date the boards of all Debtors are dissolved and their members deemed to have resigned, and that the Debtors other than the Transferred Debtors continue only as Liquidating Debtors to liquidate their assets and make plan distributions. All interests in Purdue Pharma Inc. (PPI Interests) are deemed cancelled and, as of the PPLP Dissolution Date, all interests in Purdue Pharma L.P. (PPLP Interests, Class 16); in accordance with the Shareholder Settlement Agreements the holders of PPLP Interests relinquish them and receive no property under the plan. A PPLP Liquidator becomes sole director and sole officer of the Liquidating Debtors, succeeding to the powers of their general partners, directors and officers (for Purdue Pharma L.P., its general partner Purdue Pharma Inc.), winds them up and files certificates of cancellation or dissolution in their states of organization; the liquidator's fees are paid by the Plan Administration Trustee from the Wind-Up Reserve. [src-039] [src-015] - Documented: The plan became effective and was substantially consummated on May 1, 2026 (the Effective Date). That day the New York Attorney General announced that Purdue Pharma had shut down and ceased operations under the bankruptcy plan and that Knoa Pharma, LLC, a new public benefit corporation entirely owned by the newly established nonprofit Knoa Foundation and overseen by independent directors and trustees with no association with Purdue, began operating in its place; the announcement states that all members of the Sackler family are barred from selling opioids in the United States and will have no involvement in the new company. [src-020] [src-005] ## What role did the Sackler family play in running Purdue? - Attributed: An online reference biography of Mortimer D. Sackler lists Samantha Sophia Sackler Hunt among his children, with Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Kathe A. Sackler and Mortimer David Alfons Sackler, and states that his wife Theresa became Dame Theresa Sackler in 2011. [src-028] - Qualification: Aggregator biography, not an official record. The District Court independently names Ilene, Kathe and Mortimer D.A. Sackler as his children and Theresa Sackler as his wife; Samantha Sophia Sackler Hunt's parentage rests on this biography alone. Relatives with no role in the record are not named here. - Documented: The District Court's December 2021 decision states that Marianna (also spelled Mariana) Sackler, Richard Sackler's daughter, held several roles in the "family business", including work as a consultant in Purdue's research and development department on OxyContin projects and a "PR" role at Mundipharma Italy, an independent associated company (IAC), where she worked on "information around topics about pain in Italy" and "marketing and selling OxyContin"; she has never been an officer or director of Purdue. [src-003] - Qualification: The decision gives no dates for these roles. - Documented: According to the District Court's December 2021 decision, Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt also served as officers of Purdue with the title of vice president, and Kathe Sackler with the title of senior vice president, in addition to their seats on the board. [src-003] [src-051] - Qualification: The court gives no dates for these offices. Connecticut's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 describes Jonathan Sackler as a senior vice president and Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe Sackler and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt as vice presidents during the development, launch, promotion and marketing of OxyContin, each resigning that office in or after 2003 while staying on the board; the complaint thus gives Kathe Sackler a different title from the court. - Documented: The District Court's December 2021 decision notes that, in large part because of the success of their pharmaceutical business, the Sackler family had long been ranked on a business magazine's list of America's richest families and in 2015 became one of the twenty wealthiest families in America, with a reported net worth of $14 billion. [src-003] - Qualification: A reported figure for the whole family's wealth in 2015, not an asset value of Purdue Pharma L.P. or of any one family member. - Documented: In its 30 May 2023 decision on the plan's third-party releases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit described Purdue as a closely held corporation and, citing the Bankruptcy Court, said the record tended to show that the Sacklers "took a major role in corporate decision-making, including Purdue's practices regarding its opioid products that was more akin to the role of senior management"; the Second Circuit relied on this as part of the identity of interests between the debtors and the Sacklers named as defendants, chiefly as directors and officers. The District Court's 2021 decision similarly says many family members took on an active role comparable to that of senior management before 2018. [src-044] [src-003] - Qualification: Both statements were made in deciding whether third-party releases could be approved, not in adjudicating claims against the family members. The Supreme Court later reversed the Second Circuit's judgment on the separate question whether the Bankruptcy Code authorises non-consensual third-party releases. - Response: Counsel for the Raymond Sackler branch said in April 2021, as reported by the press, that the family members who served on the board acted "ethically and lawfully". - Attributed: The New York Attorney General's complaint against Purdue Pharma L.P. and others in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County (as filed with a September 2019 letter rogatory), names as individual defendants eight family members described as the remaining living Sackler family members who served on the board of Purdue Pharma Inc.: Richard S., Jonathan D., Mortimer D.A., Kathe A., David A., Beverly and Theresa Sackler and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt. It states that Richard Sackler joined the board in 1990 and was its co-chair from 2003 until he left the board in 2018; that Mortimer D.A. Sackler had been a board member since 1993; that Beverly Sackler served from 1993 through 2017 and Theresa Sackler from 1993 through 2018; that Jonathan and Kathe Sackler joined in 1990, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt served from 1990 and David Sackler joined in 2012. [src-014] [src-004] - Qualification: Statements in a state complaint describing the defendants; the complaint's claims against them were not adjudicated in the retained record. The board terms broadly agree with the tenures listed by the United States in its 2020 settlement agreement. - Response: A status report in the New York coordinated opioid litigation records that, by appearing at the status conference of 12 August 2019, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Kathe A. Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Theresa Sackler did not concede that they were proper parties and reserved all defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction as to Kathe and Theresa Sackler. Counsel for the Raymond Sackler branch later said, as reported in the press, that the family members who served on the board acted "ethically and lawfully". - Attributed: State complaints describe Richard Sackler's executive career at Purdue. Connecticut's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 says he began working for Purdue as an assistant to the president in the 1970s, later served as Vice President of Marketing and Sales, became Senior Vice President in the early 1990s and was President and CEO from 1999 to 2003, and that he is named as an inventor on dozens of patents relating to oxycodone and other pain medications, most of them assigned to Purdue. The New York Attorney General's complaint says he was Purdue's head of research and development from at least 1990 through 1999 and its president from 1999 through 2003. An online reference biography says he joined Purdue in 1971 as assistant to his father, then the company's president, and later headed research and development and marketing. [src-051] [src-027] [src-014] - Qualification: Complaint allegations and an aggregator biography. The District Court's 2021 decision gives his presidency as 2000-2003, followed by co-chair of the board 2003-2007 and chair from about 2008 until 2010 or 2011, so the sources differ on the start year of his presidency. - Attributed: The New York Attorney General's 2019 complaint describes offices that Side B family members held in New York not-for-profit corporations: Richard S. Sackler as a trustee of the Sackler School of Medicine, a director and vice president of the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation and a director, president and treasurer of the Richard and Beth Sackler Foundation Inc.; Jonathan D. Sackler as a trustee of the Sackler School of Medicine, president and CEO of the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation and vice president of the Richard and Beth Sackler Foundation Inc.; and Beverly Sackler as a director, secretary and treasurer of the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation. [src-014] - Qualification: Offices as described in the complaint at the time it was filed; they were not checked against the corporations' own filings in the retained record. This New York foundation is a different legal entity from the UK company of the same name registered at Companies House. - Attributed: The same complaint describes offices that Side A family members held in New York not-for-profit corporations: Mortimer D.A. Sackler as a director and president of the Mortimer and Jacqueline Sackler Foundation and a director, vice president and treasurer of the Mortimer D. Sackler Foundation, Inc.; Kathe A. Sackler as a director and president of the Shack Sackler Foundation, a director, vice president and secretary of the Mortimer D. Sackler Foundation Inc. and a governor of the New York Academy of Sciences; and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt as a director of Columbia University and president of the Sackler Lefcourt Center for Child Development Inc. [src-014] - Qualification: Offices as described in the complaint at the time it was filed; they were not checked against the corporations' own filings in the retained record. - Documented: The District Court's December 2021 decision states that in May 2007, shortly after the 2007 guilty plea and settlement, David Sackler emailed Jonathan Sackler, Richard Sackler and their financial advisor about the family's personal liability ("Until suits get through to the family?"); that in his deposition David Sackler agreed his email of 17 May 2007 reflected concern that the family would be sued in connection with Purdue's sale of OxyContin; and that less than a week later Richard and Jonathan Sackler met with a bankruptcy attorney, though Purdue was not in debt and not at risk of bankruptcy. [src-003] - Qualification: The court's account of documents and testimony in the confirmation record, given in the decision's discussion of distributions to the family; not a finding of liability. - Documented: The District Court's December 2021 decision states that on 26 July 2007 a family financial advisor sent Jonathan Sackler a confidential memorandum advising that Purdue faced "[u]ncapped liabilities" that posed "a huge valuation question", and adding: "I presume the family has taken most of the appropriate defensive measures"; a separate memorandum proposed distributing more free cash flow so the owners could buy diversifying assets. [src-003] - Qualification: The court's account of documents in the confirmation record; the advisor is not named in the decision. - Documented: The Second Circuit's 30 May 2023 decision states that starting in 2007 the Sacklers anticipated that litigation against Purdue would eventually affect them directly, citing an email in which David Sackler wrote to Jonathan and Richard Sackler: "We will be sued ... [A]sk yourself how long it will take these lawyers to figure out that we might settle with them if they can freeze our assets and threaten us." [src-044] - Qualification: The decision does not date the email; whether it is the May 2007 email described by the District Court is not stated. - Attributed: Connecticut's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 quotes a February 2008 email from Mortimer D.A. Sackler to Jonathan and Richard Sackler saying that the pharmaceutical industry had become "far too volatile and risky for a family to hold 95% of its wealth in", that it was not prudent "for us to stay in the business", and that when a sale was last discussed in 2000 the family chose to keep Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc. as privately held companies used "as an investment platform in the pharma industry". The District Court's 2021 decision likewise describes a February 2008 email in which "Mortimer Sackler" wished to leave the pharmaceutical business altogether. [src-051] [src-003] [src-086] - Qualification: The email is quoted by a party to the litigation; the District Court does not add the middle initials, and a 2019 press report describes the same quoted email as written by Mortimer D.A. Sackler to his cousins. - Attributed: A 2019 press report quotes a 2014 email from Richard Sackler to his sons, filed as an exhibit in court proceedings: "In the years when the business was producing massive amounts of cash, the shareholders departed from the practice of our industry peers and took the money out of the business." The report notes that Purdue's only shareholders are Sacklers and that the New York Attorney General alleges the family sent the money offshore to "unknown trusts, partnerships, companies" and other entities it controls. [src-086] [src-003] [src-044] [src-015] - Qualification: Press account of a court exhibit and of a state allegation; the email itself is not in the retained record. The distributions are documented on the payments page. - Response: The District Court records that the Sacklers vehemently deny any suggestion that the transfers would qualify as fraudulent conveyances. - Outcome: In the bankruptcy the District Court recorded that family members' assets are held principally in purportedly spendthrift trusts in the United States and offshore, many of them in the Bailiwick of Jersey; the Second Circuit recorded the Bankruptcy Court's finding that the family's assets are "widely scattered and primarily held" in such trusts, and the debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement says most of the wealth is concentrated in dozens of U.S. and foreign-based spendthrift trusts. - Attributed: According to a press report on a book by an investigative journalist, Kathe Sackler, questioned by a class-action plaintiffs' lawyer in a sworn deposition, asserted that the family had nothing to be ashamed of or apologize for and that she deserved credit for coming up with "the idea" of OxyContin, which she called "a very good medicine and ... a very effective and safe medicine". The book recounts that in spring 2019 she, seven of her Sackler relatives and Purdue Pharma were being sued by cities and states across the US. [src-085] - Qualification: Account of a deposition as recounted in a book and reported in the press; the deposition transcript is not in the retained record and its date is not given. - Response: The same report says that Kathe Sackler and David Sackler, testifying remotely before Congress in December 2020, spoke words of sympathy but denied family culpability. - Attributed: The same press report states that the Sacklers who were Purdue board members "escaped unscathed" in the 2007 federal prosecution of the company and three of its senior executives, and that the book describes the most active Sacklers within the company, especially Raymond Sackler and his sons Richard and Jonathan, as having driven the aggressive sales and marketing strategy for OxyContin. It adds that after Purdue's second federal guilty plea the relevant Sacklers paid $225 million under the Justice Department settlement but faced no charges and admitted no wrongdoing. [src-085] [src-040] - Qualification: Press and book characterisation, not a finding. In 2007 the corporate defendant that pleaded guilty was The Purdue Frederick Company, and three of its executives pleaded individually. A dissent in the Supreme Court's decision of 27 June 2024 states that neither the U.S. Government nor any State has brought criminal charges against any of the Sacklers individually. - Attributed: As reported in the press, counsel for the Raymond Sackler branch of the family told a US public radio network that documents released in Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy show that the Sackler family members who served on the company's board acted "ethically and lawfully", and criticised the author of a book on the family for refusing to meet family representatives; a spokesperson for the Mortimer Sackler branch said its focus was "on concluding a resolution that will provide help to people and communities in need, rather than on this book". [src-085] - Qualification: Statements by the family branches' representatives as reported in the press; they answer the book and the allegations generally rather than any specific claim. - Attributed: A press report of 7 July 2020 states that Jonathan Sackler, one of the owners of Purdue Pharma, son of Raymond Sackler (one of the brothers who bought Purdue Frederick in 1952) and a former executive and board member, died on 30 June 2020 according to a court filing; like other family members he had stepped off the board in recent years, though family members kept ownership. The United States' 2020 settlement agreement accordingly names the Estate of Jonathan Sackler among the Named Sacklers. [src-092] [src-004] [src-022] - Qualification: The date of death is as reported from a court filing; Companies House records his resignation as a director of the UK Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation on the same date. Colorado was among the states that had named him personally as a defendant. - Outcome: The Estate of Jonathan Sackler signed the United States' civil settlement agreement, dated 21 October 2020, as one of the Named Sacklers. - Documented: Exhibit X ("Certain Shareholder Released Parties") to the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement, filed on the Effective Date as part of Doc 9132, names as A-Side release parties individual family members including Theresa E. Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Kathe A. Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Samantha Hunt, together with their spouses, children and grandchildren and the assets, businesses and entities they own, and trusts, trustees and protectors including Beacon Trust, Beacon Trust Company Limited and Anthony M. Roncalli, whom the exhibit describes as a current or former director, manager or officer of a II-way entity in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s chain of ownership and of a trust company and as a trustee. [src-058] - Qualification: Shareholder releases of direct claims bind only creditors who opted into the Third-Party Releases; the estates' own claims are released under the plan. Being a release party is not a finding about any person's conduct. ## What are the Sackler-owned companies associated with Purdue? - Documented: The District Court's 16 December 2021 decision describes independent associated companies ("IACs") as certain foreign companies ultimately owned by the Sackler family: Purdue Pharma L.P. manufactures OxyContin for itself and, in limited quantities, for certain foreign IACs and receives royalties from the IACs' sales of OxyContin abroad; the IACs are not debtors in the bankruptcy. The debtors' Disclosure Statement of 1 July 2025 gives the same description and states that the IACs are owned equally by the A-Side and B-Side families. [src-003] [src-015] - Qualification: Neither record says which IACs buy OxyContin or pay royalties, or on what terms. - Attributed: In its factum of September 2021 in the Canadian recognition proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List), Purdue Pharma L.P., as foreign representative of the debtors, stated that the IACs are ultimately owned by the same entities that own the Chapter 11 debtors, but are not direct or indirect subsidiaries of the debtors and carry on independent business operations. [src-047] [src-015] - Qualification: The debtors' own characterisation of the IACs in litigation, not a finding by the court. - Response: The Special Committee's investigation, as summarised in the debtors' Disclosure Statement, considered potential veil-piercing claims on the theory that members of the Sackler families controlled and dominated the debtors and the IACs and operated them as a single enterprise; those theories were not adjudicated. - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement of 1 July 2025 states that officers or employees of Purdue Pharma L.P. who were at the same time directors, officers or employees of IACs resigned one of those roles, so that no current officer or employee of Purdue Pharma L.P. was a director, officer or employee of any IAC on the petition date or during the Chapter 11 cases, and that under the Special Committee's supervision the debtors reviewed their agreements with the IACs and terminated, amended or documented them as appropriate. [src-015] - Qualification: The Disclosure Statement does not list the individuals concerned or the dates of their resignations. - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement of 1 July 2025 describes One Stamford Realty L.P. ("OSR"), the counterparty to the lease of Purdue Pharma's headquarters, as an IAC that provided facilities and administrative services to Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc., and TXP Services Inc. ("TXP") as an IAC that provided accounting and other administrative services to them. At the Special Committee's direction the services agreements were renegotiated, so that TXP and OSR no longer provide the accounting, facilities and administrative services they historically provided. Exhibit X to the 2025 plan's Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement lists both One Stamford Realty L.P. and TXP Services Inc. as "II-way" entities owned in equal shares through both family branches. [src-015] [src-058] - Qualification: The Disclosure Statement gives no date for the renegotiation or the payments under the agreements. - Documented: The United States' 2020 settlement agreement with Dr. Richard Sackler, David Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe Sackler and the Estate of Jonathan Sackler releases, besides family members and trusts, the Purdue parent entities and the "Independent Associated Companies" listed in its Addendum C from the United States' civil monetary claims based on the covered conduct. The IAC list includes the Mundipharma companies (among them Mundipharma International Limited, Mundipharma Limited, Mundipharma IT Services Limited and Mundipharma Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH), the Napp companies (among them Napp Pharmaceutical Group Limited and Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited), Euro-Celtique S.A., Bard Pharmaceuticals Limited, MN Consulting LLC, MNP Consulting Limited, One Stamford Realty L.P., Paineurope Limited and the Canadian companies Purdue Frederick Inc., Purdue Pharma Inc. (Canadian Company) and Purdue Pharma ULC. [src-004] - Qualification: A release list in a civil settlement; inclusion records who is released, not any finding about the listed companies. - Documented: Exhibit X ("Certain Shareholder Released Parties") to the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement filed in the Purdue bankruptcy case (Doc 9132) classifies the family's operating companies abroad as "II-way" entities, defined as entities directly or indirectly owned by persons or trusts associated with both the Raymond Sackler family and the Mortimer Sackler family, with equal interests for each. They include, in the United Kingdom, Napp Pharmaceutical Group Limited, Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and other Napp companies, Paineurope Limited, Qdem Pharmaceuticals Limited, Bard Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mundipharma International Limited, Mundipharma IT Services Limited and Mundipharma Limited (with The Napp Educational Foundation listed as a foundation); Euro-Celtique S.A. (Luxembourg); Mundipharma Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Germany); Purdue Pharma, Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma ULC (Canada); and, in the United States, MNP Consulting Limited, Avrio Health Inc. and Coventry Technologies L.P. [src-058] - Qualification: Release-list classification by ownership type; Avrio Health Inc. listed here is distinct from the debtor Avrio Health L.P. - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement of 1 July 2025 states that Dr. Cecil B. Pickett, a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. since January 2010, previously served on the boards of three IACs - MNP Consulting Limited (Delaware), Mundipharma Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Germany) and Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd. (United Kingdom) - and resigned from each of these positions on or before 9 August 2018. The Companies House filing history of Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited records, both on 18 August 2010, an appointment (AP01) and a termination of appointment (TM01) of Cecil Pickett as a director. [src-015] [src-076] - Qualification: The filing history does not explain the two same-day filings, and the start dates of his IAC directorships are not in the retained record. - Documented: The Companies House filing history of Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited (company 03486244) also lists, as directors, people who sat on the board of Purdue Pharma Inc.: filings of 6 August 2010 record changes to the details of directors Judy Lewent and Peter Boer as at 31 July 2010, and appointment filings record Paulo Ferraz Costa (filed 27 April 2012), David Alex Sackler (filed 24 July 2012) and Ralph Snyderman (filed 2 August 2012). In sworn declarations Paulo Costa and Ralph Snyderman gave the start of their Purdue Pharma Inc. directorships as 25 April 2012 and 1 August 2012, and the United States' 2020 settlement lists David A. Sackler's Purdue Pharma Inc. board tenure as beginning on 19 July 2012. [src-076] [src-004] - Qualification: The Napp filings name the officers without other identifiers; their identity with the Purdue Pharma Inc. directors of the same names rests on the names and the closely matching dates (Peter Boer's declaration gives his Purdue Pharma Inc. directorship from 18 April 2008 and Judith Lewent's from 20 March 2009). Filing dates are not appointment dates, and resignation dates at Napp for these directors are not in the retained record. - Documented: Of the 25 officer records of Napp Pharmaceutical Group Limited, 23 are resignations; the two directors shown as active in the retrieved register snapshot are Stephen Johan Jamieson (appointed 22 February 2019) and Bryan George Lea (appointed 1 January 2020). The company's secretaries were TIERCEL SERVICES LIMITED (from before 31 July 1991 to 25 March 2008 and again from 26 February 2009 to 11 June 2018) and CORNHILL SERVICES LIMITED (25 March 2008 to 26 February 2009). [src-089] - Qualification: Registry snapshot; the officer page itself carries no date. - Documented: Companies House records Stuart David Baker as a director of Napp Pharmaceutical Group Limited from 8 December 1994 to 31 December 2019, as a director of Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited at 31 July 2010, as a director of MUNDIPHARMA IT SERVICES LIMITED (07485493) from 27 April 2012 to 31 December 2019 and of PAINEUROPE LIMITED (02714090, dissolved) from 6 January 2009 to 31 December 2019, and as a director of MUNDIPHARMA LIMITED (00553824, dissolved) from 4 September 2014. Companies of these names are listed as IACs in the United States' 2020 settlement and as II-way entities in Exhibit X. [src-089] [src-076] [src-084] [src-004] [src-058] - Qualification: The registry pages give the full name Stuart David Baker. That he is the Stuart D. Baker named in other records as a director of Beacon Trust Company Ltd. (a 2010 securities prospectus) and in Exhibit X as a current or former director of an II-way entity in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s ownership chain and a trustee rests on the name and context. - Documented: Companies House records Christopher Benbow Mitchell as a director of Napp Pharmaceutical Group Limited from before 31 July 1991 to 12 April 2018 and of Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited at 31 July 2010, as a director of The Sackler Trust from 17 September 2009 to 5 October 2019 and as a director of TRADEWHIZ LIMITED from 28 June 2011. [src-089] [src-076] [src-069] [src-070] - Qualification: One Companies House officer record links these appointments. That he is the Christopher B. Mitchell named in a 2010 securities prospectus as a director of Beacon Trust Company Ltd. rests on the name and context. - Documented: Companies House lists TIERCEL SERVICES LIMITED (company 01353477), a corporate secretary at New Zealand House, 80 Haymarket, London, among 36 recorded appointments, as secretary of Napp Pharmaceutical Group Limited (from before 31 July 1991 to 25 March 2008 and from 26 February 2009 to 11 June 2018), Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited (19 December 1997 to 25 March 2008 and 26 February 2009 to 11 June 2018), Mundipharma International Limited and Bard Pharmaceuticals Limited (each 26 February 2009 to 11 June 2018), Paineurope Limited (1 January 2009 to 11 June 2018), other Napp and Mundipharma companies, and Mundipharma Limited (from 1 January 2009). Its appointments also include companies with no evident Sackler connection, such as language-school companies. [src-071] - Qualification: A shared company secretary is a service relationship; it does not show common ownership or control. - Documented: The same appointment list shows TIERCEL SERVICES LIMITED as secretary of the UK family charities and companies: the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation (company 06802985) from 27 January 2009 to 10 April 2025, The Dr. Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation (06802998) from 27 January 2009 to 31 July 2022, The Sackler Trust (07022224) from 17 September 2009 to 31 July 2022, and the since-dissolved TRADEWHIZ LIMITED (03896720) from 24 January 2000 and FORMULATION PRODUCTS LIMITED (03698352) from 4 March 1999. [src-071] - Qualification: A shared company secretary serving both family branches' charities is a service relationship, not evidence of common control. - Documented: THE DR. MORTIMER AND THERESA SACKLER FOUNDATION is a UK company (06802998) and registered charity (1128926). Companies House lists Theresa Elizabeth Sackler as a director since 30 September 2009. The Charity Commission register lists nine trustees, among them Dame Theresa Sackler, Dr Kathe Anne Sackler, Mortimer David Alfons Sackler, Mrs I Sackler Lefcourt, Samantha Sophia Hunt and Anthony Collins (appointed 17 October 2016), with three further trustees who have no other role in this record. TIERCEL SERVICES LIMITED was its company secretary from 27 January 2009 to 31 July 2022. [src-009] [src-031] [src-071] - Qualification: The charity register gives an appointment date only for Anthony Collins. "Mrs I Sackler Lefcourt" and "Samantha Sophia Hunt" are matched to Ilene Sackler Lefcourt and Samantha Sophia Sackler Hunt by name. - Documented: The Charity Commission register shows Anthony Collins, a trustee of The Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation since 17 October 2016, as also a trustee of the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation, The Sackler Trust and two further Sackler charities - that is, of charities associated with both family branches. [src-031] - Qualification: Charity trusteeships only; the register does not show any role for him in the IACs or in Purdue. - Documented: Companies House records Jonathan David Sackler (1 December 2009 to 30 June 2020) and Beverly Sackler (1 December 2009 to 14 October 2019) as directors of the UK company RAYMOND AND BEVERLY SACKLER FOUNDATION (06802985), and TIERCEL SERVICES LIMITED as its secretary from 27 January 2009 to 10 April 2025. [src-022] [src-023] [src-071] [src-092] - Qualification: A UK company, distinct from the New York not-for-profit corporation of the same name described in the New York Attorney General's complaint. Jonathan Sackler's resignation date is the date of death given for him in a 2020 press report. - Documented: Companies House records Theresa Elizabeth Sackler as a director of FORMULATION PRODUCTS LIMITED (03698352) from 4 March 1999 and of TRADEWHIZ LIMITED (03896720) from 24 January 2000; both companies are now dissolved. TRADEWHIZ's officer list also shows TIERCEL SERVICES LIMITED as secretary from 24 January 2000, Christopher Benbow Mitchell as a director from 28 June 2011 and Mortimer David Sackler as a director from 24 January 2000 to 24 March 2010, after formation agents had acted as nominee secretary and director from 20 December 1999 to 24 January 2000. [src-009] [src-070] - Qualification: The register does not show what business either company carried on. - Attributed: A published database of leaked records of a Bermuda law firm (data current through 2014) lists Merganser Limited, a Bermuda company incorporated on 14 December 1998 and closed on 1 October 2009, with three recorded shareholders: an officer named "Sackler - Mortimer D." (linked countries Austria and the United States), "Millbourne Trust Company Limited" and Hillside Trust Company Limited; the record is linked to a "Mundipharma Group" node. [src-075] [src-083] [src-003] - Qualification: Leaked data published by journalists, not a registry. The "Sackler - Mortimer D." record has no identifier and cannot be assigned to Mortimer D. Sackler (died 2010) or to Mortimer D.A. Sackler; "Millbourne Trust Company Limited" is spelled differently from Millborne Trust Company Limited, trustee of the Hercules Trust, and their identity is not established. The database states that inclusion does not suggest illegal or improper conduct. - Attributed: The same leaked-records database lists an officer named "Rosebay Medical Company LLC" as a shareholder of Sheldrake Limited, a Bermuda company incorporated on 15 December 1998, one day after Merganser Limited. [src-113] [src-083] - Qualification: The record gives no jurisdiction or identifier for "Rosebay Medical Company LLC"; it is not shown to be Rosebay Medical Company L.P., the Delaware partnership in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s ownership chain, whose legal form differs. The database states that inclusion does not suggest illegal or improper conduct. - Attributed: Press reports of 2019 describe Rosebay Medical, the Raymond Sackler side's holding company above Purdue, as also the owner of record of Sackler companies from Poland to New Zealand according to those countries' registries, run from an office in Oklahoma City that manages many family holdings; and report that the Italian business register lists the owners of Mundipharma's Italian branch, which began in 2005, as three Luxembourg companies and US-based Rosebay Medical Co., whose board, according to a 2017 SEC filing, included Richard and Jonathan Sackler. The reports say Mundipharma, like Purdue, is owned by a network of trusts benefiting the Sacklers. [src-086] [src-107] [src-014] - Qualification: Press accounts of foreign registries that are not in the retained record. The reports do not give Rosebay's legal form; Rosebay Medical Company L.P. is the partnership in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s ownership chain, and its general partner Rosebay Medical Company, Inc. had Richard and Jonathan Sackler on its board according to the New York complaint. - Response: A Mundipharma Europe spokesman said Mundipharma and Purdue have different managers and portfolios and do not share strategies. - Attributed: A May 2019 press report on an Italian corruption investigation in Parma says that two managers of Mundipharma accepted plea bargains in January 2019 in connection with allegations that they paid a doctor to help sell more drugs, and that the company's Italian branch was fined; the report describes this as the first known case outside the United States in which employees of the Sackler-owned pharmaceutical group were criminally implicated. [src-107] - Qualification: Press account of Italian proceedings whose records are not in the retained record. The case concerns Mundipharma's Italian branch and its managers, not Purdue Pharma L.P. or any family member; the managers are not named. - Response: A lawyer for the managers said the pleas were not an admission of guilt; a Mundipharma Europe spokesman said the corporation did not admit wrongdoing and denied endorsing any message minimizing addiction risks. Company spokesmen said the corporate offices thought the payments were for legitimate services such as consultancy and events, and that Mundipharma's internal probe found violations of company policies but concluded that "a significant part" of the payments appeared legitimate. - Outcome: According to the report, the company suspended and later dismissed the two managers, who received suspended sentences under their plea bargains; Mundipharma's Italian branch accepted a plea bargain for failing to prevent the alleged activities and was fined 40,000 euros, and after Mundipharma revamped its policies the prosecutors withdrew a motion to suspend the company from government contracts. - Attributed: A 2019 press report states that Purdue's 2007 plea agreement with federal prosecutors listed 215 companies under its corporate umbrella, but that the list did not include a number of companies used to manage property and investments for family members or the trusts, some offshore, set up to administer their fortunes. [src-086] - Qualification: Press characterisation; the list itself is not in the retained record. The 2007 plea was entered by The Purdue Frederick Company. ## How much did Purdue pay out to Sackler family entities? - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement dated 1 July 2025 records that AlixPartners, engaged by the debtors' counsel in April 2019, prepared on behalf of the board's Special Committee a 355-page report of all cash transfers to the Sackler Families and Sackler Entities from 1 January 2008 through 30 September 2019 (the “1A Report”), which the debtors filed with the Bankruptcy Court on 16 December 2019 [D.I. 654]. The report details approximately $10.347 billion in total net cash distributions paid by Purdue Pharma L.P. and Rhodes to or for the benefit of the Sackler Families and Sackler Entities in that period: $4.120 billion in cash distributions to partners of Purdue Pharma L.P., approximately $4.680 billion in Tax Distributions for the benefit of partners and approximately $1.547 billion in distributions earmarked for other Sackler Entities. According to the Disclosure Statement, the figures were essentially identical to the company's own earlier calculation. [src-015] - Attributed: According to the debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement, AlixPartners also produced for the Special Committee a 400-page report on Purdue Pharma L.P.'s non-cash distributions and transfers and other dealings with Sackler Entities from 1 January 2008 to 15 September 2019 (the “1B Report”, filed on 29 May 2020 [D.I. 1194]), and the valuation firm Bates White assessed whether Purdue Pharma received fair value in those transactions. Bates White determined in its professional judgment that Purdue Pharma transferred significant value to the Sackler Families and Sackler Entities in that period, including distributions of non-cash assets such as equity interests in businesses distributed out of Purdue Pharma in 2013 and 2014 and the assignment in 2017 of the right to future royalties payable on non-ADF formulations of OxyContin, and that certain dealings were not on arm's-length terms, in particular that Purdue Pharma received below-market royalties from the Sackler Families and Sackler Entities on sales of OxyContin. [src-015] - Qualification: Professional judgment of the debtors' valuation consultant as presented to the Special Committee and, on a common-interest basis, to the creditors' committee; it is not a court finding, and the retained passage does not state the amounts Bates White estimated. - Response: The Disclosure Statement expects the Sackler Parties to point to documents indicating that certain transfers of assets and certain off-market intercompany dealings were based on rational business planning or the continuation of long-standing practices, such as distributions for tax purposes. - Documented: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement states that since its formation on 12 June 1991 Purdue Pharma L.P. has been treated as a pass-through entity that is not itself subject to U.S. federal income tax, its taxable income being reportable by its shareholders, and that, as set out in agreements entered into by the Sackler Parties, the debtors distributed amounts equal to the income tax liability at the highest tax rate of any shareholder. Approximately $4.7 billion of the $10.4 billion of cash distributions identified in the 1A Report were identified as tax distributions. [src-015] - Response: The Disclosure Statement sets out that the debtors would argue that tax distributions made while Purdue Pharma was insolvent can be recovered as transfers for less than reasonably equivalent value, and that the Sackler Parties would argue that the distributions let Purdue Pharma benefit from its limited-partnership structure without entity-level tax, noting that it would otherwise have been subject to the 35% federal statutory corporate rate for most of the period, although comparable companies had lower effective rates. - Documented: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement states that all cash distributions to the Sackler Families ceased in 2017; that in 2017 Purdue Pharma L.P. lent $313 million to its parent, Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P., which was repaid before the petition date; that a $1.7 million loan by Purdue Pharma to an independent associated company was also repaid and no loans from Purdue Pharma to any of the independent associated companies remain outstanding; and that reimbursement of officer and director legal fees owed to members of the Sackler Families ceased as of 1 March 2019, with certain expenses of family members over the preceding ten years repaid. [src-015] - Documented: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement states that in aggregate Purdue Pharma L.P. paid approximately $342 million in settlements from 2008 through 2019, excluding matters involving patents and similar intellectual-property disputes, and that its enterprise value exceeded the amounts it paid in settlements before the bankruptcy filing. [src-015] - Attributed: In assessing potential fraudulent-transfer claims against the Sackler Parties, the debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement states that liabilities based on the total claims asserted by the federal government and resolved through the DOJ Resolution would exceed Purdue Pharma L.P.'s present enterprise value and, taken at face value, would support a claim of insolvency before the petition date, but that the documents do not explain how liability accrued over time; that documents could be used to argue that, as early as 2007, individual members of the Sackler Parties and of the board believed Purdue Pharma faced substantial legal risks from its sale and marketing of opioid products, and that some documents reflect discussions of ways to diversify the Sackler Parties' wealth, including through strategies to distribute Purdue Pharma's assets; and that the record shows a large increase in cash distributions beginning in 2008, shortly after the 2007 federal and state settlements. It concludes that recovery on constructive or intentional fraudulent-transfer theories is uncertain. [src-101] [src-003] [src-040] [src-015] - Qualification: Litigation-risk assessment by the debtors in support of their plan settlement; intent would need to be proven transfer by transfer, likely by clear and convincing evidence, and the retained record shows no adjudication of these claims. - Response: The Disclosure Statement expects the Sackler Parties to argue that they considered the legal risks manageable, that the rise in distributions coincided with a significant increase in revenues, profits and cash, that family members at times chose to reinvest rather than take distributions, and that some transfers followed rational business planning or long-standing practices such as tax distributions. - Outcome: Under the settlements in the plan that the Bankruptcy Court confirmed in November 2025 (its modified bench ruling is dated 20 November 2025), the Sackler Parties will pay up to $7 billion over fifteen years in settlement of both the debtors' claims against them and the direct claims of creditors that elect to settle. Under the earlier 2021 plan the Shareholder Released Parties had agreed to contribute $4.325 billion in exchange for releases; in 2024 the Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that effectively discharges claims against a non-debtor without the affected claimants' consent. - Documented: In its Decision and Order on Appeal filed on 16 December 2021 in the appeals from the 2021 plan confirmation, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge McMahon) stated that the Sacklers upstreamed some $10.4 billion out of the company between 2008 and 2017, which according to their own expert substantially reduced Purdue's “solvency cushion”, and that over half of that money was either invested in offshore companies owned by the Sacklers or deposited into spendthrift trusts that could not be reached in bankruptcy and offshore entities in places such as the Bailiwick of Jersey. The Court recorded that the post-2007 distributions totalled approximately $10.4 billion, of which approximately $4.6 billion was used to pay pass-through taxes, and that the vast majority of Purdue's 2008–2017 earnings came from OxyContin sales. [src-003] - Documented: The District Court found that during 1996–2007 Purdue up-streamed on average 9% of its revenue per year to the Sacklers, but during 2008–2016 on average 53% and as much as 70%; that after 2007 Purdue went from distributing less than 15% of its revenue to distributing as much as 70%, and from distributing approximately 38% of its free cash flow in 2006 to 167.4% in 2007, continuing in the 90% range for the next decade; and that the 2008–2016 distributions contrasted with the practices of Purdue's peer pharmaceutical companies. It explained that the absolute amounts after 2007 dwarfed those of 1995–2007 because concerns about the validity of Purdue's OxyContin patent capped its earnings until 2008, when the patent was definitively held valid. [src-003] - Documented: In response to a question from the District Court, the debtors acknowledged that between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2007 distributions to the Sacklers totalled $1.322 billion, of which $1.192 billion (90.2%) was used to pay taxes. The Court found that in 1996–2007 the Sacklers kept less than 10% of the money distributed by Purdue and used over 90% to pay taxes on Purdue's earnings, whereas in 2008–2016 they retained, in one form or another, 56% of the distributed earnings and used 44% to pay taxes. [src-003] - Documented: The District Court found that of the money Purdue distributed from 2008 about 44% went to pay taxes, a small fraction was invested in the independent associated companies owned by the Sacklers, and the rest went to Rosebay and Beacon, which it described as the Side A and B Sackler family trusts. Elsewhere the decision identifies Beacon Company, a Delaware general partnership, as the partnership of Side A (the Mortimer D. Sackler family) and Rosebay Medical Company L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, as the partnership of Side B (the Raymond R. Sackler family), the two owning in equal parts 99.5% of Purdue Pharma L.P.'s parent, Pharmaceutical Research Associates, L.P. [src-003] - Documented: The District Court found that, according to the Sacklers' own expert, the change in distribution pattern drained Purdue's total assets by 75% and its “solvency cushion” by 82% between 2008 and 2016. It cited a 2014 email in which Richard Sackler wrote that “in the years when the business was producing massive amounts of cash, the shareholders departed from the practice of our industry peers and took the money out of the business”, and at least one 2014 email in which Jonathan Sackler referred to this distributing of cash flow from OxyContin as a “milking” program. [src-003] - Documented: The District Court recorded that the Bankruptcy Court (Judge Drain), in its 2021 confirmation decision, had before it an extensive report and trial declarations on the “assertedly over $11 billion of avoidable transfers” and acknowledged that the estate had potential claims in that amount, while making no finding that the distributions qualified as fraudulent conveyances or could be recouped by Purdue. The District Court stated that the fact of the transfers out of Purdue and into the family is not contested, citing Richard Sackler's answer at the August 2021 confirmation hearing that the Purdue board had transferred billions of dollars to Sackler family trusts or holding companies in 2008–2018 (“Yes . . . yes, that we did”); only whether any of them would qualify as fraudulent conveyances is in dispute. [src-003] - Response: The District Court noted that the Sacklers vehemently deny any suggestion that any of these transfers would qualify as fraudulent conveyances. - Documented: The District Court's summary of the Bankruptcy Court's assessment of the estates' claims records that Judge Drain noted that over 40% of the purportedly avoidable transfers to the Sacklers were used to pay federal and state taxes associated with Purdue, none of which would be refunded; identified technical defences available to the Sacklers, including statutes of limitations and the impact of prior settlements; pointed to evidence that Purdue may not have been insolvent, unable to pay its debts or left with unreasonably small capital until as late as 2017 or 2018, by which time most or all of the conveyances had been made; and noted that most Sackler family members had nothing to do with Purdue's operations and that no one had identified any action by any of them as passive shareholders that would make them liable on alter ego, veil-piercing or fiduciary-duty claims. Judge Drain made no findings about the actual merit of the estates' claims against any member of the Sackler family. [src-003] - Documented: In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, citing the lower courts, states that before the 2007 plea agreement Purdue's distributions to the Sacklers represented less than 15% of its annual revenue, that afterwards the Sacklers began taking as much as 70% of the company's revenue each year, that between 2008 and 2016 the family's distributions totalled approximately $11 billion, draining Purdue's total assets by 75% and leaving it in “a significantly weakened financial” state, and that the Sacklers diverted much of that money to overseas trusts and family-owned companies. [src-040] - Documented: In its modified bench ruling of 20 November 2025 granting confirmation of the debtors' Eighteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recorded the testimony of the debtors' witnesses at the 12 November 2025 hearing, admitted without objection: Mark Rule analysed 37 pre-petition transfers worth some $1.4 billion between the debtors and the Sacklers and concluded that the Sacklers did not provide reasonable value; Richard Collura, who according to the 2025 Disclosure Statement led the AlixPartners team working for the Special Committee, testified on his independent investigation into potential fraudulent-transfer claims against the Sacklers; and John Dubel testified on the Special Committee's investigation of the debtors' potential claims against the Sackler Parties. [src-101] [src-015] - Attributed: Addendum A to the 2020 civil settlement agreement between the United States and Richard Sackler, David Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe Sackler and the Estate of Jonathan Sackler (the “Named Sacklers”), headed “The Fraudulent Transfer of Assets from Purdue”, sets out the United States' account that from 1997 through 2007 Purdue distributed a total of $126 million in cash to members of the Sackler family and their holding companies and trusts; that from 2008 to 2018 the Purdue board approved billions in transfers of funds out of Purdue as cash distributions of profits into Sackler family holding companies and trusts; that certain of these distributions and transfers were made with the intent to hinder future creditors and/or were otherwise avoidable as fraudulent transfers; and that Purdue did not fully document certain transfers, did not conduct full valuations of the transferred assets and did not receive reasonably equivalent value for certain of them. [src-004] [src-015] [src-003] - Qualification: Contentions of the United States; the agreement states that it is neither an admission of liability by the Named Sacklers nor a concession by the United States. The $126 million figure covers cash distributions in 1997–2007; the debtors acknowledged to the District Court $1.322 billion of distributions for 1995–2007, of which $1.192 billion was used for taxes, and the retained records do not reconcile the two figures. - Response: The Named Sacklers expressly deny the allegations regarding the Covered Conduct set out in Addendum A. - Outcome: Under the agreement the Named Sacklers agreed to pay the United States $225,000,000 plus interest, and the United States released them and the transferees of funds distributed by Purdue from certain monetary claims; the agreement states that it does not release any claims the debtors' estates can bring, including fraudulent-transfer claims. The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement records the $225 million as already paid directly to the DOJ. - Attributed: In its proof of claim filed on 30 July 2020 in the Chapter 11 cases, the United States (Department of Justice) states that Purdue filed a Cash Transfers Report showing net cash distributions from Purdue and Rhodes of $10.4 billion from 1 January 2008 through 30 September 2019, and asserts that during that time Purdue approved more than $4 billion of cash distributions to Sackler family holding companies and trusts, separate from the tax distributions used to pay the taxes on Purdue's corporate earnings: approximately $751 million in 2008, $880 million in 2009, $846 million in 2010, $559 million in 2011, $406 million in 2012, $278 million in 2013, $118 million in 2014, $129 million in 2015 and $154 million in 2016, a total of $4.121 billion. [src-038] - Qualification: Assertions of a creditor in a proof of claim; the yearly amounts are stated as approximate. The debtors' 1A Report gives $4.120 billion of cash distributions to partners for January 2008–September 2019. - Attributed: The United States' proof of claim lists distributions which, it asserts on information and belief, ultimately flowed to accounts and entities owned or controlled by or for the benefit of the Sacklers, including $50,000,000 (18 April 2008), $250,000,000 (27 June 2008) and $199,012,182 (25 September 2008) to PLP Associates Holdings L.P.; smaller amounts to PLP Associates Holdings Inc. and Purdue Pharma Inc.; $100,000,000 each to Beacon Company and Rosebay Medical Company L.P. on 6 November 2008; payments to Purdue Holdings L.P. (the former name of Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P.) between September 2010 and September 2011, including $261,290,537 on 2 December 2010; and payments to BR Holdings Associates L.P. from December 2011, the last listed being $200,000 on 14 September 2017. It asserts that the Sackler family owns and controls PRA LP and the PLP and BR holding entities it names. [src-038] [src-004] - Qualification: Assertions of a creditor in a proof of claim, made on information and belief; the table gives approximate dates and amounts. - Attributed: The United States' proof of claim asserts that Purdue also transferred assets directly and indirectly to its parent PRA LP, which is not a party to the bankruptcy and is ultimately owned and controlled by entities owned and controlled by or for the benefit of the Sacklers, and lists Purdue's accounting valuations of the transferred assets: equity of Coventry Technologies, L.P. ($52,328,000, estimated date 1 January 2008); stock of Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ($21,160,000 on 31 December 2008, $11,830,000 on 7 January 2009 and $230,095,802 on 31 December 2013); equity of Millsaw Realty L.P. ($7,412,000, 1 January 2009); stock of Kolltan Pharmaceuticals ($12,950,000, 30 September 2009) and Kolltan stock and cash ($2,170,802, 31 December 2014); stock of Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. ($23,140,097, 28 February 2009); equity of Lucien Holdings S.ar.l. (negative $543,000, 2010) and of New Suffolk Holdings LLP ($32,761,081, 2010); rights to Dilaudid ($16,966,491, 1 May 2017); and rights to non-ADF OxyContin (1 January 2017) and to MS Contin (1 May 2017) with unknown values; the stated total is $412,272,152. It asserts that Purdue did not fully document many of the transfers or fully value certain of the assets and, on information and belief, that the transfers were made with intent to hinder creditors' recovery or without reasonably equivalent value. [src-015] [src-038] - Qualification: Assertions of a creditor in a proof of claim; the values are Purdue's accounting valuations as reported by the United States, not market values, and the line items in the retained copy do not add up exactly to the stated total. - Response: The Disclosure Statement expects the Sackler Parties to point to documents indicating that certain transfers of assets and certain off-market intercompany dealings were based on rational business planning or the continuation of long-standing practices, such as distributions for tax purposes. - Attributed: The Connecticut Attorney General's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 against Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., eight Sackler family members and other directors and executives alleges that in early November 2008 the Sacklers authorized distributions of $275 million each to Rosebay Medical Company L.P. and Beacon Company and shortly afterwards a further $325 million to the two; that in December 2010 they authorized $160 million and an additional $100 million of Purdue's profits to be paid to Rosebay Medical Company L.P. and Beacon Company through PLP Associates Holdings L.P. and BR Holdings Associates L.P.; and that $189,700,000 in April 2011 and $200 million and $140,800,000 in June and September 2011 were distributed to the two through the same holding companies. [src-051] - Qualification: Allegations of a state attorney general in a pleading; the retained record does not show them adjudicated. Some amounts and dates match the United States' proof of claim (for example the 2008 payments to PLP Associates Holdings L.P.) and others do not, and the United States lists the 2010–2011 payments as made to Purdue Holdings L.P. - Attributed: A 2019 press report, citing company records made public in the Massachusetts Attorney General's case, states that at a meeting in December 2010 the Sacklers and other board members approved the withdrawal of $261.3 million from Purdue, to be passed through three layers of holding companies and then split equally between Beacon Co. and Rosebay Medical Co., both controlled by Sackler trusts. The report quotes Kathe Sackler, asked in a deposition whether sums distributed between 2008 and 2011 reached any bank account she controlled, as answering “I hope so ... I think so.” [src-086] [src-038] - Qualification: Press account based on court filings; the United States' proof of claim lists $261,290,537 paid to Purdue Holdings L.P. on 2 December 2010, consistent with the report's figure. - Attributed: A December 2019 press report, citing court documents, states that the Sackler family transferred about $10.7 billion out of Purdue Pharma from 2008 to 2017, compared with $1.3 billion taken between 1995 and 2007. [src-049] - Qualification: Press figure whose scope the report does not explain; it differs from the debtors' 1A Report total of approximately $10.347 billion (Purdue and Rhodes, January 2008–September 2019) and the District Court's $10.4 billion (2008–2017). - Response: A lawyer for one branch of the family, Daniel Connolly, was reported as saying that more than half of the money outlined in the audit was “paid in taxes and reinvested in businesses that will be sold as part of the proposed settlement.” - Attributed: An Internal Revenue Service special agent's 2007 declaration, attached as Attachment I to the plea agreement of The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. and made in support of a forfeiture complaint against that company, states that from 1995 to 30 September 2004 The Purdue Pharma Company, a Delaware general partnership owned by and co-located with The Purdue Frederick Company and Purdue Pharma L.P., made distributions of approximately $2,854,760,301 in profits, including OxyContin proceeds, by wire transfers between Purdue-owned accounts at JP Morgan Chase to The Purdue Frederick Company and Purdue Pharma L.P., and that OxyContin receipts made up as much as 90% of total receipts. [src-105] - Qualification: Sworn declaration of a government investigator supporting forfeiture against The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; the distributions described are between group companies, not payments to family members. - Response: In the plea agreement the company (“PURDUE”, The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.) agreed to the filing of the civil forfeiture complaint and to sign a settlement agreement acknowledging that the settlement sum represents proceeds of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 and/or is forfeitable in lieu of other property. - Outcome: Under the 2007 plea agreement $276,100,000 was to be forfeited in cash in settlement of the forfeiture complaint. - Attributed: A 2021 student case study of the bankruptcy, summarising the debtors' Statement of Financial Affairs filed on 29 October 2019, reports that from the beginning of fiscal year 2019 to the petition date the debtors generated $999,694,017.44 in gross revenue and non-business revenue (interest, dividends, royalties and litigation recoveries) printed as “$202, 212,170”, and that payments or transfers to creditors of more than $6,425 within 90 days before the filing, other than regular employee compensation, totalled $333,635,947, overwhelmingly for professional services such as payment processing, legal advice, consulting and data processing. [src-059] - Qualification: Secondary summary of a court filing that is not itself retained; figures are as printed in the study. - Documented: Celldex Therapeutics, Inc.'s resale prospectus of 13 February 2017 (SEC Rule 424(b)(3)) records that on 29 November 2016 Celldex completed its merger with Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which became a wholly-owned Celldex subsidiary, and that Kolltan's investors received in exchange for their share and debt interests 18,257,996 Celldex shares with a calculated value of $62.5 million. The selling stockholders' shares were issued in that merger; they include Beacon Company and Rosebay Medical Company L.P., each with 259,507 shares. The prospectus states that the board of Stanhope Gate Corp., managing general partner of Beacon Company, and the board of Rosebay Medical Company, Inc., general partner of Rosebay Medical Company L.P. (Richard S. Sackler and Jonathan D. Sackler), hold the power to vote or dispose of those shares. [src-073] - Qualification: The prospectus does not state how Beacon Company and Rosebay Medical Company L.P. came to hold Kolltan interests; the United States' proof of claim lists Kolltan stock among the assets Purdue transferred to its parent PRA LP in 2009 and 2014, but the retained records do not trace those shares to these holdings. - Documented: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement states that Rhodes Tech (or its predecessor) was a subsidiary of Purdue Pharma L.P. before 2008; that on or around 1 January 2008 it was moved to a different Sackler Families ownership chain with the same ultimate owners, through Purdue Pharma's distribution of its interest in Rhodes Tech's parent to an affiliate, and came under common ownership with Rhodes Pharma, created in 2008; that until May 2019 the two were managed by boards separate from Purdue Pharma's, although some of their directors served as directors or officers of Purdue Pharma; and that in May 2019 Rhodes Pharma and Rhodes Tech were contributed to Purdue Pharma, becoming its subsidiaries. It adds that since 2017 Rhodes Pharma has sold the branded opioids MS Contin and Dilaudid, which Purdue contributed to it, and from 2017 an authorized generic of Butrans in exchange for a profit share. [src-015] - Documented: The same Novelos prospectus states that, following the financing transactions completed on 11 February, 25 August and 10 November 2009, Purdue transferred its Series E preferred stock, common stock and warrants of Novelos to Beacon Company and Rosebay Medical Company L.P., which it describes as independent associated companies of Purdue. [src-025] - Qualification: The United States' proof of claim separately lists Novelos stock valued at $23,140,097 among assets Purdue transferred to its parent PRA LP on 28 February 2009; the two documents name different recipients and the retained records do not reconcile them. ## What did Purdue make and own, and with whom did it deal? - Documented: Purdue Pharma L.P.'s bankruptcy petition of 15 September 2019, filed in the Massachusetts Attorney General's case with the debtors' notice of bankruptcy, states that Purdue Pharma L.P. directly owns 100% of the ownership interests of the debtors Purdue Transdermal Technologies L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P., Adlon Therapeutics L.P., Imbrium Therapeutics L.P., Greenfield BioVentures L.P., Nayatt Cove Lifescience Inc., Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., Rhodes Associates L.P., Avrio Health L.P., Seven Seas Hill Corp. and Ophir Green Corp., and 99% of Purdue Neuroscience Company, the remaining 1% of which is held directly by Purdue Pharma Inc. [src-001] - Documented: The same September 2019 petition states that Rhodes Associates L.P. directly owns 100% of the ownership interests of the debtors Rhodes Technologies, Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. and Paul Land Inc., and that Rhodes Technologies directly owns 100% of UDF L.P. and SVC Pharma Inc. [src-001] - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement of 1 July 2025 states that the debtors operate two main business segments through operating subsidiaries: a branded prescription medication business, comprising opioid and non-opioid medications and a pipeline of non-opioid candidates, carried on mainly by Purdue Pharma L.P. and its subsidiaries other than the Rhodes debtors, and a generic prescription medication business carried on by Rhodes Associates L.P. and its direct and indirect subsidiaries. Purdue Pharma L.P., a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, is the debtors' main operating entity; its general partner is Purdue Pharma Inc.; it owns, directly or indirectly, 22 operating and non-operating subsidiaries in the United States and the British Virgin Islands; and most of the debtors are managed by a single board of directors and wholly owned by the same ultimate owners, various trusts for the benefit of the descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. [src-015] - Documented: The 2025 Disclosure Statement states that the debtors employ approximately 439 people in active status, about 40% fewer than at the petition date and about 76% fewer than in 2017; that the sale transaction between Rhodes Tech and Noramco Coventry LLC reduced headcount by approximately 120 employees, many of whom received employment offers from Noramco; and that, unlike most debtors, they have no funded debt, no material past-due trade obligations and no judgment creditors. [src-015] - Documented: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement describes the debtors' three principal branded opioid medications: OxyContin, a Schedule II extended-release oxycodone tablet approved by the FDA in 1995 and launched in 1996, whose abuse-deterrent reformulation was approved and launched in 2010; Hysingla ER, an extended-release abuse-deterrent hydrocodone tablet approved in 2014 and launched in 2015; and Butrans, a Schedule III seven-day buprenorphine transdermal patch approved in 2010 and launched in 2011. The District Court's December 2021 decision likewise identifies OxyContin, Hysingla and Butrans as Purdue Pharma L.P.'s three principal branded opioid medications within a branded prescription business that includes opioid and non-opioid products. [src-015] [src-003] - Documented: The 2025 Disclosure Statement states that the Purdue debtors manufacture OxyContin and Hysingla for themselves and, in relatively limited amounts, manufacture OxyContin for certain foreign independent associated companies ultimately owned by the Sackler Families; that Purdue Pharma L.P. receives royalties from foreign independent associated companies for sales of OxyContin outside the United States; and that Butrans is manufactured by a third party, LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG. The District Court's 2021 decision also records that Purdue Pharma manufactures OxyContin for itself and, in limited quantities, for certain foreign independent associated companies. [src-015] [src-003] - Documented: The August 2018 patent settlement between Purdue entities and Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. defines the “Purdue Products” as OxyContin, Butrans, Hysingla ER, Intermezzo, Senokot, Colace, Betadine, SlowMag, Symproic, Dilaudid and MS Contin. [src-010] - Documented: The District Court's 2021 decision records that in the early 1980s Purdue developed its first controlled-release morphine drug, which it marketed as MS Contin. [src-003] - Documented: The District Court's 2021 decision records that OxyContin was widely prescribed after its launch: bonuses to Purdue sales representatives for the sale of OxyContin rose from $1 million in 1996 to $40 million by 2001, annual OxyContin sales reached $1 billion by 2001, and by 2001 OxyContin was “the most prescribed brand-name narcotic medication” in the United States. [src-003] - Documented: The District Court's December 2021 decision states that Purdue generated approximately $34 billion in revenue in total between 1996 and 2019, most of it from OxyContin sales, and that before the bankruptcy OxyContin accounted for some 91% of Purdue's U.S. revenue. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. quotes the same $34 billion figure. [src-003] [src-040] - Attributed: An Internal Revenue Service special agent's declaration attached to the 2007 plea agreement of The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. states that the FDA approved OxyContin on 12 December 1995; that from about January 1996 until 30 September 2004 OxyContin sales were recorded by The Purdue Pharma Company, a Delaware general partnership terminated on that date, and afterwards by Purdue Pharma L.P., of which The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. then became an owner; and that from 1995 to June 2006 Purdue had OxyContin gross sales of approximately $10.2 billion, or approximately $8.4 billion net of rebates and discounts. [src-105] - Qualification: Sworn declaration of a government investigator supporting a forfeiture complaint against The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. - Attributed: The factual background of the WIPO administrative panel's December 2010 decision records that Purdue Pharma L.P., a privately held U.S. pharmaceutical company that created OxyContin, had seen OxyContin grow into the eighth best-selling drug in the United States, grossing over USD 3 billion in sales in 2009. [src-036] - Qualification: Figure recited from the complainant's submissions in an uncontested domain-name proceeding; the panel did not audit it. - Attributed: A memorandum of 8 December 2020 from the majority staff of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform, prepared for a hearing on the role of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family in the opioid epidemic, states that since Purdue brought OxyContin to market in 1996 it has generated more than $30 billion in sales of OxyContin and the Sackler family has withdrawn more than $10 billion from the company. [src-037] - Qualification: Statement by committee majority staff, citing outside sources; it is not a finding of the Committee or the House. - Attributed: The Connecticut Attorney General's amended complaint of May 2019 alleges, citing publicly available information, that Purdue's annual revenue averaged about $3 billion, mostly from OxyContin, that Purdue made more than $35 billion since releasing OxyContin in 1995, and that in June 2010 Purdue gave the Sacklers an updated ten-year plan under which they stood to receive at least $700 million each year from 2010 through 2020. The Rhode Island Attorney General's 2022 complaint alleges that since 2009 Purdue's annual OxyContin sales fluctuated between $2 billion and $3 billion. [src-051] [src-055] - Qualification: Allegations in state complaints; the revenue figures are attributed by the pleadings to public information and are not audited, and they differ from the District Court's approximately $34 billion of total revenue for 1996–2019. - Attributed: Addendum A to the 2020 civil settlement agreement between the United States and the Named Sacklers states the United States' account that from 2010 to 2018 Purdue's profits were almost entirely driven by its success in selling OxyContin; that an April 11, 2012 budget presentation to Purdue's board showed certain federal healthcare benefit programs accounted for over 30% of Purdue's revenue from OxyContin sales; and that in a presentation to the board around June 20, 2011 Purdue's chief financial officer revised the forecast of OxyContin sales from $3.9 billion to $2.8 billion after the reformulation. [src-004] [src-003] - Qualification: Contentions of the United States; the agreement is neither an admission of liability by the Named Sacklers nor a concession by the United States. - Response: The Named Sacklers expressly deny the allegations regarding the Covered Conduct set out in Addendum A. - Outcome: Under the agreement the Named Sacklers agreed to pay the United States $225,000,000 plus interest. - Attributed: John Stewart, chief executive officer of Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc. from June 2007 to December 2013, stated in a declaration supporting the former executives' motion to dismiss the Massachusetts Attorney General's complaint that Purdue had been forced to defund its grant to a Massachusetts General Hospital pain programme when it lost patent protection for OxyContin and its revenues sharply declined, and that after OxyContin's patent protection was restored he was asked to discuss reinstating Purdue's financial support. [src-033] - Qualification: Sworn account of a defendant responding to the Commonwealth's allegations about the purpose of the grant; the retained text is a spaced-out OCR transcription. - Response: Stewart states that the Commonwealth's description of the grant's goal as increasing prescriptions of opioids, including OxyContin, is not consistent with his understanding of the goal of Purdue's grant while he was CEO. - Attributed: Craig Landau, who stated in a declaration that he had been chief executive officer of Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P. since June 2017 and had previously been Purdue's chief medical officer and head of clinical development, stated in that declaration, which supported the executives' motion to dismiss the Massachusetts Attorney General's complaint that Purdue's agreements with the Massachusetts company Analgesic Research, which he signed in his clinical-development role, related solely to the clinical development of Butrans and Hysingla, including clinical-trial design, risk-mitigation considerations and review of materials for New Drug Applications to the FDA, and not to Purdue's commercial plans or the marketing and promotion of those products after approval. [src-011] - Qualification: Sworn account of a defendant responding to the Commonwealth's allegations; the agreements themselves are not retained. - Response: Landau also states that he did not personally negotiate the contracts or meet Analgesic Research in Massachusetts in connection with them, and that the agreements were negotiated by other Purdue departments and presented to him for signature. - Attributed: The federal Information filed against Purdue Pharma L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on 24 November 2020 states that Purdue Pharma L.P. occupied a research and development facility in Cranbury, New Jersey, for non-clinical discovery research from about February 2002 to July 2017; that from at least 2002 through the first half of 2015 it sold and distributed OxyContin extended-release tablets manufactured by The P.F. Laboratories Inc. at a facility in Totowa, New Jersey; that from about 2005 to 2010 it leased overflow office space in West Paterson, New Jersey, for personnel associated with the Totowa manufacturing operations; and that from about March 2017 to September 2019 it leased a smaller R&D facility in Princeton, New Jersey. [src-041] [src-003] - Qualification: Background statements in a federal charging document; they describe facilities rather than conduct. - Outcome: The District Court's December 2021 decision records that in November 2020 Purdue pleaded guilty to a criminal Information filed by the Department of Justice in the District of New Jersey (No. 2:20-cr-01028). - Documented: A public notice of 25 March 2015 by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management on a draft RIPDES permit (No. RI0023868) records that Rhodes Technologies, of 498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island, applied for reissuance of its permit to discharge into the South Branch of the Pawtuxet River from its facility at 498, 500 and 500B Washington Street, and the statement of basis describes the facility as manufacturing active pharmaceutical ingredients for use in finished dosage pharmaceutical formulations. [src-079] - Attributed: A 2021 student case study of the bankruptcy, citing the debtors' sale motion and the court's order, records that Rhodes Technologies, a subsidiary of Purdue Pharma L.P., owned and operated an active-pharmaceutical-ingredient plant in Coventry, Rhode Island, that originally manufactured oxycodone API for OxyContin; that the debtors chose to outsource their API supply and, to avoid shutdown costs, sold the plant after a marketing and competitive bidding process to Noramco Coventry LLC, on condition that the debtors and Noramco enter into a supply agreement for a minimum of seven years with two two-year renewals at the debtors' option; and that, with no objections filed, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order on 1 October 2020 approving the sale and the long-term API supply agreement. [src-059] [src-015] - Qualification: Secondary summary of court filings that are not themselves retained. - Response: According to the case study, no objections to the sale motion were filed. - Outcome: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement records that Debtor Rhodes Technologies, Noramco Coventry LLC as purchaser and Noramco LLC as guarantor signed an asset purchase agreement on 14 September 2020; that on 1 October 2020 the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of Rhodes Tech's assets to Noramco Coventry LLC and the debtors' supply agreement with Noramco LLC (a minimum of seven years with two two-year renewal options); and that the sale closed and the supply agreement was entered into on 31 December 2020. - Attributed: KBR announced on 9 July 2014 that KBR Building Group, a subsidiary within KBR's Services Group, had been awarded a contract by Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P. to build a new oral solid dosage manufacturing plant in Durham, North Carolina: a 188,000-square-foot steel-framed facility on a 51-acre site in Treyburn Corporate Park. KBR stated that KBR Building Group had provided construction services to Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P. before. [src-063] [src-082] - Qualification: Contractor's press release about its own contract; the contract value is not stated. - Outcome: A November 2016 construction-industry award listing for the Durham plant names Purdue Pharma Manufacturing LP as owner and BE&K Building Group, not KBR Building Group, as general contractor. - Attributed: A 1 November 2016 award listing in a construction-industry trade publication names Purdue Pharma Manufacturing LP as owner of the oral solid dosage manufacturing facility in Durham, North Carolina, with SSOE Inc. as lead design firm and civil, structural and MEP engineer, BE&K Building Group as general contractor and McKee Building Group as program manager; the two-storey plant has a 128,000-square-foot first floor and a 60,000-square-foot second floor, with about 46,000 square feet of offices, laboratories and support areas. [src-082] [src-063] - Qualification: Trade-press account; it names a different general contractor from the July 2014 contractor announcement, and the retained records do not explain the relationship between the two firms. - Documented: The Board of Trustees of the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, announced that Purdue Pharma L.P. and Millsaw Realty L.P. had unconditionally withdrawn the protest petitions they filed in October and November 2004 against the proposed rezoning of a 7.45-acre parcel on Route 9A (Saw Mill River Road) sought by the developer Saw Mill Lofts, LLC. The withdrawal was announced at the board's meeting of 27 September 2005; because the petitions had required a 4-1 supermajority, the local law creating a Mixed-Use Planned Development District, voted 3-2 on 5 October 2004, was considered not passed and was not filed; after the withdrawal the board directed the Village Clerk to file it. [src-072] - Documented: Under a Strategic Alliance Agreement effective 19 November 2008, filed on the SEC's EDGAR system as an exhibit by Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Infinity and Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., a Delaware limited partnership with its principal office at One Stamford Forum, 201 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, Connecticut, formed an alliance to develop and commercialize FAAH products in the United States. The agreement was signed for Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. by its general partner, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products Inc., through James J. Dolan, Senior Vice President, Licensing and Business Development. [src-024] - Documented: Infinity Pharmaceuticals' press release of 20 November 2008, attached to the alliance agreement, announced a global strategic alliance with Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. and Mundipharma International Corporation Limited, under which Mundipharma received the right to commercialize the oncology products outside the United States. It stated that Purdue had made a $45 million equity investment through the purchase of four million Infinity shares at $11.25 per share, that “these entities” had agreed to invest a further $30 million for two million shares and warrants for up to six million more, and that Purdue would make a $50 million line of credit available to Infinity. [src-024] - Qualification: The press release refers to the investor as “Purdue” without naming the entity; Richard Sackler's declaration in the Massachusetts case refers to an investment by Purdue Pharma L.P. in Infinity, and the United States' proof of claim lists Infinity stock among assets Purdue transferred to PRA LP. - Attributed: In a March 2019 declaration supporting his motion to dismiss the Massachusetts Attorney General's complaint, Richard Sackler, a director of Purdue Pharma Inc. until 24 July 2018, stated that he had not conducted business for Purdue Pharma L.P. or Purdue Pharma Inc. in Massachusetts except in connection with an investment by Purdue Pharma L.P. in Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which ended in approximately 2013, and a securities purchase agreement with Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. that Purdue Pharma L.P. entered into in 2009, describing Infinity as a company specialising in cancer treatments and Novelos as developing treatments for cancer and hepatitis, neither being involved with opioids. [src-007] - Qualification: Sworn account of a defendant supporting his motion to dismiss; the investment details are consistent in part with the companies' SEC filings. - Documented: Novelos Therapeutics, Inc.'s 2010 prospectus filed with the SEC records that on 11 February 2009 Novelos sold 200 shares of Series E convertible preferred stock, with warrants to purchase up to 9,230,769 common shares at $0.65 per share, to Purdue Pharma, L.P., which it described as an independent associated company of Mundipharma, for a gross price of $10,000,000 (approximately $9,200,000 net), concurrently with Novelos' entry into a collaboration agreement with Mundipharma. [src-025] - Documented: Under a settlement agreement dated 28 August 2018, published on the SEC's EDGAR system as Exhibit 10.10, Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. (a New Jersey corporation) and Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. agreed with Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly Depomed, Inc.) to end the patent case Depomed, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. and The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00571 (D.N.J.). One or more of the Purdue entities were to pay Assertio $30 million on the signing date and $32 million on or before 1 February 2019 as a settlement of royalties for their and their associated companies' use of the Assertio patents up to the signing date and in consideration of the dismissal; the agreement contains no admission of liability, infringement or patent validity by either side. [src-010] - Documented: The August 2018 Assertio settlement was signed for Purdue Pharma L.P. and for Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. by their general partner, Purdue Pharma, Inc., acting through Jon Lowne as VP, CFO, and for The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. by Edward B. Mahony as VP, Finance. [src-010] - Documented: A settlement agreement dated 28 August 2006, published on the SEC's EDGAR system as Exhibit 99.1, records that Purdue Pharma L.P. (on its own behalf and as successor in interest to The Purdue Pharma Company, a Delaware general partnership), The Purdue Frederick Company Inc., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc. and Euro-Celtique S.A. (together the “Purdue Companies”) owned U.S. patents 5,549,912, 5,508,042 and 5,656,295, relating to and protecting controlled-release oxycodone products including OxyContin. [src-046] - Documented: The 28 August 2006 agreement settled the Purdue Companies' patent litigation with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. (Civil Action Nos. 00 Civ. 8029, 01 Civ. 2109 and 01 Civ. 8177, S.D.N.Y.) over Endo's ANDA No. 75-923 for generic versions of OxyContin. The agreement recites that the Federal Circuit had vacated the District Court's judgment that the Purdue patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct, affirmed the judgment that Endo infringed them and remanded the case; the parties agreed to a consent judgment, a patent licence agreement and mutual releases. [src-046] - Documented: In a WIPO domain-name case (Case No. D2010-1811) brought by Purdue Pharma L.P. against an individual registrant, the decision of a sole panelist of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center records that Purdue Pharma L.P. of Stamford, Connecticut, is the registered owner of at least two OXYCONTIN marks (U.S. Registration No. 2004586, registered in 1996, and No. 2033914, registered in 1997), and on 4 December 2010 the panel ordered four domain names containing “oxycontin” transferred to it; the respondent had no affiliation with Purdue and filed no substantive response. [src-036] - Attributed: A May 2023 press report states that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane, at a hearing in White Plains, New York, approved Purdue's sale of its consumer health business, Avrio Health, for $397 million to a subsidiary of Arcadia Consumer Healthcare, and that according to court documents Avrio Health, which sells over-the-counter antiseptics and laxatives, had never been involved in Purdue's opioid business. [src-015] [src-048] - Qualification: Press account of a court approval; the sale order and purchase agreement are not retained, and the report does not name the buyer subsidiary. - Outcome: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement records that on 4 April 2023 Debtor Avrio, Atlantis Consumer Healthcare Inc. and Arcadia Consumer Healthcare, Inc., as guarantor of Atlantis's obligations, signed an asset purchase agreement for the sale of substantially all of Avrio's assets to Atlantis, a wholly owned subsidiary of Arcadia; that the Bankruptcy Court entered its order approving the sale on 30 May 2023; and that the sale closed on 1 June 2023. It states that Avrio Health L.P. is now known as Purdue Products, L.P. - Attributed: A 1 March 2019 press report states that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Adhansia XR, an extended-release methylphenidate capsule for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in patients aged six and older, made by Adlon Therapeutics, a new subsidiary of Purdue Pharma; that Marcelo Bigal was chief medical officer of Purdue and general manager of Adlon Therapeutics; that the approval followed a 22 February announcement of an FDA orphan drug designation for a bile-duct cancer treatment made by another Purdue subsidiary, Imbrium Therapeutics; and that both subsidiaries were based in their parent company's building at 201 Tresser Blvd., Stamford. [src-050] - Qualification: Press account of company announcements. - Attributed: A 22 June 2017 announcement by the board of the Purdue/Napp/Mundipharma network of independent associated companies, appointing Craig Landau as president and CEO of Purdue Pharma L.P., states that under departing CEO Mark Timney, who joined in 2014, Purdue announced a collaboration with AnaBios on non-opioid, non-NSAID compounds for chronic pain, acquired the non-opioid treatment VM-902A and the TrkA pain program from VM Pharma, and launched a $790 million strategic research collaboration with Exicure on psoriasis treatments, a collaboration with Eisai to develop and commercialize the investigational candidate lemborexant, and an alliance with Shionogi for the U.S. launch and commercialization of Symproic (naldemedine). [src-074] - Qualification: Company announcement; the agreements and their terms are not retained. - Attributed: The Rhode Island Attorney General's Third Amended Complaint, submitted on 22 March 2022, alleges that Rhodes Technologies is a Delaware general partnership with its principal place of business in Coventry, Rhode Island, whose general partner, Rhodes Technologies Inc. (a Delaware corporation also based in Coventry), is a subsidiary of Purdue Pharma, L.P.; that Rhodes manufactures and distributes generic opioids, including authorized generic versions of OxyContin and Butrans; and that Rhodes Technologies manufactures the active pharmaceutical ingredient in drugs including Purdue's OxyContin. [src-055] [src-015] [src-001] - Qualification: Allegations in a state complaint describing the structure as pleaded in 2022. - Response: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement states that Rhodes Tech (or its predecessor) was a Purdue Pharma subsidiary before 2008, was moved on or around 1 January 2008 to a different Sackler Families ownership chain with the same ultimate owners, came under common ownership with Rhodes Pharma, created in 2008, and that in May 2019 Rhodes Pharma and Rhodes Tech were contributed to Purdue Pharma, becoming subsidiaries of Purdue Pharma L.P. - Outcome: As of the 15 September 2019 petition, Rhodes Associates L.P., itself wholly owned by Purdue Pharma L.P., directly owned 100% of Rhodes Technologies and Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. - Attributed: The same Rhode Island complaint alleges that Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., a Delaware limited partnership based in Coventry, Rhode Island, has one general partner, Rhodes Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and one limited partner, Coventry Technologies L.P., which holds its partnership interests; and that Coventry Technologies L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership based in Stamford, Connecticut, whose general partner is Purdue Pharma Inc. [src-055] [src-015] [src-001] [src-038] - Qualification: Allegations in a state complaint; the 2019 petition shows Rhodes Associates L.P. owning 100% of Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., and the United States' proof of claim lists Coventry Technologies equity among assets Purdue transferred to PRA LP with an estimated date of 1 January 2008. - Response: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement states that Rhodes Tech (or its predecessor) was a Purdue Pharma subsidiary before 2008, was moved on or around 1 January 2008 to a different Sackler Families ownership chain with the same ultimate owners, came under common ownership with Rhodes Pharma, created in 2008, and that in May 2019 Rhodes Pharma and Rhodes Tech were contributed to Purdue Pharma, becoming subsidiaries of Purdue Pharma L.P. - Outcome: As of the 15 September 2019 petition, Rhodes Associates L.P., itself wholly owned by Purdue Pharma L.P., directly owned 100% of Rhodes Technologies and Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. - Attributed: The New York Attorney General's First Amended Complaint, filed in Suffolk County on 13 September 2019 and attached to a 2019 letter rogatory, alleges that while Purdue was under federal investigation the Sacklers formed Rhodes to enter the generic opioid business; that Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. and Rhodes Technologies are each 100% owned by Coventry Technologies L.P., which is ultimately owned by the same trusts for the benefit of members of the Sackler family; that Rhodes Pharmaceuticals Inc. is the general partner of Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. and Rhodes Technologies Inc. the managing general partner of Rhodes Technologies; that a former senior Purdue manager described Rhodes as set up in 2007 as a “landing pad” for the family; and that Rhodes began selling generic opioids in 2009. [src-014] [src-015] [src-001] - Qualification: Allegations in a state complaint filed two days before the bankruptcy petition; the structure it describes matches the separate Sackler ownership chain that the debtors place between 2008 and May 2019, not the structure recorded in the petition. - Response: The debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement states that Rhodes Tech (or its predecessor) was a Purdue Pharma subsidiary before 2008, was moved on or around 1 January 2008 to a different Sackler Families ownership chain with the same ultimate owners, came under common ownership with Rhodes Pharma, created in 2008, and that in May 2019 Rhodes Pharma and Rhodes Tech were contributed to Purdue Pharma, becoming subsidiaries of Purdue Pharma L.P. - Outcome: As of the 15 September 2019 petition, Rhodes Associates L.P., itself wholly owned by Purdue Pharma L.P., directly owned 100% of Rhodes Technologies and Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P. - Documented: The list of creditors holding the 50 largest unsecured claims (excluding insiders) filed with Purdue Pharma L.P.'s petition of 15 September 2019 includes Rhodes Technologies Inc., 201 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, with a claim for services fees; the scanned figure reads “51,034,782”, most likely $1,034,782. The listing names Edward Mahony as the creditor's contact. [src-001] - Qualification: The amount is taken from an OCR transcription of the scanned list and should be read with that limitation. - Attributed: An April 2019 report by a campaign-finance research organisation states that Purdue Pharma increased its spending on congressional lobbying from $940,000 in 2017 to $1.12 million in 2018, its highest level, that nine of the ten lobbyists it employed in 2018 had previously worked in government, and that the company used the Purdue Pharma PAC to contribute to federal candidates, almost solely Republicans; in the 2018 cycle the PAC raised $35,679, its lowest since 2010, and spent $20,733. [src-095] [src-100] [src-005] [src-114] - Qualification: Figures compiled by the research organisation from federal lobbying and campaign-finance disclosures, which are not themselves retained for those years. The report attributes the PAC to “Purdue Pharma”; the Federal Election Commission registers it under the name of Purdue Pharma Inc. - Outcome: Craig Landau, Purdue Pharma L.P.'s CEO, testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on 17 December 2020 that, as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, Purdue had entered into a broad voluntary injunction in which it agreed to continue to refrain from lobbying for the enactment of laws that might be construed as encouraging the prescribing of opioid products for the treatment of pain. The New York Attorney General announced on 1 May 2026 that the successor company, Knoa Pharma, will be barred from lobbying and advertising its opioid products. The Federal Election Commission lists the Purdue PAC as terminated. - Documented: Federal Election Commission records show the PURDUE PHARMA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (PURDUE PAC), committee ID C00370643, registered on 17 December 2001 as a qualified corporation PAC and lobbyist/registrant PAC, now terminated. For 1 January to 16 September 2019 it reported cash on hand falling from $43,894.25 to $0.00, total receipts of $2,750.32 and total disbursements of $46,644.57, including $5,000.00 of contributions to other committees and, in September 2019, payments of $10,000.00 to $10,500.00 each to four charitable organisations. [src-114] ## Who pleaded guilty in the 2007 OxyContin case, and who paid? - Documented: The District Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) recited in its decision of 16 December 2021 that the FDA approved OxyContin in December 1995 and that in 2001 the FDA required Purdue to remove from the drug's label the claim that OxyContin had a very low risk of iatrogenic addiction and ordered it to add instead the highest level of safety warning the FDA can place on an approved drug product. [src-003] - Qualification: Background recited by the court; the decision uses 'Purdue' for the debtor group and does not say which Purdue company held the approval. - Documented: The District Court recited that by 2001 plaintiffs across the country had begun to file individual and class actions against Purdue in state and federal courts, including the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and that members of the Sackler family were not named as defendants in these lawsuits. Class certification was generally denied; in New York five state cases were transferred to the New York Litigation Coordinating Panel in 2005, after which 1,117 additional lawsuits were filed and coordinated, and settlement efforts followed in 2006–2007. [src-003] - Documented: In 2007 twenty-six states and the District of Columbia settled their investigations into Purdue's promotional and marketing practices for OxyContin for $19.5 million, and Purdue entered into a consent judgment with each of them (for example Washington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Thurston County Superior Court, 9 May 2007). The consent judgments define Purdue as Purdue Pharma, Purdue Pharma Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company and their United States affiliates; Purdue agreed to establish, implement and follow an OxyContin abuse and diversion detection (ADD) program for at least ten years and to submit annual compliance certifications to a multistate group of attorneys general for three years. [src-003] - Qualification: As recited by the District Court from the consent judgments; the retained record does not include the individual judgments. - Outcome: The District Court recorded that the 2007 Settlement and Plea Agreement were intended to resolve for all time issues relating to Purdue's misrepresentations about OxyContin; a second round of lawsuits followed from 2014 to 2019. - Documented: In exchange for Purdue's payment and compliance, the 2007 consent judgments released Purdue and its past and present officers, directors, shareholders, employees, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, predecessors, assigns and successors from civil claims the settling Attorneys General could have asserted under their state consumer protection laws for conduct up to the judgments' effective date. According to Bankruptcy Judge Drain, as cited by the District Court, these releases covered about seventy-seven members of the Sackler family. Not released were, among others, private consumer actions, Medicaid fraud and price-reporting claims, antitrust, environmental and tax claims, and any state or federal criminal liability. [src-003] - Attributed: The Connecticut Attorney General's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 states that Purdue agreed in 2007 to a Stipulated Judgment in a suit brought by the State of Connecticut, which ordered that Purdue 'shall not make any written or oral claim that is false, misleading, or deceptive' in promoting OxyContin, required 'fair balance' on risks including addiction, and required an abuse and diversion detection program to identify high-prescribing prescribers showing signs of inappropriate prescribing, stop promoting to them and report them, for ten years from 2007 to 2017. [src-051] [src-003] - Qualification: Description in the Connecticut Attorney General's complaint, which defines 'Purdue' as Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P.; the stipulated judgment itself is not among the retained records. Connecticut is listed among the twenty-six states in the 2007 multistate settlement. - Documented: The 2007 Information in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Abingdon Division (United States v. The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., No. 1:07-cr-00029), charged The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., doing business as The Purdue Frederick Company, in Count One with felony misbranding of OxyContin with intent to defraud or mislead (21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 352(a), 333(a)(2)), and charged Michael Friedman, Howard R. Udell and Paul D. Goldenheim in Count Two with misdemeanour misbranding (21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 352(a), 333(a)(1)) as senior executives and responsible corporate officers of Purdue Frederick between about January 1996 and 30 June 2001. Purdue Frederick waived indictment and consented to proceeding by Information. [src-105] [src-052] [src-003] - Documented: The District Court recited that Judge James P. Jones of the Western District of Virginia approved the 2007 Plea Agreement in July 2007 (No. 1:07-cr-00029, Dkt. No. 77). [src-003] - Documented: In the Agreed Statement of Facts attached to its plea agreement, The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. agreed that, beginning on or about 12 December 1995 and continuing until on or about 30 June 2001, certain of its supervisors and employees, with the intent to defraud or mislead, marketed and promoted OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion, and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications. The statement describes Purdue Frederick as a New York corporation headquartered in Connecticut, created in 1892 and purchased by its current owners in 1952, which developed and originally marketed OxyContin and received approximately $2.8 billion in revenue from OxyContin sales from January 1996 through 30 June 2001. [src-052] - Documented: The Agreed Statement of Facts records that between about January 1996 and 30 June 2001 Michael Friedman, Howard R. Udell and Paul D. Goldenheim were responsible corporate officers of The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 333(a)(1) and 352(a). The three individual defendants did not agree that they had personal knowledge of all the matters in paragraphs 1 through 44 of the statement, but agreed that the court could accept those facts, as agreed to by Purdue Frederick, as part of the factual basis for their own guilty pleas. [src-052] - Documented: The Agreed Statement of Facts records the three executives' careers at The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.: Michael Friedman joined in 1985 as Vice President and Assistant to the President and Chairman, became Group Vice President in 1988, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer in 1999, and President and Chief Executive Officer in 2003; Howard R. Udell joined in 1977 as General Counsel, became Group Vice President and General Counsel in 1989, Executive Vice President and General Counsel in 1999, and Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer in 2003; Paul D. Goldenheim joined in 1985 as Medical Director, held scientific and medical affairs posts from 1986, became Executive Vice President of Worldwide Research & Development in 2000 and also Chief Scientific Officer in 2003, and left Purdue Frederick in 2004. [src-052] - Documented: The corporate payments under the 2007 plea agreement were owed by 'PURDUE', which its financial-obligations section defines as The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. or Purdue Pharma L.P. They comprised a $500,000 maximum statutory criminal fine; forfeiture of $276,100,000 under a civil forfeiture complaint ($151,100,000 before the plea, $90,000,000 within six months and $35,000,000 within twelve months); $160,000,000 to settle civil governmental claims, namely $100,615,797.25 to the United States plus interest and $59,384,202.75 for participating states' Medicaid programs, which also satisfied restitution; $130,000,000 set aside for private civil claims relating to OxyContin, any balance unpaid after two years to go to the U.S. Treasury; $20,000,000 for the Virginia Prescription Monitoring Program; $5,300,000 to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit's Program Income Fund; and $3,087,277.60 to federal and state Medicaid programs for improperly calculated 1998–1999 rebates; it also agreed to spend not less than $5,012,722.40 on monitoring costs over seventy-two months. The District Court summarised the company's obligations as over $600 million in fines and other payments. [src-003] [src-105] - Qualification: The guilty plea was entered by The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; Purdue Pharma L.P. was a party to the civil settlement agreement and was included with Purdue Frederick in the plea agreement's definition of the paying party, but it did not plead guilty in 2007. - Documented: The U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia announced on 10 May 2007 that the company and the three executives together would pay a total of $634,515,475, of which the executives' personal payments made up about $34.5 million. The debtors' Disclosure Statement of 1 July 2025 describes the 2007 federal resolution as a $634.5 million settlement by 'Purdue Pharma and three senior executives' with the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney's Office, on top of a $19.5 million settlement with the attorneys general of 26 states and the District of Columbia that same month, and elsewhere as settlements with the federal government, 26 states and the District of Columbia in May 2007 for approximately $650 million; it adds that cash distributions for the benefit of the Sackler Parties increased sharply beginning in 2008, shortly after these settlements. [src-015] [src-105] - Qualification: The guilty plea was entered by The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; Purdue Pharma L.P. was a party to the civil settlement agreement and was included with Purdue Frederick in the plea agreement's definition of the paying party, but it did not plead guilty in 2007. The combined figures mix corporate and personal payments. - Documented: Under his 2007 plea agreement Michael Friedman agreed, under the heading of disgorgement, to transfer $19,000,000 to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit's Program Income Fund before entry of his plea, refundable only if the court rejected the agreement, and to pay a $5,000 fine, which the parties stipulated was at the upper end of the guidelines range, plus a $25 special assessment; the parties stipulated that restitution was not applicable to his conviction. These were personal payments, separate from the company's. [src-105] - Documented: Under his 2007 plea agreement Howard R. Udell agreed, under the heading of disgorgement, to transfer $8,000,000 to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit's Program Income Fund before entry of his plea, refundable only if the court rejected the agreement, and to pay a $5,000 fine plus a $25 special assessment. These were personal payments, separate from the company's. [src-105] - Documented: Under his 2007 plea agreement Paul D. Goldenheim agreed, under the heading of disgorgement, to transfer $7,500,000 to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit's Program Income Fund before entry of his plea, refundable only if the court rejected the agreement, and to pay a $5,000 fine plus a $25 special assessment. These were personal payments, separate from the company's. [src-105] - Documented: A Vice President's Certificate of The Purdue Frederick Company Inc. certified resolutions approved by written consent of the corporation's sole director dated 4 May 2007, which approved the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Plea Agreement, a Stipulation for Compromise Settlement, an Agreed Order of Forfeiture and a Civil Settlement Agreement among the United States (acting through the DOJ Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia, HHS-OIG, the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense TRICARE Management Activity and the Department of Labor Office of Workers' Compensation Programs), the corporation and Purdue Pharma L.P., and authorised Robin E. Abrams as Vice President to execute them. [src-105] - Documented: Robin E. Abrams signed the 2007 plea agreement and the Agreed Statement of Facts on behalf of The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. as its Authorized Corporate Officer, identified as Vice-President and Director of The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. and Vice-President and Associate General Counsel of Purdue Pharma L.P. [src-052] [src-105] - Documented: The District Court recited that in the federal civil settlement agreement of 2007 the United States released 'Purdue and its current and former directors, officers, employees, affiliates, owners, predecessors, successors and assigns' from civil or administrative monetary claims under federal statutes and from administrative actions, while the participating states' releases were limited to Medicaid claims for the covered conduct; all states except Kentucky opted into the federal settlement. Of the $130 million set aside for private claims, an attorney testified at the 2021 confirmation hearing that her approximately 5,000 clients received a total of $75 million. [src-003] - Documented: As part of the 2007 global resolution Purdue Pharma L.P. entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with HHS-OIG. The plea agreement obliged 'PURDUE', defined for its financial obligations as The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. or Purdue Pharma L.P., to spend not less than $5,012,722.40 over the next 72 months on monitoring to ensure that Purdue Pharma L.P. complied with the agreement and did not engage in further criminal activity, any unspent balance to go to the U.S. Treasury; the U.S. Attorney stated that Purdue was directed to retain and pay for an independent monitor. The District Court recorded that the monitoring period expired on 30 July 2012 and that in 2013 Purdue completed the corporate integrity program with no significant adverse findings. [src-034] [src-105] [src-003] - Attributed: The Connecticut Attorney General's 2019 complaint alleges that the Corporate Integrity Agreement required Purdue Pharma L.P. to appoint a Compliance Officer from senior management who would report at least quarterly to the Board of Directors, and that it treated all 'owners, officers, directors, and employees' of Purdue Pharma L.P. as 'Covered Persons', including the defendants serving in those capacities from 2007 through 2012; according to the complaint the directors and the CEO were trained, were required to report violations and certified that they had read and understood the rules and would comply with them. [src-051] - Qualification: Description of the agreement in the Connecticut Attorney General's complaint; the Corporate Integrity Agreement itself is not among the retained records. - Documented: HHS-OIG stated in January 2009 that it had previously excluded The Purdue Frederick Company for 25 years as part of a global resolution between the United States, Purdue Frederick and Purdue Pharma, a related company, and that as part of the same resolution the two Purdue companies agreed to pay $600 million in restitution and to settle their civil and criminal liabilities. [src-034] - Qualification: HHS-OIG's summary; the plea itself was entered by Purdue Frederick alone. - Documented: HHS-OIG excluded Michael Friedman, Paul D. Goldenheim and Howard R. Udell for 15 years from all Federal health care programs for their roles as responsible corporate officers who failed to prevent the misbranding and fraudulent distribution of OxyContin by Purdue Frederick. On 9 January 2009 Administrative Law Judge Carolyn Cozad Hughes affirmed the exclusions, finding that the three had the responsibility and authority to 'prevent or correct' Purdue Frederick's misbranding but 'failed to do so', that the costs to government programs and individuals were 'astronomical' and that their offences 'endangered the health and safety of program beneficiaries and others'. HHS-OIG announced the decision on 23 January 2009, describing Friedman as former Chief Operating Officer and then Chief Executive Officer, Goldenheim as former Chief Scientific Officer and Udell as former General Counsel of Purdue Frederick. [src-034] - Documented: In its 16 December 2021 decision the District Court wrote that, despite the 2007 Plea Agreement, in which in the court's summary 'Purdue admitted that it had falsely marketed OxyContin as non-addictive and had submitted false claims to the federal government for reimbursement of medically unnecessary opioid prescriptions', Purdue's profits after 2007 were driven almost exclusively by its aggressive marketing of OxyContin. [src-003] - Qualification: The decision uses 'Purdue' for the debtor group. The 2007 guilty plea was entered by The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. to felony misbranding; the false-claims liability was resolved by the civil settlement payments, not by a criminal plea. - Attributed: The State of New York's First Amended Complaint in the Suffolk County opioid litigation (brought by the New York Attorney General), reproduced as an exhibit to a letter rogatory filed on 13 September 2019, alleges that in May 2007 'the Purdue board voted to have the Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. ("PFC") plead guilty to misbranding OxyContin'; that the violations happened while Richard Sackler was CEO, Jonathan, Kathe and Mortimer D.A. Sackler were vice presidents and Richard, Jonathan, Kathe, Mortimer, Ilene, Beverly and Theresa Sackler were on the board; that PFC paid approximately $600 million and the individual defendants over $34 million; that Richard, Ilene, Jonathan, Kathe and Mortimer Sackler each certified in writing to the government that they had read and understood the Corporate Integrity Agreement rules and would obey them but continued to direct Purdue's deceptive marketing; and that after the 2007 convictions PFC effectively went out of business while the Sacklers continued the opioid business through Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P. [src-014] [src-003] - Qualification: Allegations of the New York Attorney General as a litigant, not findings. The 2007 plea was entered by The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; the three executives pleaded to misdemeanours, although the complaint says the individual executives pleaded guilty to a federal felony, and it cites 21 U.S.C. § 332(a)(2) where the plea was under § 333(a)(2). In the complaint's account the 'individual defendants' who paid over $34 million in 2007 are the three executives who pleaded guilty; no Sackler family member was charged in 2007. - Response: The exhibit notes that no answers had been filed in the proceeding at that date. - Attributed: The Connecticut Attorney General's amended complaint of 6 May 2019 alleges that in 2007 the directors of Purdue Pharma Inc., namely Richard Sackler, Jonathan Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Beverly Sackler and Theresa Sackler (the '2007 Sackler Directors'), decided that The Purdue Frederick Company would pay nearly $700 million in criminal fines and plead guilty to a felony, and that The Purdue Frederick Company, which went out of business in 2007, was entirely controlled by Purdue Pharma Inc. The complaint also describes Michael Friedman as the CEO of Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P. and The Purdue Frederick Company. [src-051] [src-105] [src-003] - Qualification: Allegations of the Connecticut Attorney General as a litigant. The plea records show that Purdue Frederick's plea documents were approved by written consent of its sole director dated 4 May 2007, and that the criminal fine was $500,000 within corporate payments of over $600 million. - Attributed: A press report described an internal Department of Justice memorandum dated 6 October 2006 and titled 'Proposed Indictment of Purdue Pharma LP', written by Kirk Ogrosky, then deputy chief of the DOJ Fraud Section, which recommended indicting the company for mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy and charging the executives Michael Friedman, Paul Goldenheim and Howard Udell with felonies. According to the report, the memorandum said that 'the alleged conspiracy began in October of 1992 and continues to date' and that the three executives had lied to Congress, whereas DOJ's public filings placed the end of the criminal conduct in 2001. A December 2020 memorandum of the majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform likewise stated that DOJ 'reportedly declined the recommendation of federal prosecutors to indict three of Purdue's top executives on felony charges'. [src-106] [src-037] [src-052] - Qualification: Known only from the press report; the memorandum itself is not among the retained records. The 2007 resolution charged narrower conduct: a single felony misbranding count against The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. for conduct from about December 1995 or January 1996 to 30 June 2001, and misdemeanour misbranding counts against the three executives; Purdue Pharma L.P. was not charged in 2007. - Response: Contacted for comment by the reporter, Purdue said: 'We have nothing to add at this time.' - Outcome: In May 2007 the matter was resolved by The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.'s plea to a single felony misbranding count for conduct up to 30 June 2001 and the three executives' misdemeanour pleas; according to the press report, the government agreed to limit Purdue's exposure on deceptive-marketing claims to six years from 1996 to 2001, and false testimony to Congress was not part of the deal. - Attributed: The same press report stated that none of the three executives had been in charge of Purdue during the years of the alleged crimes, when Purdue's presidents were Raymond Sackler and, from 1999, Richard Sackler; that false testimony to Congress was not part of the 2007 deal; and that the three non-Sackler executives pleaded guilty as individuals to misbranding, agreed to pay a total of $34.5 million in fines and were given probation. [src-106] [src-105] - Qualification: Press report; it does not say which Purdue company the two Sacklers led. The retained 2007 plea records show the executives' personal payments as $19 million, $8 million and $7.5 million to the Virginia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit plus $5,000 fines each, and do not include their sentencing judgments. ## Which governments sued Purdue and the Sacklers over opioids? - Documented: The list of the 50 largest unsecured creditors filed with Purdue Pharma L.P.'s Chapter 11 petition of 15 September 2019 states that certain of the debtors were named as defendants in over 2,600 actions across the country in connection with the marketing and sale of opioid medications, and that any claims asserted against a debtor in those pending actions were contingent, unliquidated in amount and disputed; those claims were left out of the list. [src-001] - Qualification: The count is the debtors' own figure at the petition date; Craig Landau's later testimony and the courts' accounts give different totals for the same moment. - Documented: Craig Landau, President and CEO of Purdue Pharma L.P., told the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in written testimony of 17 December 2020 that at the time Purdue filed for bankruptcy the company faced nearly 2,800 lawsuits filed in all 50 states. The Second Circuit later wrote that three days after the filing the debtors sought to halt almost 3,000 actions against Purdue and over 400 actions against the Sacklers, and the District Court's December 2021 decision puts the actions the injunction motion covered at over 2,900 against Purdue and at least 400 civil suits against the Sacklers. [src-100] [src-003] - Qualification: The petition list gave over 2,600 actions; the totals differ by speaker and date of counting and are not reconciled in the retained record. - Documented: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts sued Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc. in Suffolk Superior Court (Civil Action No. 1884-CV-01808 (BLS2), also cited as No. 18-1808-BLS2), together with eight family members as individual defendants — Richard, Theresa, Kathe, Jonathan, Mortimer D.A., Beverly and David Sackler and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt — the directors Peter Boer, Paulo Costa, Cecil Pickett, Ralph Snyderman and Judy Lewent, and the executives John Stewart, Mark Timney, Craig Landau and Russell J. Gasdia. A notice of suggestion of bankruptcy and automatic stay was filed in that case on 16 September 2019 (court stamp), reporting that Purdue Pharma L.P. and its affiliates had filed Chapter 11 petitions on 15 September 2019 (No. 19-23649) and that the filing stayed actions against the debtors. [src-001] [src-033] [src-078] [src-011] [src-032] [src-007] - Response: In a declaration executed in February 2019 and served on 1 March 2019 in support of his, Craig Landau's and Mark Timney's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, former CEO John Stewart stated that many of the complaint's allegations against him were not supported by, and in some instances were directly contradicted by, the documents the Commonwealth cited; Craig Landau and Mark Timney made the same statement in their own declarations. Family members and the independent directors filed declarations in March 2019 supporting their own motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint: those of Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt base the motion on lack of personal jurisdiction, and Richard Sackler's states that he did not direct marketing, sales or promotional activities in Massachusetts and never went into the field there with sales representatives to promote opioids. - Outcome: The automatic stay covered only the debtors; the preliminary injunction that also halted claims against the family members and other related parties was issued in the debtors' adversary proceeding Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. (Adv. Pro. No. 19-08289). - Documented: Before the Division of Consumer Protection of the Utah Department of Commerce, an administrative matter (DCP Legal File No. CP-2019-005, DCP Case No. 107102) named as respondents Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc. and The Purdue Frederick Company Inc., and, individually and as owners, officers, directors or key employees of those entities, Richard Sackler, M.D. and Kathe Sackler, M.D. The companies and the two individual respondents were represented by separate counsel; the companies' local counsel moved on 11 June 2019 for the admission pro hac vice of an out-of-state attorney for the three companies. [src-002] - Qualification: The retained filing is a procedural motion; it does not set out the Division's allegations or any outcome of the matter. - Documented: Maryland's Consumer Protection Division commenced an administrative proceeding, In re Purdue Pharma, et al., filed on 16 May 2019 against Purdue and certain related parties, alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices; the District Court's 2021 decision adds that Maryland asserted a consumer-protection claim against seven individual members of the Sackler family (not including Beverly Sackler) and sought civil penalties. [src-078] [src-003] - Qualification: Allegations of the State of Maryland as described in two S.D.N.Y. decisions; the administrative pleading itself is not retained. - Outcome: Maryland, as one of the non-consenting states, elected to abide voluntarily by the Bankruptcy Court's preliminary injunction and suspended the proceeding. From the extension order of 6 September 2024 (which the 2024 decision calls both the thirty-fifth extension and the Thirty-Seventh Amended Order) Maryland no longer consented, and it appealed the extension orders of 6 September, 27 September and 1 November 2024; on 26 November 2024 Judge McMahon affirmed them. - Documented: According to the Delaware Attorney General's office, Delaware was among the first states to sue Purdue: former Attorney General Matthew Denn filed suit in 2018, and Attorney General Kathy Jennings then sued the Sackler family in 2019. The District Court's 2021 decision describes Delaware's claims — three under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and claims for negligence and public nuisance — as asserted against seven individual members of the Sackler family (Beverly Sackler was not sued in Delaware), seeking civil penalties and abatement. [src-006] [src-003] - Outcome: On 1 May 2026 the Delaware Attorney General announced that the $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family had become legally effective and that it resolves litigation against Purdue and the Sacklers. - Attributed: The New York Attorney General sued Purdue Pharma in August 2018 over the marketing of OxyContin (New York v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 400016/2018, Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cnty.). In March 2019 — by an amended complaint filed on 28 March 2019, according to the District Court; the Attorney General's office describes it as a lawsuit that expanded on the August 2018 suit — the State added claims against eight members of the Sackler family and various Sackler entities: against the family members for public nuisance, fraud, gross negligence, willful misconduct, unjust enrichment, fraudulent conveyances, state finance and social services law violations and repeated fraud and illegality under Executive Law § 63(12), and against the "Sackler entities", described as vehicles used to transfer funds from Purdue to the family and including Rosebay and Beacon, for unjust enrichment and fraudulent conveyance. [src-003] [src-060] [src-014] - Qualification: Claims of the State of New York; the amended complaint was not litigated to judgment. - Response: A joint status report filed in the Suffolk County proceedings in August 2019 records that Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P. (formerly Purdue Holdings L.P.) and PLP Associates Holdings L.P. moved to dismiss on 5 August 2019, with the State's opposition due on 26 August 2019. - Outcome: The Attorney General's office stated in February 2021 that the cases against Purdue were then in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. - Documented: On 13 September 2019 a letter rogatory was filed in the Suffolk County proceedings (In re Opioid Litigation, Index No. 400000/2017, and the State's case, Index No. 400016/2018, printed 4000016/2018 in the caption) in which the Supreme Court of the State of New York requests assistance from the courts of the British Virgin Islands under the Hague Evidence Convention to obtain documents from Banela Corporation, to be used on the State's claims that certain defendants made constructive or intentional fraudulent conveyances or were unjustly enriched; it anticipated a trial in or about May 2020. Its list of applicable non-parties names Debevoise & Plimpton LLP as attorneys for Stillwater Holdings LLC, Banela Corporation, Stanhope Gate Corporation, Millborne Trust Company Limited, Heatheridge Trust Company Limited and Jonathan G. White. [src-014] [src-003] - Qualification: The letter rogatory describes the State's allegations; it is a discovery request, not a finding. The retained copy leaves the date beside the judge's signature line blank. - Outcome: The planned trial did not take place: Purdue filed for Chapter 11 two days later and on 11 October 2019 the Bankruptcy Court enjoined all litigation. - Attributed: An October 2019 commentary by a lawyer on a legal blog states that, to search for assets of the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma, the New York Attorney General used the Suffolk County lawsuit to issue subpoenas to bank witnesses in the United States — naming J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Bank of America, Charles Schwab, Citibank, HSBC, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs — and to others, including BR Holdings Associates Inc., to collect financial evidence about alleged fraudulent transfers by the family, and issued letters rogatory to offshore witnesses including Banela Corporation. [src-109] - Qualification: Secondary commentary; apart from the Banela letter rogatory and its subpoena, the subpoenas are not retained, and the alleged transfers are the State's allegations. - Outcome: The commentary reports that the Bankruptcy Court's injunction of 11 October 2019 froze these subpoenas and letters rogatory along with the claims against the family and Purdue in the Suffolk County case; the Second Circuit likewise records that on 11 October 2019 the bankruptcy court enjoined all litigation. - Attributed: The State of Connecticut, by Attorney General William Tong at the request of the Commissioner of Consumer Protection, sued under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act in State of Connecticut v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. X07 HHD-CV-19-6105325-S (Superior Court, Complex Litigation Docket at Hartford); the amended complaint of 6 May 2019 alleges unfair and deceptive practices from June 2007 to the present against Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., eight family members (Richard, Theresa, Kathe, Jonathan, Mortimer D.A., Beverly and David Sackler and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt), the directors Frank Peter Boer, Paulo Costa, Cecil Pickett, Ralph Snyderman and Judith Lewent, and John Stewart and Mark Timney. The District Court's 2021 decision describes the claims as four CUTPA counts and one fraudulent-transfer count against Purdue and eight family members, seeking civil penalties, restitution and disgorgement. A later Bankruptcy Court bench ruling cites a Second Amended Complaint in the case dated 1 July 2019. [src-051] [src-003] [src-101] - Qualification: Allegations of the State of Connecticut; the case was not litigated to judgment before the bankruptcy. - Outcome: Connecticut was among the eight states and the District of Columbia that, with the debtors and the Sacklers, filed a new settlement agreement providing for additional Sackler contributions, approved by the Bankruptcy Court's order of 10 March 2022; as part of it the nine agreed to withdraw their opposition to the plan. The settlement modified the earlier plan while its confirmation was on appeal; the Supreme Court later reversed the approval of that plan, and a different plan later took effect. - Attributed: The State of Rhode Island, by Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, sued in the Providence/Bristol County Superior Court (State of Rhode Island v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., C.A. No. PC2018-4555). Its Third Amended Complaint, submitted on 22 March 2022, groups as the "Purdue Defendants" Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc. and The Purdue Frederick Company; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., Rhodes Technologies and Rhodes Technologies Inc.; and Richard S. Sackler, the only family member it names. It also sues other opioid manufacturers and three distributors; the State voluntarily dismissed its claims against Insys Therapeutics on 11 June 2019 and against Insys's former chairman on 17 June 2019. [src-055] [src-003] - Qualification: Allegations of the State. The District Court's December 2021 decision described Rhode Island's earlier pleading as asserting six claims against Purdue and the eight individual members of the Sackler family; the retained 2022 complaint names only Richard S. Sackler among the family, and the record does not explain the difference. - Outcome: Rhode Island was among the eight states and the District of Columbia that, with the debtors and the Sacklers, filed the new settlement agreement approved by the Bankruptcy Court's order of 10 March 2022, and agreed to withdraw their opposition to the plan. The settlement modified the earlier plan while its confirmation was on appeal; the Supreme Court later reversed the approval of that plan, and a different plan later took effect. - Attributed: According to a press report of 22 August 2019, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who had sued Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc. in April 2019 over alleged deceptive marketing, filed a motion to add Richard Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Jonathan Sackler, Beverly Sackler, Theresa Sackler and David Sackler as defendants, alleging that as board members they participated in, directed, approved or were aware of Purdue's deceptive marketing and directed billions of dollars of company money to their personal accounts. [src-064] - Qualification: Press account of the Attorney General's allegations; the motion and its outcome are not in the retained record. - Attributed: According to a press report of 16 May 2019, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced a lawsuit, filed with Iowa, Kansas, Maryland and Wisconsin, seeking damages from Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Pharma LP and Richard Sackler, described in the report as the company's former chief executive and a board member, alleging unlawful marketing of opioids; it was West Virginia's second suit, the first having been filed in 2001 and settled in 2004 for $10 million. [src-065] - Qualification: Press account of the Attorney General's announcement; the complaint is not retained. - Response: The report states that Purdue denied the claims and would defend itself, saying the states could not link the harm of opioids to the company and had "invented stunningly overbroad legal theories". - Attributed: A press report of 7 July 2020 states that Colorado's lawsuit seeking damages for Purdue's alleged role in the state's opioid crisis named eight family members — Jonathan, Richard, Mortimer D.A., Kathe, Beverly, Theresa and David Sackler and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt — and that, of the nearly 3,000 lawsuits brought against the company by state and local governments, hundreds also named family members. [src-092] - Qualification: Press account; the Colorado complaint is not retained. Jonathan Sackler died on 30 June 2020, as the same report records. - Attributed: A 2021 law-school student case study of the bankruptcy states that on 31 July 2019 the State of Arizona, through its Attorney General, filed an action in the original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, State of Arizona v. Richard Sackler et al., No. 22O151, asserting claims under Arizona's fraudulent-transfer laws against Purdue Pharma L.P. and eight family members (Richard, Theresa, Kathe, Jonathan, Mortimer D.A., Beverly and David Sackler and Ilene Sackler Lefcourt), alleging that the family unlawfully transferred billions of dollars out of the company to avoid liability. [src-059] - Qualification: Secondary academic account; Arizona's motion for leave to file the bill of complaint, which the study cites with a date of 6 August 2019, is not retained. - Outcome: The study reports, citing a December 2019 press report, that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. - Documented: According to the District Court's 2021 decision, Florida settled an investigation into Purdue in 2002 for $500,000. [src-003] - Documented: According to the District Court's 2021 decision, West Virginia settled an action against Purdue in 2004 for $10 million; that settlement released the claims of the West Virginia Attorney General (for the state and state agencies) arising from the manufacture, marketing and sale of OxyContin in West Virginia against Purdue and its affiliates, shareholders, officers, directors and others. [src-003] - Documented: According to the District Court's 2021 decision, Mississippi settled its investigation into Purdue in 2006 for $250,000. [src-003] - Documented: According to the District Court's 2021 decision, in 2015 the New York Attorney General ended an investigation by an assurance of discontinuance (In the Matter of Purdue Pharma L.P., Assurance No. 15-151, 19 August 2015) in exchange for Purdue's payment of a $75,000 penalty and commitments including continued implementation of its abuse and diversion detection (ADD) program in New York and annual reviews and monitoring by the Attorney General. [src-003] - Documented: Kentucky's action against Purdue was settled for $24 million. The District Court's 2021 decision dates the settlement to 2016 in its list of state settlements and to 2015 where it records Richard Sackler's approval as a director; Connecticut's 2019 complaint states that Purdue agreed to pay Kentucky $24 million over eight years under a settlement announced in late 2015 of a suit Kentucky filed in 2007. [src-003] [src-051] - Qualification: The year differs between passages (2015 or 2016), possibly announcement versus completion; the settlement agreement itself is not retained. - Attributed: An online encyclopedia article states that Richard Sackler was deposed in Louisville, Kentucky in 2015 in connection with the Kentucky case, and that before trial Purdue settled for $24 million, with the deposition sealed and the Kentucky prosecutors required to destroy or return internal documents obtained in discovery; it adds that a medical news publication later sued to unseal the deposition, a state judge ruled in its favour, Purdue appealed, and the deposition was later made public. [src-027] - Qualification: Secondary account in an online encyclopedia article; the settlement terms on liability, sealing and document return and the unsealing litigation are not shown in a retained primary record. - Response: The same account states that Purdue admitted no liability in the settlement. - Documented: In March 2019 Purdue agreed to pay the State of Oklahoma $270 million to settle the state's opioid claims (Consent Judgment, Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma et al., No. CJ-2017-816, Dist. Ct. Cleveland Cnty., 26 March 2019), before a trial scheduled for May 2019. The District Court's 2021 decision records that the settlement released the claims of the Oklahoma Attorney General, the state and its subdivisions against Purdue, its officers, directors, shareholders, direct and indirect owners, beneficiaries of the owners and others, arising out of the conduct alleged in the complaint; Connecticut's 2019 complaint states that the $270 million was secured in large part by letters of credit. [src-003] [src-051] [src-039] - Qualification: The District Court uses "Purdue" for Purdue Pharma L.P. and its affiliated debtors; the consent judgment itself is not retained. - Outcome: The plan confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court in the bankruptcy case keeps a Purdue Oklahoma Subdivision Fund designated for Oklahoma subdivisions in the State's pre-petition settlement and waives that settlement's release conditions so that Oklahoma's litigating subdivisions may take part both in that fund and in the Governmental Remediation Trust. - Attributed: Connecticut's amended complaint of May 2019 states that, in connection with Purdue's 26 March 2019 Oklahoma settlement, the "Dr. Mortimer and Dr. Raymond Sackler families" agreed to make a "voluntary and irrevocable contribution" of $75 million in settlement of the case. [src-051] [src-039] - Qualification: Stated in the State of Connecticut's complaint; the Oklahoma settlement documents are not retained. The complaint does not say whether the families' $75 million was part of or in addition to the $270 million, or which family entities paid it. - Outcome: The plan confirmed in the bankruptcy case describes the Oklahoma settlement as the State's pre-petition settlement "with the Debtors and certain of the Sackler Parties and/or their Related Parties". ## Which consultants, agencies and distributors served Purdue? - Documented: In the list of the 50 largest unsecured creditors filed with Purdue Pharma L.P.'s Chapter 11 petition of 15 September 2019, three wholesale distributors appear with claims described as "distributor fees": AmerisourceBergen (no. 7, $4,485,373), McKesson Corporation (no. 9, $3,655,581) and Cardinal Health (no. 10, $3,468,979). [src-001] - Qualification: Unsecured claims as scheduled by the debtor at the petition date; the list does not state the contracts under which the fees arose. - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement for the Thirteenth Amended Plan, dated 1 July 2025, describes wholesalers ("Distributors") as the debtors' primary channel for selling prescription products: Purdue Pharma and Rhodes together had 40 different customer/distributors, but Cardinal, McKesson and Cencora (formerly Amerisource Bergen) generally accounted for over 90 percent of their gross sales. The same statement describes chargebacks that wholesalers claim from the debtors under the Federal Supply Schedule programs and warns that if the Distributors refused to do business with NewCo it would lose access to its primary sales channel. [src-015] - Qualification: Commercial description by the debtors in a risk-factor section; it concerns the distributors as customers, not their litigation role. - Documented: The federal courts' record of the Purdue Pharma L.P. bankruptcy case (No. 19-23649) on GovInfo lists the RDC Liquidating Trust, as successor-in-interest to Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., among the creditors. [src-115] - Qualification: A party listing; it does not state the nature or amount of the claim. - Attributed: Rhode Island's Third Amended Complaint (C.A. No. PC2018-4555, submitted 22 March 2022) sues, alongside the Purdue defendants and other manufacturers, McKesson Corporation d/b/a McKesson Drug Company, Cardinal Health, Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation as the "Distributor Defendants", describing them as the "big three" that dominate wholesale distribution, including in Rhode Island, and alleging that Purdue and the distributors failed to report suspicious orders. [src-055] - Qualification: Allegations of the State of Rhode Island against the distributors in their own capacity; being co-defendants is a litigation role distinct from their commercial dealings with Purdue, and the complaint is not a finding. - Attributed: Rhode Island's Third Amended Complaint alleges, "upon information and belief, based on the reporting of an industry-wide practice", that Purdue paid reimbursements known as "chargebacks" to wholesale distributors and thereby obtained information about where its drugs went as they moved from wholesalers to retailers, and that Purdue failed to report suspicious orders or retailers from 2014 onward despite that chargeback and prescribing data. [src-055] [src-015] - Qualification: Pleaded on information and belief by the State; the complaint defines "Purdue" as Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc. and The Purdue Frederick Company. The debtors' 2025 disclosure statement describes chargebacks that wholesalers claim from the debtors under the Federal Supply Schedule programs; it does not address the State's allegation. - Documented: The New York Attorney General's release of 1 February 2024 lists McKesson, Cardinal Health and Amerisource Bergen among the companies from which the Attorney General had recovered funds for New York opioid abatement since filing the 2019 lawsuit against opioid distributors and manufacturers — a resolution by the distributors of their own liability, separate from Purdue's. [src-062] - Qualification: The release links to, but does not itself describe, the earlier agreement with the three distributors. - Documented: The same petition list of Purdue Pharma L.P.'s 50 largest unsecured creditors includes Purple Strategies LLC (no. 39, of Alexandria, Virginia, trade debt $150,000) and Dezenhall Resources (Washington, D.C.), also listed with a trade debt. [src-001] - Qualification: The list describes both claims only as trade debt and does not say what services were provided; the Dezenhall amount is not legibly reproduced in the retained copy (it reads "5142485", apparently $142,485). - Documented: The petition list of Purdue Pharma L.P.'s 50 largest unsecured creditors includes Syneos Health, listed as formerly inVentiv Health, with a trade debt of $1,073,469. [src-001] - Qualification: The list gives the claim only as trade debt and does not describe the services provided. - Attributed: According to Addendum A, the consulting company told Purdue and its board in 2013 that the retail channel, both pharmacies and distributors, was under intense scrutiny, with wholesalers stopping shipments to an increasing number of pharmacies and imposing hard quantity limits, and it proposed an "alternative model for how patients receive OxyContin" that would bypass retail through a third-party vendor. The addendum states that on 16 and 18 August 2013 Mortimer D.A. Sackler asked Purdue's CEO about a new distribution system and a complementary business, that Richard Sackler replied he had had the same idea, that the Named Sacklers then approved E2E, and that in 2015 Purdue ('the company' in the addendum) entered agreements with three specialty pharmacies for Hysingla. [src-004] - Qualification: Contentions of the United States; the addendum does not name the consulting company or the specialty pharmacies. - Response: The Named Sacklers expressly deny the allegations regarding the Covered Conduct. - Analysis: The 2020 addendum does not name the consulting company behind E2E, but the Justice Department's December 2024 release on McKinsey describes the same engagement: it states that in May 2013 Purdue retained McKinsey to conduct a rapid assessment of the underlying drivers of OxyContin performance, identify key opportunities to increase near-term OxyContin revenue and develop plans to capture priority opportunities — the wording the addendum quotes from the 28 May 2013 contract — that this 2013 effort was called Evolve to Excellence, or E2E, and that after an August 2013 meeting with family members of the board a McKinsey partner reported a "ringing endorsement" of "moving forward fast", the phrase the addendum quotes from the consulting company's partners. The New York Attorney General's 2021 complaint likewise attributes the 2013 plan implemented as E2E to McKinsey. [src-004] [src-068] - Qualification: Inference from matching dates, contract wording and quotations in two DOJ documents; neither document states expressly that the unnamed company of the 2020 addendum is McKinsey, so the addendum's statements are kept as statements about an unnamed consulting company. - Documented: On 1 February 2024 the New York Attorney General, co-leading a coalition of every attorney general in the nation, announced a $350 million agreement with Publicis Health, LLC, part of Publicis Groupe, S.A., described as the first settlement with an advertising agency for its role in the opioid crisis: $350 million to be paid within 60 days, a prohibition on Publicis accepting future contracts or engagements related to the marketing or sale of opioids, and the release of hundreds of thousands of internal documents on its work for Purdue and other opioid manufacturers and its communications with consultants such as McKinsey and Practice Fusion; New York's share was $19,176,750.60. [src-062] - Qualification: Terms as described in the Attorney General's release; the consent judgment is not retained. The payment is Publicis Health's own liability, not Purdue's. - Attributed: According to the New York Attorney General, from 2010 through 2019 Publicis Health worked with Purdue Pharma L.P. as its advertising agency to develop marketing campaigns and materials promoting OxyContin, Butrans and Hysingla, created materials that promoted OxyContin as safe and unable to be abused, implemented Purdue's "Evolve to Excellence" programme developed by McKinsey, and conspired with McKinsey & Company, Inc. and Practice Fusion, Inc. to push false and deceptive strategies to increase Purdue's opioid sales. [src-062] - Qualification: The Attorney General's allegations announced with the settlement; not a court finding. - Outcome: Resolved by the agreement announced on 1 February 2024, under which Publicis Health pays $350 million within 60 days and may not accept future contracts or engagements related to the marketing or sale of opioids. ## What did McKinsey do for Purdue, and how did the cases end? - Documented: John Stewart, Chief Executive Officer of Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc. from June 2007 to December 2013, stated in a declaration in the Massachusetts case that McKinsey & Company performed work for Purdue of nationwide scope; that as CEO he was aware of McKinsey's work and occasionally met McKinsey's managing director, who worked in Stamford, Connecticut, about the projects; and that he had no day-to-day role in them, for which specific groups of Purdue personnel were generally responsible. [src-033] - Qualification: Sworn statement of a defendant made in support of the CEO defendants' motion to dismiss, addressing his contacts with Massachusetts; the Commonwealth's allegations about McKinsey's work to which it responds are not retained. - Attributed: The Justice Department's December 2024 release, summarising the Agreed Statement of Facts, states that in May 2013 Purdue retained McKinsey to conduct a rapid assessment of the underlying drivers of OxyContin performance and identify key opportunities to increase near-term OxyContin revenue; that this effort, called Evolve to Excellence (E2E), included McKinsey advising Purdue on how to "turbocharge" the OxyContin sales pipeline by, among other strategies, intensifying marketing to High Value Prescribers, including prescribers writing opioid prescriptions for uses that were unsafe, ineffective and medically unnecessary; that McKinsey consultants went on "ride-alongs" with Purdue sales representatives; that in August 2013 McKinsey partners presented their findings to members of the Purdue board from the family that controlled Purdue; and that after E2E McKinsey did further work for Purdue aimed at maximising OxyContin sales to High Value Prescribers. [src-068] - Qualification: DOJ's summary of the statement of facts agreed in the McKinsey resolution; the statement itself is not retained, and the release notes that details in the charging documents and civil resolution are allegations. - Attributed: The New York Attorney General's complaint against McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States (Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, Index No. 400001/2021, filed 5 February 2021) alleges that McKinsey sold its ideas to Purdue Pharma, L.P. for more than fifteen years, from 2004 to 2019, before and after the 2007 guilty plea (called Purdue's in the complaint; it was entered by the affiliate The Purdue Frederick Company); that in 2008 it worked with Purdue on its FDA-mandated risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS); that in 2009 Purdue hired it to increase "brand loyalty" to OxyContin; that in 2013 it laid out a plan, approved by Purdue and implemented with McKinsey as "Evolve 2 Excellence" (E2E), to "Turbocharg[e] Purdue's Sales Engine"; and that McKinsey partners sat on an Executive Oversight Team and Project Management Office reporting to Purdue's executives, the Purdue board and members of the Sackler family individually. [src-061] [src-060] - Qualification: Allegations of the State under General Business Law § 349, filed together with a consent judgment; not adjudicated. - Outcome: The complaint was filed together with an agreement and consent judgment under which McKinsey was to provide more than $573 million to the participating states and territories and stop advising on Schedule II and III opioids. - Attributed: The same complaint alleges that when a large pharmacy chain took steps to scrutinise suspicious opioid orders, McKinsey stressed to Purdue's owners the "need to take action" and told them to engage in senior-level discussions with the chain, increase efforts with patient advocacy groups against dispensing limits and accelerate an alternative distribution channel such as mail-order delivery of OxyContin to patients; it also states that there were indications that individuals at McKinsey considered destroying or deleting documents about their work for Purdue, and that in 2019 McKinsey announced that it no longer worked for Purdue or other opioid manufacturers. [src-061] - Qualification: Allegations of the State of New York; the paragraph does not say which of Purdue's owners McKinsey addressed and does not name the pharmacy chain. - Documented: The New York complaint against McKinsey, dated 4 February 2021, pleads one claim under New York General Business Law § 349 and asks for a declaration that McKinsey engaged in deceptive acts, a permanent injunction against deceptive trade practices, monetary relief of up to $32.158.566.52 (as printed in the retained copy) and costs. [src-061] [src-060] - Qualification: Relief requested, not awarded by a court; the Attorney General's release states that New York was to receive more than $32 million under the multistate agreement. - Attributed: The New York Attorney General's release of 4 February 2021 states that McKinsey promoted marketing schemes and consulting services to opioid manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma, for over a decade, advising Purdue and members of the Sackler family who control Purdue on how to maximise profits from its opioids — including targeting high-volume prescribers, messaging to get physicians to prescribe more OxyContin and circumventing pharmacy restrictions — and that when states began to sue Purdue's directors, McKinsey partners began emailing about deleting documents related to their work for Purdue. [src-060] - Qualification: The Attorney General's characterisation of conduct alleged in the complaint filed with the consent judgment; not a court finding. - Attributed: In connection with the five-year deferred prosecution agreement entered by McKinsey & Company, Inc., the U.S. Attorneys for the Western District of Virginia and the District of Massachusetts charged McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, McKinsey's U.S. subsidiary, by a criminal Information in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia (Abingdon), entered on 13 December 2024, with two counts: a misdemeanor conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) in that, from about April 2012 through February 2018, it knowingly and intentionally conspired with Purdue Pharma L.P. and others to aid and abet the misbranding of prescription drugs held for sale without valid prescriptions; and a felony (18 U.S.C. § 1519) in that, between about April and September 2018, through the acts of a senior partner, it knowingly destroyed and concealed records with intent to impede a federal investigation. [src-067] [src-068] - Qualification: Charges resolved by a five-year deferred prosecution agreement, not a conviction; the DOJ release notes that the details in the charging documents are allegations. Purdue Pharma L.P. is named as a co-conspirator, not charged, in this Information. - Outcome: Prosecution was deferred under the five-year deferred prosecution agreement, and McKinsey agreed to total payments of $650 million under the criminal and civil resolution. - Attributed: The 2024 civil False Claims Act settlement also resolves allegations that from 2014 to 2017 McKinsey US knowingly misled the FDA by assigning consultants to work concurrently on FDA projects and competitively sensitive Purdue projects, contrary to its conflict-of-interest policy, and allegations that from 2013 to 2014, by advising Purdue to turbocharge OxyContin marketing to High Value Prescribers, it caused false claims for OxyContin to be submitted to federal health programmes. [src-068] - Qualification: Allegations resolved by the civil settlement; liability under the False Claims Act was settled, not adjudicated. - Response: According to the DOJ release, McKinsey US admitted that it did not inform the FDA that its consultants worked on the Purdue projects around the same time those consultants also worked on the FDA project. - Outcome: Resolved by McKinsey's civil settlement agreement, under which it pays over $323 million to resolve its False Claims Act liability. - Documented: According to the Justice Department's release of 13 December 2024, McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States (McKinsey US) admitted that it did not inform the FDA that its consultants worked on the Purdue projects around the same time those consultants also worked on an FDA project; the release refers to conflicts of interest arising from McKinsey US's concurrent work for Purdue Pharma L.P. and the FDA. [src-068] - Qualification: An admission recorded in the civil resolution as summarised by DOJ; the related allegation that McKinsey US knowingly misled the FDA from 2014 to 2017 was settled, not adjudicated. - Attributed: According to the charging documents as summarised by the Justice Department, Martin E. Elling, a former senior partner of McKinsey, served as Director of the client services team for approximately 30 of McKinsey's engagements with Purdue, had a senior, relationship-focused role on the E2E engagement and was involved in securing that engagement for McKinsey; McKinsey terminated him as part of its remedial measures. [src-068] - Qualification: Description in the DOJ release of the charging documents and the DPA; the charging documents against Elling are not retained. - Attributed: The Justice Department announced on 13 December 2024 that Martin E. Elling, a former McKinsey senior partner, had been charged in federal court in Abingdon, Virginia, with one count of knowingly destroying records, documents and tangible objects with intent to impede, obstruct and influence a Justice Department investigation. The charging documents allege that on 4 July 2018, after reading that a Purdue board member was being sued by state attorneys general, he emailed another senior partner about whether to do anything other than eliminate "all our documents and emails", and that forensic analysis of his McKinsey laptop found he had removed Purdue-related materials and a Purdue-related email folder. [src-068] - Qualification: A charge and an agreement to plead guilty as announced; the retained record does not show the plea being entered or any sentence. The release states that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. - Response: According to the release, Elling agreed to plead guilty and was expected to appear in federal court in Abingdon to enter his plea and for sentencing at later dates. - Documented: The claims agent's website for the Purdue bankruptcy lists among the related proceedings two adversary proceedings brought by local governments against McKinsey — Alma, Georgia et al. v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. et al. (No. 22-07044) and Bayonne, New Jersey et al. v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. et al. (No. 22-07045). The plan confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court (Doc 8263) provides that all retained causes of action against McKinsey & Company and the other parties on the Schedule of Excluded Parties constitute "MDT Causes of Action", which are among the assets the plan transfers to the Master Disbursement Trust. [src-039] - Qualification: The plan's treatment preserves the estate's claims against McKinsey; it does not establish their merit, and the retained record does not show their outcome. ## What did Purdue Pharma L.P. admit in 2020, and how was it sentenced? - Documented: The debtors' Disclosure Statement of 1 July 2025 states that they had been under investigation by the DOJ since at least June 2016: Purdue Pharma L.P. received a subpoena from a United States Attorney's Office in summer 2016 seeking documents on the marketing of OxyContin and, from December 2017, further subpoenas and requests from several other U.S. Attorney's Offices and DOJ components on topics including its opioid medications, the debtors' monitoring programs, payments to professionals and marketing practices. Purdue Pharma L.P. produced more than 13 million documents (over 100 million pages) to the DOJ, including more than 2.7 million documents (more than 17 million pages) in direct response to DOJ requests. [src-015] - Attributed: On 30 July 2020 the United States (Department of Justice) filed a proof of claim in the Purdue bankruptcy cases asserting non-dischargeable civil claims under the False Claims Act, unjust enrichment, the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and the civil forfeiture statute, estimating single damages of $2.8 billion or more plus treble damages and penalties. It alleged that from 2010 through 2018 Purdue detailed prescribers nationwide, including prescribers it knew were facilitating medically unnecessary prescriptions; paid kickbacks to prescribers through its corporate advisor and speaker programs (from 2013 through 2018 over $3 million for advising and over $10 million for speaking); paid Practice Fusion, an electronic health records vendor, to create a 'Pain CDS' alert that was live on its platform from on or about 6 July 2016 to the spring of 2019; and from October 2015 through 2018 paid three specialty pharmacies over $137,000 to fill OxyContin prescriptions that other pharmacies had rejected. [src-038] [src-045] - Qualification: Allegations of the United States in its proof of claim, made on information and belief while its civil investigation was ongoing and with a reservation of the right to amend. - Outcome: In the civil settlement announced on 21 October 2020 Purdue agreed to give the United States an allowed, unsubordinated, general unsecured claim of $2.8 billion; DOJ stated that, except to the extent of Purdue's admissions in the criminal resolution, the claims resolved by the civil settlements are allegations only and that there has been no determination of liability in the civil matters. - Documented: On 21 October 2020 the Department of Justice announced a global resolution of its criminal and civil investigations into Purdue Pharma LP, subject to approval by the bankruptcy court: Purdue Pharma agreed to plead guilty in federal court in New Jersey to a three-count felony information (one count of dual-object conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and two counts of conspiracy to violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute), with a criminal fine of $3.544 billion and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, of which the company would pay $225 million on the effective date of the bankruptcy and DOJ was willing to credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on State and local governments; Purdue also agreed to a $2.8 billion civil settlement of its False Claims Act liability. A condition was that the company cease to operate in its current form and emerge from bankruptcy as a public benefit company owned by a trust or similar entity for the benefit of the American public. DOJ stated that the resolutions did not include the criminal release of any individuals, including members of the Sackler family, and that no company executives or employees received civil releases. [src-045] - Documented: On 24 November 2020 the United States filed a three-count Information against Purdue Pharma L.P. alone in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Criminal No. 20-1028 (MCA), Case 2:20-cr-01028, Hon. Madeline Cox Arleo), the defendant having waived prosecution by indictment. Count One charged a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, from on or about 11 May 2007 through on or about 9 February 2018, to defraud the United States by impeding the DEA's ability to prevent the diversion of controlled substances and to aid and abet the misbranding of prescription drugs held for sale without valid prescriptions. Count Two charged a conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute from at least about June 2009 through about February 2018 by paying prescribers kickbacks disguised as speaker fees. Count Three charged a conspiracy with Practice Fusion and others, from no later than about March 2016 through at least November 2016, to pay Practice Fusion remuneration in return for arranging or recommending the company's opioid products. [src-041] [src-077] [src-015] [src-039] - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Documented: DOJ's announcement of 21 October 2020 described what Purdue would admit as part of the plea: that from May 2007 through at least March 2017 it conspired to defraud the United States by impeding the lawful function of the DEA, representing that it maintained an effective anti-diversion program while continuing to market its opioid products to more than 100 health care providers it had good reason to believe were diverting opioids, and reporting misleading prescription data to the DEA to boost its manufacturing quotas, the conspiracy also involving aiding and abetting violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; that between June 2009 and March 2017 it paid two doctors through its speaker program to induce more prescriptions; and that from approximately April 2016 through December 2016 it paid Practice Fusion Inc. in exchange for referring, recommending and arranging for the ordering of OxyContin, Butrans and Hysingla. The District Court later recorded that in Schedule A to the plea agreement, to whose facts the corporation stipulated, Purdue admitted offering payments to induce prescriptions, offering prescription savings cards, and failing to maintain effective controls against diversion, including failing to inform the DEA that health care providers flagged for abuse filled over 1.4 million OxyContin prescriptions. [src-003] [src-045] - Response: The District Court noted that the Sacklers do not concede the truth of Purdue's admissions. - Documented: The Second Circuit's opinion of 30 May 2023 described the terms of the 2020 plea agreement: DOJ agreed it would 'not initiate any further criminal charges against Purdue'; Purdue agreed to a $2 billion forfeiture judgment that gave DOJ 'superpriority' to collect in the event of a liquidation of the estate; DOJ would release $1.775 billion of its $2 billion claim so long as a future distribution plan established an abatement trust for the public benefit and a document repository; and while the plea agreement released Purdue from any additional civil or administrative monetary claims by the government for the covered conduct, it expressly did not release criminal liability. The debtors' Disclosure Statement of 1 July 2025 adds that Purdue Pharma L.P. will be excluded from participation in federal healthcare programs if the plea agreement is accepted and it is convicted, and that the resolution anticipates a public benefit company or similar entity continuing to sell the debtors' medicines after that exclusion. [src-044] [src-015] [src-077] - Documented: On 28 April 2026 Purdue Pharma LP was sentenced in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, and ordered to pay criminal penalties of over $5 billion: a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, to be assessed in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments through the bankruptcy if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity. Purdue is also required to host a public document repository of documents relating to the criminal charges. [src-077] - Documented: The Bankruptcy Court's order of 18 November 2025 confirming the Eighteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan carries the DOJ claims as follows: the DOJ Civil Claim of $2.8 billion, the DOJ Criminal Fine Claim of $3.544 billion and the DOJ Forfeiture Judgment Claim of $2 billion, each as defined in the court's earlier order authorising and approving the settlements between the debtors and the United States (the 'DOJ 9019 Order', D.I. 2004); a DOJ Forfeiture Judgment Credit for value distributed or conferred by the debtors in respect of non-federal domestic governmental claims and tribe claims, not to exceed $1.775 billion; and a DOJ Forfeiture Payment of $225 million in cash by Purdue Pharma L.P. to the United States Marshals. The DOJ civil claim and the criminal fine claim are grouped as 'DOJ Unsecured Claims'. The order finds that the aggregate value conferred under the plan on non-federal domestic governmental and tribe claims exceeds $1.775 billion. [src-039] - Documented: The Information's forfeiture allegation as to Count One stated that Purdue Pharma L.P. shall forfeit all property derived from gross proceeds traceable to the conspiracy and the value of misbranded and unapproved drugs introduced into interstate commerce, 'the value of which totaled $2,000,000,000'; it also sought forfeiture of gross proceeds traceable to Counts Two and Three, with a substitute-assets provision. [src-041] [src-077] - Outcome: At sentencing on 28 April 2026 the court ordered $2 billion in criminal forfeiture. - Attributed: The Information alleges that Purdue Pharma L.P. directed its hundreds of sales representatives to visit the most prolific opioid prescribers repeatedly, in part because it knew that the top 2 percent of opioid prescribers wrote close to 80 percent of OxyContin prescriptions nationwide; that it listed them as 'Super Core' and 'Core' prescribers on call lists even after its own analytics showed that the highest prescribers were those most likely to be engaged in diversion; and that it had representatives give prescribers prescription savings cards to defray patients' costs. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information states that Purdue Pharma L.P. implemented Standard Operating Procedure 1.7.1, later named the Abuse and Diversion Detection (ADD) Program, in or around November 2002 and kept it in effect until in or around April 2018, shortly after it ceased promoting opioids to prescribers; field staff were to file 'Reports of Concern' (ROCs), and prescribers the company decided to stop detailing were placed on a 'Region Zero' list. It alleges that between 2007 and 2018 the company received ROCs or reviewed data analytics on approximately 6,500 prescribers and pharmacies and that in over a hundred instances it continued to market and promote its opioid products to a prescriber despite information indicating diversion. [src-041] [src-038] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. The United States' 2020 proof of claim likewise describes the ADD program as operating from about 2002 until 2018 under SOP 1.7.1. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that Purdue Pharma L.P. knew it was generating over one hundred million dollars a year from prescriptions written by prescribers flagged for the Region Zero list, that at various times its executives provided the company's Board of Directors with data on those prescriptions, including the exact prescriptions, units and dollars generated by each such prescriber, and that it continued to honour the redemption of prescription savings cards linked to hundreds of Region Zero prescribers. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. The Information states that the board of Purdue Pharma Inc., the general partner, managed Purdue Pharma L.P.; it does not name the directors who received the data. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that, although its anti-diversion efforts were failing, Purdue Pharma L.P. touted their effectiveness to the DEA: on or about 12 April 2011 a senior member of its legal department and a senior member of its compliance team met DEA personnel and explained that the ADD Program was designed to prevent marketing to prescribers engaged in abuse or diversion, and in or around October and December 2011 company representatives again told DEA staff that the program was effective in combatting illegal diversion. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that Purdue Pharma L.P. and certain Purdue Entities annually applied to the DEA for authorisation to manufacture quantities of Schedule II controlled substances within the DEA's quotas and, to support the requests, supplied prescription data presented as legitimate sales while knowingly failing to inform the DEA that a significant portion of the prescriptions (valued at over $1.17 billion between May 2007 and February 2018) were written by Region Zero prescribers it knew or believed to be engaged in diversion. The overt acts list such oxycodone submissions by Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. as registrant from 27 February 2008 to 7 May 2018 and by Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P. on 10 July 2018. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. DOJ's description of the admitted conduct includes reporting misleading information to the DEA to boost manufacturing quotas; the subsidiaries named as registrants were not charged. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: Count One of the Information alleges that, as part of the conspiracy, Purdue Pharma L.P. knew that certain prescribers its sales representatives detailed and supplied with prescription savings cards wrote invalid OxyContin and other opioid prescriptions, continued detailing and supplying them after learning this, and intended its products to be dispensed under those prescriptions to maximise revenue; approximately 96 percent of its opioid products dispensed under these invalid prescriptions were paid for by health care benefit programs. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that Purdue Pharma L.P. sales representatives detailed Prescriber-1, a 'Super Core' prescriber in Nevada, at least 422 times between about January 2007 and February 2018, during which Prescriber-1's OxyContin prescriptions generated over $6.7 million in gross proceeds for the company, and that the company continued its sales and marketing efforts after a representative reported on or about 21 October 2009 a local pharmacist's complaint that Prescriber-1's patients were selling their prescriptions. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that after a sales representative's report of concern on or about 10 November 2014 about Prescriber-2, a 'Super Core' prescriber in New York, a senior ADD Program employee recommended on or about 24 November 2014 that representatives cease calling on Prescriber-2 and that the company refer Prescriber-2 to the DEA, but a few hours later the ADD Program reversed course after a group 'consultation'; the company resumed detailing and, from November 2014 until Prescriber-2's indictment in June 2017, detailed Prescriber-2 about 34 times and earned about $834,402 in gross proceeds from Prescriber-2's OxyContin prescriptions, without ever referring Prescriber-2 to the DEA. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that Prescriber-3, a 'Super Core' prescriber in Alabama who wrote the most OxyContin prescriptions in the United States between about 2010 and 2013, was detailed at least 214 times between January 2007 and March 2013 and generated over $24 million in gross proceeds; that after a report on or about 9 December 2011 that Prescriber-3 was under investigation by law enforcement, the company directed its representatives to continue calling; and that from December 2011 until Prescriber-3 surrendered the medical licence in March 2013 the company detailed Prescriber-3 about 40 times, redeemed roughly 332 savings cards and earned over $7 million, never referring Prescriber-3 to the DEA. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that Prescriber-4, a 'Super Core' prescriber in Michigan who was also a paid member of the company's Speaker Program and spoke for it about 21 times in 2012 and 2013, was detailed at least 325 times between January 2007 and May 2014, generating approximately $16,952,962 in gross proceeds, and that after a report that Prescriber-4's office had been raided by law enforcement the company directed its representatives on or about 26 March 2012 to continue calling on Prescriber-4. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that from February 2004, when Purdue Pharma L.P. first knew or had good reason to believe that Prescriber-6, a 'Super Core' prescriber in Ohio, was diverting opioids, until it disbanded its opioid sales force in February 2018, the company detailed Prescriber-6 approximately 226 times, redeemed roughly 420 prescription savings cards linked to Prescriber-6 and earned over $47.1 million in gross proceeds from Prescriber-6's OxyContin prescriptions, having directed its representatives on or about 25 March 2015 to resume calling on Prescriber-6. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that from December 2002, when Purdue Pharma L.P. first knew or had good reason to believe that Prescriber-9, a 'Super Core' prescriber in Nevada, was diverting opioids, until it stopped redeeming prescription savings cards linked to Prescriber-9 in March 2017, the company detailed Prescriber-9 over 438 times, redeemed roughly 884 savings cards and earned over $15.3 million in gross proceeds from Prescriber-9's OxyContin prescriptions. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. The Information's summary paragraph refers to the savings cards as 'linked to Prescriber-8', apparently a slip for Prescriber-9. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that Prescriber-10, a 'Super Core' prescriber who owned a multi-prescriber pain clinic in New York and was among the top OxyContin prescribers in the nation from 2007 through 2014 (as many as 12,961 OxyContin prescriptions in a year), was detailed about 227 times between November 2003, when the company first knew or had good reason to believe Prescriber-10 was diverting opioids, and its last redemption of savings cards linked to Prescriber-10 in February 2016, with roughly 232 savings cards redeemed and over $25.8 million in gross proceeds; between January 2007 and February 2016 the company never took any action to refer Prescriber-10 to the DEA or any other regulatory or law enforcement agency. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegation in the Information. Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts, and DOJ described the conduct it admitted as running from May 2007 through at least March 2017 and involving more than 100 providers; the agreed statement (Schedule A) is not among the retained records, so this detail remains the prosecution's account. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: Count Two of the Information alleges that from about June 2009 through about 2016 Purdue Pharma L.P. paid Prescriber-11 at least $476,000 in fees, items and reimbursements as kickbacks to induce prescriptions, during which Medicare paid over $7 million for Prescriber-11's OxyContin prescriptions; that it gave Prescriber-11 approximately 85 paid speaking engagements although it knew Prescriber-11 was an ineffective speaker, and that Prescriber-11 wrote the most Medicare-reimbursed OxyContin prescriptions in the United States from about 2010 through 2018; and that from about March 2011 through about 2018 it paid Prescriber-12 at least $120,000 as kickbacks. [src-041] [src-045] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegations in Count Two of the Information. DOJ described the admitted kickback conduct as payments to two doctors through the speaker program between June 2009 and March 2017; the agreed statement is not retained. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information alleges that Purdue Pharma L.P. paid kickbacks to Practice Fusion, Inc., an electronic health records (EHR) provider, in exchange for Practice Fusion using its software to influence physicians' prescribing of extended-release opioids, including OxyContin, Butrans and Hysingla. It describes Practice Fusion as a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco that provided a cloud-based EHR product to healthcare providers generally without charge and earned revenue by selling 'sponsorships' of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts to pharmaceutical companies. According to the Information, the two companies executed a written contract for a 'Pain CDS' in about March 2016, Purdue Pharma L.P. paid Practice Fusion approximately $959,700 from about March through November 2016, and Practice Fusion maintained the alert on its platform from about July 2016 until about April 2019, during which it triggered in more than 230,000,000 patient visits. [src-041] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Allegations in Count Three of the Information, which charged Purdue Pharma L.P. with conspiring with Practice Fusion and others; Practice Fusion was not a defendant in this case. DOJ described the admitted payments to Practice Fusion as running from approximately April through December 2016. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Attributed: The Information quotes Practice Fusion's own model, built after a 31 March 2015 presentation to Purdue Pharma L.P., estimating that funding a Pain CDS would give the company a 'patient gain' of 2,777 users of its extended-release opioids and between $8,458,232 and $11,277,645 in additional opioid revenue, a return on investment of 5.8 to 7.8 times its cost; an email excerpt reproduced in the Information, discussing the program's value to Purdue, records that 'they enjoy an 83% share in the branded ERO space', the speaker not being legible in the retained copy. [src-041] [src-015] [src-077] [src-039] - Qualification: Practice Fusion's internal estimates and correspondence as quoted by the prosecution in the Information; they are not independent market data. - Response: Purdue Pharma L.P. pleaded guilty to the three counts; in its press release of 21 October 2020 announcing the resolution, its board chairman Steve Miller stated that 'Purdue deeply regrets and accepts responsibility for the misconduct detailed by the Department of Justice in the agreed statement of facts.' No separate response to this particular allegation was found in the reviewed record. - Outcome: On 28 April 2026 the court sentenced Purdue Pharma L.P. to a criminal fine of $3.544 billion, assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, against which DOJ will credit up to $1.775 billion for value conferred on state, local and tribal governments if Purdue ceases to operate in its current form and emerges as a public benefit company or similar entity; the plan confirmed on 18 November 2025 carries both as DOJ claims and finds that the value conferred exceeds $1.775 billion. - Documented: Conditioned on full payment, the Named Sacklers' agreement releases the Named Sacklers, family members, family trusts and their trustees and protectors, the Purdue parent entities and the independent associated companies listed in its addenda from specified civil and administrative monetary claims of the United States based on the covered conduct. It does not release any claims the debtors' estates can bring, including fraudulent transfer claims against the debtors' current or former owners, shareholders or board members; OIG-HHS reserved its authority to seek exclusion from federal health care programs. DOJ stated that the resolution did not resolve claims that states may have against Purdue or members of the Sackler family, nor impede the debtors' ability to recover any fraudulent transfers. [src-004] [src-045] - Documented: The federal criminal case named only Purdue Pharma L.P. as defendant, and no member of the Sackler family was criminally charged in it. In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (decided 27 June 2024), Justice Kavanaugh's dissent stated that 'the U. S. Government has not brought criminal charges against any of the Sacklers individually' and that no State had done so either; DOJ's October 2020 announcement had stated that the resolutions did not include the criminal release of any individuals, including members of the Sackler family. [src-040] [src-041] [src-045] - Qualification: The dissent speaks as of June 2024 and in the context of the opioid litigation and Purdue's bankruptcy. ## How did Purdue's Chapter 11 case unfold from 2019 to 2022? - Documented: In the proof of claim of the United States (Department of Justice) in case 19-23649, the United States stated that Purdue had represented to the Bankruptcy Court in the Debtors' Informational Brief that it ran all debtors as a single entity, and that the court had set 30 July 2020 as the deadline for governmental entities to file proofs of claim against any of the debtors. [src-038] - Documented: The District Court recorded in its December 2021 decision that only certain U.S.-based Purdue entities (the debtors) filed for bankruptcy on 15 September 2019; members of the Sackler family and Sackler entities such as Rosebay and Beacon did not file, although they had been named as defendants in opioid-related lawsuits. The Second Circuit likewise recorded that Purdue and its related entities declared bankruptcy and the Sacklers did not. [src-003] [src-044] - Documented: Purdue Pharma L.P., acting as foreign representative of itself and the 23 other Chapter 11 debtors, obtained recognition of the U.S. cases in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Court File No. CV-19-627656-00CL). According to the foreign representative's factum of September 2021, the recognition proceedings were commenced on 19 September 2019, and on 30 December 2019 the Ontario court granted a Related Party Stay Order recognising the U.S. preliminary injunction and extending the stay to the Related Parties, including the Canadian Associated Entities; as a result the Canadian Actions, the New Quebec Class Action and the Sackler Estate Action have been stayed against the Chapter 11 debtors and the Related Parties, including Sackler family members, since 30 December 2019. The factum, based on an affidavit of Jon Lowne sworn on 9 September 2021, supported a motion to recognise the U.S. order confirming the Twelfth Amended plan. [src-047] - Documented: On 27 September 2019 the U.S. Trustee appointed nine creditors to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (UCC), which the District Court describes as an independent fiduciary representing the interests of all unsecured creditors in the Purdue bankruptcy. The institutional appointees were the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; CVS Caremark Part D Services L.L.C. and CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C.; LTS Lohmann Therapy Systems, Corp.; the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; and West Boca Medical Center; the other appointees were individual creditors. The committee also had ex officio, non-voting representatives: Cameron County, Texas, on behalf of the MSGE; the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, on behalf of certain tribal creditors; and Thornton Township High School District 205, on behalf of certain public school districts. [src-003] - Documented: According to the District Court, other creditor groups formed between September and November 2019, including the Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental and Other Contingent Litigation Claimants (AHC), formed in September 2019 and comprising ten states, six counties, cities, parishes or municipalities, one federally recognised tribe and the court-appointed co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in the opioid MDL; the PI Ad Hoc Group of 60,761 personal-injury claimants; the Multi-State Governmental Entities Group (MSGE) of 1,317 entities across 38 states and territories; and the Ad Hoc Group of Non-Consenting States (NCSG) of 25 states and the District of Columbia counted together that had not reached a pre-petition agreement with Purdue or the Sacklers on the general contours of a plan (all three formed in October 2019); groups of NAS children, ratepayers and hospitals also formed. [src-003] - Documented: On 3 January 2020 Purdue moved to set deadlines for proofs of claim; on 3 February 2020 the Bankruptcy Court set 30 June 2020 as the bar date for prepetition claims and on 3 June 2020 extended it to 30 July 2020. According to the District Court, over 614,000 claimants filed during the five months the window was open, including the federal government, states and political subdivisions, Native American tribes, hospitals, third-party payors, ratepayers, public schools, NAS monitoring claimants and more than 130,000 personal-injury victims; just 10% of the claims filed would give rise to over $140 trillion in aggregate liability, and 628,389 claims had been filed as of 21 October 2021. The Second Circuit recorded that claims against the debtors and the Sacklers were estimated at more than $40 trillion and, as the appellees conceded, that the valuation of the claims far exceeded the total funds available as well as the Sacklers' personal wealth. [src-003] [src-044] - Documented: On 20 February 2020 the debtors asked the Bankruptcy Court to appoint mediators and to require the debtors and creditor committees to mediate the allocation of the estates' value between public and private claimants; on 2 March 2020 the court appointed retired judge Layn Phillips and Kenneth Feinberg as co-mediators. Phase one (formal sessions from 6 March to 11 September 2020) allocated value between non-federal public claimants and private claimants: the non-federal public claimants agreed to dedicate all value they received to opioid abatement, and each private-claimant term sheet was conditioned on a plan including participation by the Sackler families. On 30 September 2020 the court ordered a second phase to address potential claims of the debtors and other claimants against the Sackler family members (the 'Shareholder Claims'), with the debtors, the UCC, the 'Consenting Ad Hoc Committee', the NCSG, the MSGE and Sackler representatives as mediating parties. Court-ordered mediation formally ended on 31 January 2021 without a resolution agreed by all constituencies, but negotiations on the Sackler contribution continued. [src-047] [src-003] - Documented: The Special Committee of the debtors' board of directors investigated the claims the debtors might have against the Sackler Parties. According to the Bankruptcy Court's bench ruling of 20 November 2025, it was formed in May 2019, held exclusive authority over all transactions between Purdue and the Sackler Parties and over the prosecution, defence and settlement of the debtors' causes of action against their shareholders, the Sackler Parties and their affiliates, and consisted of four restructuring and pharmaceutical professionals with no prior connection to the Sackler Parties; to protect its independence, the shareholders of Purdue Pharma Inc. granted its general counsel an irrevocable proxy over certain shareholder rights, including appointing and removing the chairman and the directors who sit on the committee. Its investigation began in spring 2019 and lasted 22 months, and a court-appointed independent examiner selected by the DOJ found that it had acted independently. John S. Dubel, appointed to the board in July 2019, chaired the committee. [src-101] [src-003] - Documented: The Bankruptcy Court's bench ruling of 20 November 2025 describes a stipulation among the debtors, the UCC and certain related parties (ECF No. 291, the 'UCC Stipulation') under which the debtors and the Sackler Parties provided diligence materials to the UCC and others; in it certain Sackler Parties agreed not to take any action with respect to their property with the intent or material effect of frustrating any judgment that might be obtained against them, and the Sackler Parties committed to provide material information and presentations on the value, location and format of their assets. [src-101] - Documented: According to the Bankruptcy Court's bench ruling of 20 November 2025, early in the cases the court, at the debtors' request, entered a voluntary injunction banning the debtors' promotion of opioids and later broadened it to include limits on lobbying for opioid-enhancing legislation, an agreement to abide by the Food and Drug Administration's decision on high-dose opioids, self-monitoring obligations and oversight by an independent monitor; the injunction also prohibited certain of the Sackler Parties from actively engaging in the opioid business in the United States. Purdue Pharma L.P.'s chief executive Craig Landau told the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in written testimony dated 17 December 2020 that in the previous year, as part of the bankruptcy, Purdue had entered into a broad voluntary injunction agreeing to continue refraining from promoting opioids with a sales force (a measure he said the company first implemented under his leadership in February 2018) and from lobbying for laws that might be construed as encouraging opioid prescribing for pain, subject to independent monitoring. [src-101] [src-100] - Documented: After its own investigation of potential claims against the Sackler Parties, including intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty, the UCC, with the consent of the debtors and the AHC, moved for sole standing to commence and prosecute the causes of action of the debtors' estates; the Bankruptcy Court granted the request in November 2024, as recorded in its bench ruling of 20 November 2025. [src-101] - Documented: According to the debtors' 2021 factum in the Canadian recognition proceeding, before the petition date and after more than a year of negotiations the debtors, their shareholders and key stakeholders reached an agreement in principle on a framework for a global resolution of the opioid litigation, with three core pillars: 100% of the assets or equity of Purdue to be contributed to efforts to abate the opioid crisis; a sale process for the shareholders' ex-U.S. pharmaceutical businesses; and a multi-billion-dollar payment over time to the debtors' estates. The Bankruptcy Court's bench ruling of 20 November 2025 describes this 'Initial Settlement Framework' as requiring Purdue's shareholders to relinquish their equity, sell their non-U.S. pharmaceutical businesses and make a multi-billion-dollar payment, and as the starting point for further negotiations with the Sackler Parties. [src-047] [src-101] - Attributed: At the time of the filing Purdue represented, as quoted by the District Court, that while it had 'no funded debt and no material past due trade obligations' or any 'judgment creditors', 'the onslaught of lawsuits has proved unmanageable'. According to the debtors' 2021 Canadian factum, before the Chapter 11 cases certain debtors, including Purdue Pharma L.P., faced over 2,600 civil actions in U.S. state and federal courts and thirteen actions in Canada relating to the sale, distribution and marketing of OxyContin and other opioid pain medications. [src-003] [src-047] - Qualification: Purdue's own description of its financial position at filing, as quoted by the District Court, which added that by 2018 at the latest Purdue was in a precarious financial position in the face of the lawsuits. - Response: The District Court, relying on testimony that the Sacklers made broad releases a condition of their contribution, concluded that Purdue's bankruptcy 'was thus a critical part of a strategy to secure for the Sacklers a release from any liability for past and even future opioid-related litigation without having to pursue personal bankruptcy'. - Documented: On 7 May 2021 the Bankruptcy Court asked Bankruptcy Judge Shelley C. Chapman to preside over a mediation between the NCSG and the Sackler families on the settlement terms; between 7 May and 29 June 2021 she held 145 telephone meetings and several in-person sessions. The resulting modified shareholder settlement was agreed in principle by fifteen of the twenty-five non-consenting states (Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin), which also agreed to support or not object to the plan. It added $50 million of payments by the Sackler families and accelerated another $50 million of previously agreed payments, for total payments of $4.325 billion; materially expanded the public document repository; and restricted Sackler family members' naming rights for charitable contributions (according to the debtors' factum, until they have paid all obligations under the Shareholder Settlement and exited all opioid businesses worldwide). The factum adds that the improved settlement imposes certain requirements on the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation and the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Fund for the Arts and Sciences. The Shareholder Release was unchanged. Purdue filed the mediator's report on 7 July 2021. [src-003] [src-047] - Documented: The debtors filed their initial plan and disclosure statement on 15 March 2021 according to the District Court and the debtors' Canadian factum (16 March 2021 according to the court-appointed claims agent's case website). After a hearing on 26 May 2021, the Bankruptcy Court on 3 June 2021 approved the Disclosure Statement and authorised solicitation of votes on the Fifth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan. The confirmation hearing began on 9 August 2021 according to the District Court (a six-day event in which 41 witnesses testified, followed by oral argument) and on 12 August 2021 according to the claims agent's website and the debtors' factum (which describes three weeks, 41 witnesses, more than 2,800 exhibits and 64 objections, supplemental objections or joinders). On 1 September 2021 Judge Drain ruled orally that he would confirm the plan if certain changes were made, the most relevant narrowing the Section 10.7(b) shareholder release to claims for which a debtor's conduct or the claims against it are a legal cause or a legally relevant factor. According to the District Court Purdue filed the final version of the plan (Bankr. Dkt. No. 3726) the next day, after twelve amendments in all; the District Court's 2024 decision dates the Twelfth Amended Plan to 9 September 2021. On 17 September 2021 Judge Drain issued his written decision and the court entered the order (Docket No. 3787) confirming the Twelfth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization. [src-020] [src-003] [src-047] [src-078] [src-044] [src-040] - Outcome: The District Court vacated the confirmation order on 16 December 2021; the Second Circuit reversed that decision on 30 May 2023 and affirmed confirmation including the modification of 10 March 2022; the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit on 27 June 2024. The debtors then negotiated a new plan: the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Eighteenth Amended plan on 18 November 2025 and it became effective on 1 May 2026. The claims agent's website summarises the appeals as the 2021 order having been reversed. - Documented: Votes on the 2021 plan were solicited by the debtors' solicitation agent with a voting record date of 10 March 2021 and a deadline of 16 July 2021. According to the debtors' factum, more than 120,000 timely ballots were received, more than 95% of them in favour, with support within the voting classes ranging from 88.26% to 100% by number and 93.54% to 100% by value. The District Court recorded Judge Drain's findings that some 120,000 votes were cast and over 95% favoured the plan in aggregate, including over 79% of states and territories, over 96% of other governmental entities and tribes and over 96% of personal-injury claimants; eight states and the District of Columbia, certain Canadian municipalities and indigenous tribes, the City of Seattle and some 2,683 individual personal-injury claimants voted against. The Second Circuit noted that over 95% of the personal-injury classes voted to accept. The Supreme Court's majority opinion added that, although most of those who returned ballots supported the plan, fewer than 20% of eligible creditors participated. [src-047] [src-044] [src-003] [src-040] - Documented: As summarised by the District Court and the debtors' factum, under the 2021 plan the debtors would turn over substantially all their assets for the benefit of claimants and opioid abatement. The majority of Purdue's value would be distributed among nine creditor trusts, most of them abatement trusts, including the National Opioid Abatement Trust for qualified governmental entities, while the PI Trust and the PI Futures Trust would pay qualifying personal-injury claimants, and an additional $700 to $750 million would go to a trust for personal-injury claimants. Purdue Pharma would cease to exist: its operating assets would pass to a new company ('NewCo', to be named KNOA) operating as a public benefit company, governed by five or seven disinterested and independent managers initially selected by the AHC and the MSGE in consultation with the debtors and the UCC, subject to a DOJ right of observation, an Operating Injunction (among other things barring promotion of opioid products), governance covenants and a monitor, with its managers to use reasonable best efforts to sell NewCo's assets by 21 December 2024. The debtors were also to create a public document repository of more than 13,000,000 documents (more than 100,000,000 pages). [src-003] [src-047] - Documented: According to the debtors' factum, the Shareholder Settlement required the Sackler Parties to use their best efforts to sell their international pharmaceutical companies, the independent associated companies (which are ultimately owned by the same entities that own the debtors but are not subsidiaries of the debtors), within seven years of the plan implementation date; Purdue Canada was to be sold by the later of seven years from that date or two years after final resolution of the proposed class action brought on 29 August 2018 by the Province of British Columbia on behalf of Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments against opioid manufacturers and distributors including 'Purdue Pharma' (the BC Recoupment Action). [src-047] - Qualification: The sale obligation falls on the Sackler Parties as owners of the independent associated companies, not on the debtors. - Documented: According to the debtors' factum, the debtors reached agreement with the Canadian Governments, including on the scope of the Shareholder Parties Release, in the Canadian Governmental Claimants Stipulation, which the Bankruptcy Court approved on 9 August 2021. The amended plan filed on 12 August 2021 provided that claims against any non-debtor (including Purdue Canada or any other Shareholder Released Party) that arise out of or relate to the conduct of Canadian entities affiliated or associated with the debtors, including Purdue Canada, and are not based on any conduct of the debtors are 'Excluded Claims', unaffected by the plan's releases and injunctions and expressly preserved. The Canadian Governments and other Canadian plaintiffs did not object to confirmation; the objecting Canadian municipalities and First Nations and certain co-defendants did. [src-047] - Documented: Purdue Pharma (Canada) ('Purdue Canada') is an independent associated company (IAC), not a debtor in the Chapter 11 case; according to the debtors' factum the IACs are ultimately owned by the same entities that own the debtors but are not subsidiaries of the debtors; as defined in the Shareholder Settlement Agreement it comprises Bard Pharmaceuticals Inc., Elvium Life Sciences GP Inc., Elvium Life Sciences Limited Partnership, Elvium ULC, Purdue Frederick Inc. (Canada), Purdue Pharma (Canada), Purdue Pharma Inc. (Canada) and Purdue Pharma ULC. According to the District Court, before Purdue's Chapter 11 filing the lead plaintiffs in ten Canadian class actions settled their claims for $20 million, which Purdue Canada placed in trust pending approval by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench; that settlement did not cover the Canadian municipalities and indigenous tribes that later appealed, whose suits concern sales of OxyContin in Canada by Purdue Canada, which they assert was controlled by Sackler family members. The Second Circuit noted that Purdue Canada reached a separate settlement of $150 million, citing a British Columbia government news release of 29 June 2022. [src-003] [src-044] [src-047] - Qualification: Purdue Canada is a separate company from Purdue Pharma L.P.; its settlements are not obligations of the debtors. Control by Sackler family members is the Canadian appellants' assertion. - Documented: While the appeal to the Second Circuit was pending, eight states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) and the District of Columbia ('the Nine'), which had appealed confirmation, together with the debtors and the Sacklers (the Mortimer-side Initial Covered Sackler Persons and the Raymond Sackler Family), filed a new settlement agreement providing for an additional $1.175 to $1.675 billion in Sackler contributions, for an aggregate contribution of $5.5 to $6.0 billion. By order of 10 March 2022 (ECF No. 4503) the Bankruptcy Court approved the Settlement Term Sheet and granted the motion to confirm the revised plan, noting that confirmation would require orders of the Second Circuit or the District Court; the Nine agreed to withdraw their opposition to the plan, including the Shareholder Releases. [src-044] [src-040] - Qualification: The additional contribution is an obligation of the Sackler family sides, not of the debtors. - Outcome: The Second Circuit affirmed the plan including the 10 March 2022 modification on 30 May 2023; the Supreme Court reversed on 27 June 2024. - Documented: The court-appointed claims agent's case website lists, alongside the main case 19-23649, related proceedings including Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. (19-08289), the adversary proceeding in which the preliminary injunction protecting the Related Parties was issued; Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, et al. (21-07005), brought by Purdue Pharma L.P. and other debtors; Ascent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. (22-07029); two proceedings brought by individual claimants against Purdue (20-07027) and against Purdue and the United States (21-07088); proceedings by Alma, Georgia et al. (22-07044) and Bayonne, New Jersey et al. (22-07045) against McKinsey & Company, Inc. et al.; and a series of further proceedings brought by individuals under 25- docket numbers. [src-020] [src-078] - Attributed: A 2021 student case study of the bankruptcy reports that on 10 December 2020 counsel filed a class action within the bankruptcy against the debtors on behalf of two individual opioid-affected claimants and others similarly situated (Adversary Case 20-07027), seeking to require the debtors to establish a directed trust funding subsidised counselling and medication-assisted treatment for opioid-addicted claimants, and alleging that the proposed settlement between the debtors and the United States, then conditionally approved, would be inadequate because it relied on medication-assisted treatment to the exclusion of therapeutic counselling. According to the study, the complaint was later amended to add plaintiffs and to name Walmart, Inc. and McKinsey & Co. as defendants for their alleged contribution, with the debtor, to the marketing and distribution of opioids. [src-059] [src-020] - Qualification: These are the plaintiffs' allegations as summarised in a student case study, whose citation dates the complaint 11 December 2020; the retained records do not show a ruling on them. - Response: The study reports that as of 6 April 2021 a second stipulation and agreed order had extended the defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint, with a pre-trial conference set for 16 June 2021; no answer by the defendants was found in the retained records. - Outcome: The claims agent's case website also lists a later proceeding by two of the same claimants against Purdue and the United States (21-07088); no ruling or resolution of either proceeding was found in the retained records. - Documented: The court's case record for 19-23649 published on GovInfo (United States Courts Opinions collection; version cited with the date 8 October 2026) lists Purdue Pharma L.P. as debtor and, among other participants, The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. as creditor committee; David M. Klauder as examiner; Province, FTI Consulting, AlixPartners and Nardello & Co. as financial advisors; and, as interested parties, Noramco Coventry LLC, The Raymond Sackler Family, Kathe Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Frank S. Vellucci, Daniel S. Connolly and Rory Held as successor co-trustees of the Crystal Trust and the Data Trust, The Plan Administration Trust, Coventry Technologies L.P., and companies including One Stamford Realty L.P., One Stamford Land Inc. and Nappwood Land Corporation. [src-115] ## Could Purdue's plan release the Sacklers without consent? - Documented: On 16 December 2021 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Colleen McMahon; In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., Case 7:21-cv-07585-CM, Document 148, reported at 635 B.R. 26) held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize non-consensual releases of third-party claims against non-debtors in connection with confirming a Chapter 11 plan, neither in its express text, nor in its silence, nor in any provision conferring general or residual powers (sections 105(a) and 1123(a)(5) and (b)(6) included), and therefore vacated the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order and the Advance Order that flowed from it. The court held that the Bankruptcy Court did have 'related to' subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims against the non-debtor Sackler family members, because they might have a conceivable effect on the estate; it upheld the plan's separate classification of the Canadian appellants; and, having found no statutory authority for the Section 10.7 Shareholder Release, it did not reach the constitutional questions. [src-003] [src-044] [src-040] - Outcome: The Second Circuit reversed this decision on 30 May 2023; the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit on 27 June 2024, holding, as the District Court had, that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize such nonconsensual releases. - Documented: In September 2021 notices of appeal from Judge Drain's Confirmation Order were filed by the U.S. Trustee, William K. Harrington; eight states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington); the District of Columbia; certain Canadian municipalities and First Nation groups (the City of Grande Prairie as representative of a class of all Canadian municipalities, the Cities of Brantford, Grand Prairie, Lethbridge and Wetaskiwin, the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation and the Lac La Ronge Indian Band); and five individuals without counsel. The U.S. Trustee also appealed the Advance Order and the Disclosure Order. The appellees were the Purdue debtors, the UCC, the AHC, the Ad Hoc Group of Individual Victims of Purdue Pharma, L.P. (PI Ad Hoc Group), the MSGE, the Mortimer-side Initial Covered Sackler Persons ('Side A') and the Raymond Sackler Family ('Side B'); the UCC, the AHC, the MSGE and the PI Ad Hoc Group did not appeal. [src-003] - Documented: The District Court recorded that all appellants opposed the plan for the same reason: it provided broad releases, not only of derivative but of particularized or direct claims, including claims predicated on fraud, misrepresentation and willful misconduct under state consumer protection statutes, to members of the Sackler family, none of whom is a debtor, and to their affiliates and related entities. It wrote that, as the opioid crisis continued after the 2007 plea agreement (entered by a Purdue affiliate, as the Supreme Court notes), the Sacklers, or at least the family members actively involved in the day-to-day management of Purdue, were well aware that they were exposed to personal liability over OxyContin. [src-003] [src-040] [src-044] - Documented: The District Court described the Section 10.7 Shareholder Release as extending to every Sackler presently alive, to their unborn progeny and to the trusts, partnerships, corporations and enterprises with which they are affiliated or that were formed for their benefit; Exhibit X to the Settlement Agreement identifies over 1,000 released parties by name or identifying feature. Derivative claims against the Sacklers were released separately under Section 10.6(b), which was not challenged as beyond the Bankruptcy Court's power; Section 10.7 released direct claims brought against them by third parties. The court noted that the release also reached family members who played no role in running the company, against whom it knew of no lawsuits; the only claims anyone could identify against them were as recipients of money taken out of Purdue and upstreamed to the family trusts, and those claims belong to the debtors and are not affected by Section 10.7. [src-003] [src-044] - Documented: Among Judge Drain's findings recorded by the District Court was that, although not every Sackler would make a specific payment toward the settlement, the aggregate settlement payment hinged on each family member's being released. The District Court commented that it was actually not clear which members of the Sackler family were contributing to the settlement and in what amounts, the record containing some suggestion that the contributing trusts are for the benefit of all members of the family. [src-003] - Documented: The District Court found that the Sacklers named in the State appellants' suits served as officers, directors or managers of Purdue and so have a reasonable legal basis to assert claims against Purdue for indemnification and contribution and a call on directors' and officers' insurance: Purdue's current and former directors and officers are covered by Limited Partnership Agreements, governed by Delaware law, under which Purdue shall indemnify them in proceedings brought by reason of that status. It described the question whether bad faith bars indemnification as 'hotly disputed' and found that litigating these rights would cost the estate money; on that basis it held the third-party claims within the Bankruptcy Court's 'related to' jurisdiction. [src-003] - Documented: In approving the settlement Judge Drain treated the difficulty of collecting judgments from the Sacklers as a significant concern, as recorded by the District Court and the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit records his finding that the Sacklers are worth approximately $11 billion but are a large family whose assets are 'widely scattered and primarily held' in spendthrift trusts, offshore and in the United States, that are largely unreachable via bankruptcy proceedings, and that certain family members are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The District Court records that the family members' assets are held principally in purportedly spendthrift trusts in the United States and offshore, many of them on the Bailiwick of Jersey, that many cannot readily be liquidated, and that there is a substantial question whether Jersey law, like U.S. law, allows trusts funded by fraudulent conveyances to be invaded; Judge Drain reached no final conclusion on these issues. [src-044] [src-003] - Documented: On 30 May 2023 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Circuit Judges Newman, Wesley and Lee; In re Purdue Pharma L.P., 69 F.4th 45) reversed the District Court's order holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit nonconsensual third-party releases of direct claims against non-debtors, affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the plan, including the modification made on 10 March 2022, remanded to the District Court, and affirmed the District Court's denial of the Canadian Creditors' cross-appeal on classification, noting among its reasons that the Canadian objectors have another source of recovery, Purdue Canada. It held that §1123(b)(6), together with §105(a), permits bankruptcy courts to impose third-party releases (§105(a) alone does not) and that the releases were not a discharge of the Sacklers' debts barred by §524(e). It agreed with the District Court that the Bankruptcy Court lacked constitutional authority to finally approve the releases, so that the Bankruptcy Court's decision was properly treated as proposed findings and conclusions for de novo review. [src-044] [src-040] - Outcome: The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's judgment on 27 June 2024 in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. - Documented: In the Second Circuit the appellants supporting the plan were the debtors, the UCC, the AHC, the Ad Hoc Group of Individual Victims of Purdue Pharma, L.P., the MSGE, the Mortimer-side Initial Covered Sackler Persons and the Raymond Sackler Family. After the eight states and the District of Columbia withdrew their opposition, the appellees left defending the District Court's decision were only U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington, several Canadian municipalities and indigenous nations (also cross-appellants) and several individual personal-injury claimants without counsel. [src-044] - Documented: The Second Circuit stated that, to settle the mass of civil claims, the parties, including Purdue and the Sacklers, agreed that in exchange for Purdue filing for bankruptcy the Sacklers would personally contribute billions of dollars to the bankruptcy if all civil claims against them were released; Purdue and its related entities filed and the Sacklers did not. The bankruptcy court limited the release to claims that directly affected the debtors' estate and for which Purdue's conduct was a legal cause or a legally relevant factor, and in exchange the Sacklers agreed to contribute a total of $5.5 to 6.0 billion. [src-044] - Documented: According to the Second Circuit, the potential claims released against the Sacklers include fraudulent transfer, constructive fraudulent transfer, deceptive marketing, public nuisance, unfair competition, fraudulent misrepresentation, violation of state consumer protection acts, civil conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment; some are direct claims and some derivative. Fraudulent transfer claims, for example, are typically derivative because the real injury is to the debtors' estate, while the more controversial issue was the plan's likely release of some direct claims against the Sacklers. [src-044] - Documented: The Second Circuit held the releases essential to the reorganization for two reasons: they settled the valuation of the res, since otherwise the debtors would in all likelihood have to litigate indemnity and contribution claims brought by the Sacklers; and the res itself amounted to only approximately $1.8 billion, so that without the plan the government would recover its $2 billion first and deplete the res completely. It found the Sacklers' contribution substantial ('Five and a half billion dollars ... is a significant sum') and the creditor approval overwhelming. [src-044] - Attributed: Before the Second Circuit the U.S. Trustee argued that the plan was inequitable because it gave the debtors an improper quid pro quo, and that had the Sacklers declared bankruptcy they would have had to dedicate substantially all of their net worth, an estimated $11 billion, to the estate, well more than the approximately $5.5 to 6.0 billion they had agreed to fund. [src-044] [src-040] - Qualification: The U.S. Trustee's argument as recorded by the Second Circuit; the $11 billion net-worth figure is an estimate. - Response: The Second Circuit replied that its task was only to decide whether the bankruptcy court erred in finding the contribution substantial, and held that it did not. - Outcome: The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit on 27 June 2024 on the statutory question. - Documented: Judge Wesley, concurring in the judgment in the Second Circuit, wrote that the Shareholder Release has no carve-out for claims based on fraud, which a debtor could not discharge; that it does not channel the enjoined claims to a settlement fund but values channelled personal-injury claims only by claims against the estate; that it binds objecting parties without an opt-out; and that it 'cloaks the Sacklers with blanket immunity'. He concurred only because In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc. (2d Cir. 1992) bound the panel, and wrote that the question would benefit from nationwide resolution by the Supreme Court. [src-044] [src-040] - Qualification: A separate opinion concurring only in the judgment; it is not the holding of the Second Circuit. - Documented: The Second Circuit recorded that at the end of 2004 Purdue's board of directors voted to indemnify, among others, Purdue's directors and officers against claims made in connection with their service to the company (the 'Sackler-Purdue Indemnity Agreement'). Purdue undertook to indemnify them against expenses, settlements, judgments, fines and penalties and to advance their defence costs; the protections had no immediate time limit, continued after service ended and bound successors and estates; and they did not extend to matters where a final court decision established that the indemnitee did not act in good faith. The court held that the Sacklers' coverage gave them a reasonable basis to seek indemnification from the debtors, and stressed that the agreements were entered into by the end of 2004, well before bankruptcy was contemplated. [src-044] - Documented: The Supreme Court's majority reasoned that the catchall in §1123(b)(6), read in context, cannot give a bankruptcy court the 'radically different' power to discharge the debts of a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants, and that the code generally reserves discharge for a debtor who places substantially all of its assets on the table. It wrote that the Sacklers had not agreed to place anything approaching their full assets on the table for opioid victims, yet sought an order extinguishing virtually all claims against them for fraud, willful injury and even wrongful death without the claimants' consent, seeking 'to pay less than the code ordinarily requires and receive more than it normally permits'. It noted that the additional $1.175 to $1.675 billion the Sacklers offered during the Second Circuit appeal, in exchange for withdrawal of the objections of eight states and the District of Columbia, still fell well short of the $11 billion they received from the company between 2008 and 2016 and would come in installments over many years. [src-040] - Attributed: In a footnote the Supreme Court's majority recorded the parties' dispute over whether, without the release, the family could deplete the estate by asserting indemnification claims: the plan proponents and the dissent pointed to a 2004 agreement committing Purdue to cover certain liability and legal expenses the Sacklers incur, while the U.S. Trustee pointed to the plan proponents' concession that the agreement does not apply if a court determines the Sacklers did not act in good faith, and to bankruptcy courts' statutory tools to disallow or equitably subordinate indemnification claims. The Trustee also argued that the Sacklers' legal exposure might induce them to negotiate consensual releases on better terms, citing their increase of more than $1 billion during the appeal to secure the consent of the eight objecting states. [src-040] [src-003] [src-078] - Qualification: Arguments of the parties as recorded by the Court; the Court did not decide the indemnification question and called the policy debate one for which it was the wrong audience. - Response: The plan proponents' position, as summarised by the Court, was that the Sacklers would not return any funds to Purdue's estate unless the bankruptcy court granted the nonconsensual release and injunction they sought, leaving victims without recovery. The District Court had recorded that in pre-filing discussions the Sacklers offered to contribute only if every family member could 'achieve global peace' from all civil litigation, and its 2024 decision describes the family's position until Harrington as requiring 'total peace'. - Documented: Justice Kavanaugh's dissent, a minority opinion joined by three other Justices, described the plan confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court as distributing an estimated $7 billion or more among nine trusts to compensate victims and creditors and fund opioid abatement, with $700 to $750 million set aside for individual tort victims and their families, each to receive between $3,500 and $48,000 depending on the category of claim and level of harm. It stated that the Sacklers' $5.5 to $6 billion payment would quadruple the estate available for distribution; that more than 95 percent of voting victims and creditors approved the plan and all 50 States had since signed on; and that, absent the releases and settlement payment, the Bankruptcy Court found the most likely result to be liquidation of a $1.8 billion estate in which the United States' $2 billion superpriority claim would take everything and victims would probably recover nothing. [src-040] - Qualification: Minority (dissenting) opinion; the Court's majority held the nonconsensual releases unauthorized. - Documented: Justice Kavanaugh's dissent argued that under a 2004 indemnification agreement Purdue had agreed to pay liability and legal expenses that its officers and directors faced for Purdue-related decisions, including opioid-related ones, covering judgments against the Sacklers, so that opioid claims against the Sacklers could come out of the same pot of Purdue money as claims against Purdue. It recounted that the Bankruptcy Court and the Second Circuit found that the released non-debtors (the Sacklers) closely controlled and were indemnified by the company and that the claims against them rested on essentially the same facts and legal theories as those against Purdue; and it noted that some of the more substantial assets of Purdue's estate were fraudulent transfer claims worth $11 billion against the non-debtor Sacklers, which Purdue settled under the plan, thereby also extinguishing creditors' derivative fraudulent transfer claims without their consent. [src-040] - Qualification: Minority (dissenting) opinion; the majority recorded the U.S. Trustee's contrary position on indemnification (bad-faith exception, disallowance or subordination) and did not decide it. - Documented: Justice Kavanaugh's dissent recounted the Bankruptcy Court's findings after a six-day trial involving 41 witnesses: that the settlement provided the best chance for victims and creditors to recover any money from the Sacklers; that direct suits against the Sacklers faced numerous potential weaknesses and defences; that even successful suits raised 'significant concern' about collecting judgments because of the difficulty of reaching assets in foreign countries and in spendthrift trusts; and that the $5.5 to $6 billion settlement payment and the releases were fair, equitable and in the best interest of victims and creditors. [src-040] - Qualification: Minority (dissenting) opinion summarising the Bankruptcy Court's findings; the Supreme Court's majority held that the code does not authorize the nonconsensual releases regardless of those findings. - Documented: On 26 November 2024 the District Court (Judge Colleen McMahon), in State of Maryland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 24-Civ-7042 (7:2024cv07042, Document 63), affirmed three orders of the Bankruptcy Court (Judge Sean H. Lane) extending the preliminary injunction issued in the adversary proceeding Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. (Adv. Pro. No. 19-08289): the Thirty-Seventh, Thirty-Eighth and Thirty-Ninth Amended Orders, dated 6 September, 27 September and 1 November 2024. The appellant was the State of Maryland; the appellees were the debtors and the UCC. Maryland, a member of the Ad Hoc Group of Non-Consenting States, had voluntarily consented to the original order and suspended an administrative proceeding it had begun in May 2019 against Purdue and certain Related Parties, but it no longer consented as of the 6 September 2024 order, which the court also calls the thirty-fifth extension; almost all other mediation parties, including the other 49 states and the UCC, opposed or did not support reversal. [src-078] [src-015] - Response: The debtors and the UCC, as appellees, argued that mediation had made continued and material progress and that lifting the injunction before a settlement would set off a chaotic rush to the courthouse and drain the estates through contribution and indemnification claims; Maryland answered that this harm was entirely speculative. - Outcome: The decision noted that Maryland would appeal a further extension if granted; no such appeal was found in the retained records. According to the debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement, the Bankruptcy Court extended the injunction, including the Voluntary Injunction, by orders of 23 December 2024 (to 24 February 2025), 27 January 2025 (to 29 April 2025) and 28 February 2025 (to 30 May 2025). - Documented: Judge McMahon held that the Supreme Court's decision in Harrington did not divest the Bankruptcy Court of the power under §105(a) and its 'related to' jurisdiction to temporarily enjoin litigation against non-debtor third parties: the Related Parties were not seeking a permanent release but a temporary stay while a plan with a consensual resolution was negotiated, and Harrington expressly excluded consensual arrangements. She found that litigation against the Sacklers touches the res of Purdue's estate because family members can assert broad indemnification and contribution claims against the company, while the company has billions of dollars in claims against the Sacklers, including for fraudulent conveyance, whose settlement would substantially inflate the estate. She found that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in applying the four preliminary-injunction factors. [src-078] - Documented: The preliminary injunction, as set out in the Bankruptcy Court's Second Amended Order of 6 November 2019 (Adv. Dkt. No. 105), enjoins governmental and private plaintiffs from continuing or commencing actions against the debtors and against non-debtor 'Related Parties', namely former or current owners, directors, officers and other entities associated with Purdue Pharma L.P.; as the District Court noted in November 2024, it extends to the Sackler family members who owned and controlled Purdue and to entities such as trusts of which they are owners or beneficiaries. The listed Related Parties are The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; The P.F. Laboratories Inc.; Purdue Pharma Technologies Inc.; PLP Associates Holdings L.P. and PLP Associates Holdings Inc.; BR Holdings Associates L.P. and BR Holdings Associates Inc.; Rosebay Medical Company L.P. and Rosebay Medical Company, Inc.; Beacon Company; PRA Holdings Inc.; Pharmaceutical Research Associates Inc.; Purdue Holdings LP; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Rhodes Technologies Inc.; Coventry Technologies L.P.; MNP Consulting Limited; Richard S. Sackler; Jonathan D. Sackler and his estate; Mortimer D.A. Sackler; Kathe A. Sackler; Ilene Sackler Lefcourt; Beverly Sackler and her estate; Theresa Sackler; David A. Sackler; Marianna Sackler; the estates of Mortimer Sackler and Raymond Sackler; trusts for members of the Raymond Sackler family, including trusts under agreements dated 5 November 1964 and 5 November 1974 with Beverly, Richard S. and Jonathan D. Sackler as trustees; Paulo Costa, Cecil Pickett, Ralph Snyderman, Judith Lewent, Craig Landau, Mark Timney, Stuart D. Baker, Frank Peter Boer, John Stewart and Russell Gasdia; and dozens of other individually named persons. The District Court affirmed the injunction and the first extension order on 11 August 2020 (619 B.R. 38). [src-078] - Qualification: Protection under the injunction is a stay of litigation, not a release or a finding about any Related Party. - Documented: After the Supreme Court's decision the parties resumed negotiations before Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane with two mediators, retired Judge Shelley Chapman and Professor Eric Green. On 12 November 2024 the mediators reported to the Bankruptcy Court (Bankr. Dkt. No. 6917) that agreements in principle had been reached among all but one of the Sackler family groups, the debtors, the UCC, the AHC, the MSGE Group and the State Attorneys General negotiating committee (then 15 members) on the total cash consideration to be provided by the settling Covered Parties, a payment schedule and certain non-monetary terms; the District Court took judicial notice of the report, which indicated that nearly all parties had reached an agreement in principle. [src-078] - Attributed: In weighing the public interest Judge McMahon wrote that the Sacklers had not been involved with the debtors for nearly six years and that there was no meaningful prospect they would again be involved in selling opioids ('Indeed, that was their plan all along—take the money and run'); that the Voluntary Injunction, administered by the Bankruptcy Court, bars the Sacklers from 'actively engag[ing] in the opioid business in the United States' (Thirty-Ninth Amended Order of 1 November 2024); and that if mediation failed, the debtors and creditors would face costly, lengthy litigation with Related Parties 'who will assert jurisdictional defenses and who have secreted their assets abroad', a point on which she said she could not quarrel with the findings of Judge Lane and, before him, Judge Drain. [src-078] - Qualification: The judge's characterisations in the reasons of an interlocutory decision affirming injunction extensions; they are not liability findings against any family member, and no family member was a party to that appeal. - Documented: Judge McMahon observed that the cumulative effect of 'all thirty-nine (perhaps now forty) extensions' had been to stall all litigation against the Sacklers for over five years, that some opioid victims would never consent to release their claims, and that there must be an end to the mediation process: unless agreement came soon, the preliminary-injunction factors would cease to favour further postponing the ability of parties with every right to sue the Sacklers. [src-078] ## How did Purdue's 2025 plan settle the case, and who pays? - Documented: On March 18, 2025 the Debtors filed the Thirteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Purdue Pharma L.P. and its Affiliated Debtors (D.I. 7638), and on March 19, 2025 the proposed Disclosure Statement for it; the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on approval of the Disclosure Statement on June 18, 2025. The retained Disclosure Statement, submitted by counsel to the Debtors in Case No. 19-23649 (SHL) for the solicitation of votes, is dated July 1, 2025. Before confirmation the plan was modified through the Fourteenth to Eighteenth Amended Plans (D.I. 7911, 8168, 8199, 8230 and 8233). [src-020] [src-015] [src-039] - Documented: The Disclosure Statement's executive summary states that on or immediately after the plan's Effective Date Purdue Pharma L.P. will be dissolved and cease to exist, that the Debtors' businesses will be transferred to a newly created company, Knoa Pharma LLC ("NewCo"), wholly owned by an independent entity intended to be treated as an exempt organization under IRC section 501(c)(4) (the "Foundation"), and that no federal, state or local governmental entity will own the equity of NewCo or the Foundation. [src-015] - Documented: According to the Disclosure Statement, under the Shareholder Settlements the Sackler Parties will be required to pay up to approximately $7 billion over fifteen years in settlement of both the Debtors' claims against them and the direct claims of creditors that elect to settle; the principal consideration they receive is the plan's release and injunction provisions. To comply with Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024), which held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize non-consensual third-party releases, the Third-Party Releases bind only creditors who elect to grant them, and the plan does not release or compromise direct claims of creditors that do not. The Debtors stated that in aggregate as much as $8 billion in value could be available for creditors. [src-015] - Qualification: The amounts are the Debtors' description in a solicitation document; the 'up to' figures depend on how many creditors opt into the releases and on later contingencies. The payment obligation lies with the Sackler-side payment parties, not with Purdue Pharma L.P. - Documented: Describing the Initial Shareholder Settlement Agreement under the Debtors' prior plan, the Disclosure Statement states that Side B of the Sackler families was divided into only two obligor groups; information supplied by Side B as of September 30, 2020 and October 2019, using a methodology developed by the Sackler families, indicated that the combined net asset value of each Side B group's obligors averaged more than 2.0 times that group's potential settlement obligations, and the Side B groups pledged as collateral equity interests in holding companies indirectly owning investment assets valued at over $1 billion across both groups. The Debtors added that these net asset values covered only the proposed obligors, not all individuals, entities and trusts associated with the families. [src-015] - Qualification: Valuations supplied by the family side under its own methodology and reported by the Debtors; they are neither an independent appraisal nor a court finding, and they concern the earlier settlement, not the later one. - Documented: The Disclosure Statement also records that a condition precedent to the Initial Shareholder Settlement Agreement was an agreement between Avrio (the debtor Avrio Health L.P., later Purdue Products L.P.) and PRA, Purdue Pharma L.P.'s parent Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P., under which PRA's existing licenses to Avrio for Senokot-branded and Betadine-branded over-the-counter products would be terminated and all the intellectual property licensed under them would be assigned to Avrio. [src-015] [src-096] - Documented: In the Confirmation Order the Bankruptcy Court found that the non-Debtor releases in sections 10.6 and 10.7 of the plan (the Third-Party Releases) are consensual and therefore compliant with Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024), and binding on the Releasing Parties, each of whom provided consent, without modifying or expanding their scope. It found that the consideration under the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement, including payments totaling up to $7 billion in cash over fifteen years, is a substantial contribution to the estates that exceeds the value of the Debtors as a going concern and allows the Debtors to make the payments required under the DOJ Resolution and the plan settlements. The Modified Bench Ruling adds that only claimants that affirmatively opt in waive their direct claims against the Sackler Parties, and that a decision not to opt in does not prevent a claimant from voting for the plan or receiving a distribution. [src-039] [src-101] - Documented: The Modified Bench Ruling explains that the Sackler Parties' payments are split between the Estate Claims Settlement and the Direct Claims Settlements: creditors that grant the Third-Party Releases share in both, while creditors that do not may receive only estate distributions but keep the right to litigate their direct claims against the Shareholder Released Parties. Because the increased contributions come without the global Third-Party Releases of the Twelfth Amended Plan, certain litigation costs incurred by the Sackler Parties on claims of creditors that do not participate in the Direct Claims Settlement reduce the Sackler Parties' settlement payment obligations. At the confirmation hearing the Debtors fixed March 1, 2026 as the deadline for creditors to opt into the Third-Party Releases. [src-101] - Documented: Addressing objections that the bankruptcy shields Purdue and the Sacklers from criminal liability, the Bankruptcy Court stated in its Modified Bench Ruling confirming the plan that, as Judge Drain had explained in the earlier confirmation decision, the plan does not contain a release of criminal conduct of any kind for any party, and it noted that the Debtors had been the subject of a DOJ criminal investigation in which Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to three felony offenses. [src-101] - Documented: In approving the settlements, the Bankruptcy Court noted that the Debtors believe the estates have meritorious claims against certain shareholders and that the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors had set out its view of those claims in a 203-page, 22-count draft complaint against the Sackler Parties and their related entities, but found that litigating them would take years, that success was not assured, and that the Sackler side's commitment to litigate and possible substantial obstacles to collecting any judgment had to be weighed. It also noted that without a settlement satisfying the DOJ Resolution the Debtors might be obligated to pay the entire $2 billion Forfeiture Judgment to the DOJ. [src-101] - Qualification: The draft complaint is the creditors' committee's view; the estate claims against the family side were settled, not adjudicated, and the Sackler Parties did not share the plan supporters' views of the transfers. - Attributed: As summarised in the Modified Bench Ruling, seven witnesses introduced by Side A or Side B of the Sackler family at the November 2025 confirmation trial testified that the Sacklers were contributing substantially all their assets to the Master Trust. A witness called by both sides estimated pre-petition assets of some $3.5526 billion for Side A and $5.0405 billion for Side B; an expert testified that the Side A trusts, principally located in the Bailiwick of Jersey, might be found by the Jersey Royal Court to be unreachable by creditors; and another testified that $4.559 billion in tax distributions made by the Debtors to the Sacklers were made for reasonable value. [src-101] - Qualification: Testimony offered for the family side as summarised by the court; it is not a finding on the value of the family's assets or on the validity of the transfers. - Response: For the Debtors, a witness analysed 37 pre-petition transfers worth some $1.4 billion between the Debtors and the Sacklers and concluded that the Sacklers did not provide reasonable value; the court noted that the plan supporters' views of the transfers and defences were not shared by the Sackler Parties. - Outcome: The court found that the Iridium factors weigh overwhelmingly in favour of approving the settlements, without deciding the disputed values. - Documented: Under the confirmed plan, Knoa Pharma LLC (NewCo) receives substantially all the Debtors' non-cash assets and $135 million of unrestricted cash and cash equivalents. The NewCo Transferred Assets vest in NewCo free and clear of all claims, interests, liens and liabilities, including claims based on successor liability for acts or omissions before the Effective Date, except that NewCo assumes the Assumed Liabilities, must distribute its NewCo Distributable Cash to the Governmental Remediation Trust, the Tribe Trust and the Foundation, and must cover any funding shortfall of the Wind-Up Reserve, subject to the consent of the NewCo Managers and the MDT Trustees. The Debtors were to commence a standard termination of the Purdue Pension Plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1341 before the Effective Date, with the remaining termination costs and liabilities assumed by NewCo. [src-101] [src-039] - Documented: The plan gives Knoa Pharma a board of five NewCo Managers, disinterested and independent, selected by the Settling States with the consent of the Ad Hoc Committee and in consultation with the Debtors and the Creditors' Committee, whose decisions on operations and investments are subject to oversight by the Foundation; the Knoa Operating Agreement prohibits the issuance of non-voting securities. The Foundation that owns Knoa has a board of three disinterested and independent Foundation Trustees, one (but no more than one) of whom may be a Creditor Trustee of the Master Disbursement Trust. Each year after the Effective Date NewCo pays 96.7% of the Governmental NewCo Distributable Cash to the Governmental Remediation Trust, 3.3% to the Tribe Trust and the Foundation Distributable Cash to the Foundation. The Confirmation Order's NewCo Operating Injunction and Governance Covenants bind NewCo and any successor owner of its opioid business. [src-101] [src-039] - Documented: According to the New York Attorney General, the end of Purdue is part of a $7.4 billion settlement with members of the Sackler family secured by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general and other parties: in the first payment Purdue pays approximately $900 million and the Sacklers $1.5 billion, after which the Sacklers pay $500 million in May 2027, $500 million in May 2028 and $400 million in May 2029, with funding delivered to communities over the next 15 years; the settlement ends the Sacklers' control of Purdue. The release, dated May 1, 2026, adds that on April 28 Purdue was sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on criminal charges. [src-005] - Qualification: The approximately $900 million is the Debtors' estate cash; the $1.5 billion and later instalments are payments by the Sackler-side payment parties. - Documented: The Modified Bench Ruling states that the majority of Purdue's value, including the proceeds of the Estate Claims Settlement, is transferred to nine trusts for public and private creditors: the Master Disbursement Trust, two public creditor trusts (the Governmental Remediation Trust and the Tribe Trust), the Public School Trust, four private creditor trusts (the PI Trust, Healthcare Provider Trust, TPP Trust and ERP Trust) and the Plan Administration Trust. Up to $7 billion contributed by the Sackler Parties goes to the creditor trusts, including approximately $865.8 million for qualified personal injury claimants, who are paid virtually immediately after the Effective Date, whereas governmental entities and other creditors are paid over the plan's 15 years, contingent in part on the prices the Sacklers obtain for their non-Purdue businesses. [src-101] - Documented: After the Effective Date, hearing agendas in Case No. 19-23649 are filed on behalf of The Plan Administration Trust: the court-appointed claims agent's case website lists agendas filed by counsel for the trust for the omnibus hearings of September 10, 2026 and October 7, 2026. Under the plan, the Plan Administration Trustee pays the PPLP Liquidator's fees from the Wind-Up Reserve. [src-020] [src-039] - Documented: On the B side, the same draft Exhibit A lists two payment groups. B-Side Payment Group 1, of some forty-five entries, includes Dr. Richard S. Sackler, David A. Sackler, the Estate of Beverly Sackler, Rosebay Medical Company, Inc., the Raymond R. Sackler Trusts 1 and 1B, trusts for the benefit of Richard S. Sackler and of Beverly Sackler, and holding entities such as China Sea Company, Inc., Hudson River Partners and Meridian International, Ltd. B-Side Payment Group 2, of some thirty entries, includes the Estate of Jonathan D. Sackler, the Estate of Beverly Sackler, Rosebay Medical Company, Inc., the Raymond R. Sackler Trusts 2 and 2B, trusts for the benefit of Jonathan D. Sackler and entities such as Hudson Trust and Menlo Park Investors Inc. The payments are made to the Master Disbursement Trust. [src-042] [src-039] [src-087] - Qualification: Draft list filed before confirmation. In its October 8, 2026 ruling the Bankruptcy Court described Side B Payment Group 1 as one individual and more than fifty trusts and stated that Richard Sackler is not a party to it in his individual capacity, his own obligations being set out in Annex G; the final composition therefore differs from this draft. - Documented: Section 5.2(d) of the confirmed plan describes the Shareholder Payment Parties as providing up to $6.5 billion in consideration over 15 years and provides that neither the settlement amount nor its allocation reflects any concession or agreement as to the strength, merits or collectability of the released claims or of any defences. A footnote provides that A-Side Payment Group 8's $345 million payment obligation is to be prepaid in the amount of $225,677,259.42, unless prepaid on the Effective Date in the amount of $218 million, the agreed present value; if the group elects to defer up to $35 million on the Effective Date, it pays the Master Disbursement Trust up to $17.5 million on each of the fifth and sixth payment dates plus 4.5% interest, and the other A-Side groups pay up to $35 million on the Effective Date with their later payments reciprocally reduced. In the draft Exhibit A, Samantha Hunt is the individual obligor of A-Side Payment Group 8. [src-039] [src-042] [src-015] - Qualification: The plan section's 'up to $6.5 billion' matches the Disclosure Statement's Required Settlement Amount; the Disclosure Statement and the Confirmation Order's findings also describe the family-side payments as up to $7 billion, and the retained records do not explain the difference. - Documented: The Confirmation Order requires each Family Member and Payment Party, upon the Plan Effective Date, to allow any institution or organization in the United States that granted naming rights to it, its payment group or associated payment parties to remove the "Sackler" name from physical facilities and from academic, medical and cultural programs, scholarships and endowments, on forty-five days' confidential notice. It also bars each Family Member from seeking new "Sackler" naming rights for donations until the remaining payment obligations of its payment groups are reduced to zero and their IAC Payment Parties no longer hold IAC interests; charitable donations as such remain permitted. [src-039] - Documented: The Confirmation Order approved and so-ordered the Stipulation in Connection with the Debtors' Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (D.I. 7948), entered into as of October 6, 2025 between the Debtors and two former officers of Purdue, Mark Timney and John H. Stewart, and acknowledged and agreed to by the Creditors' Committee, the Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental and Other Contingent Litigation Claimants and the Multi-State Governmental Entities Group. [src-039] - Qualification: The terms of the stipulation are not set out in the retained part of the order. - Documented: The Confirmation Order also approved the Baltimore Stipulation (D.I. 8134), entered into as of November 3, 2025 between the Debtors and the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore to resolve Baltimore's objection to the plan, and acknowledged and agreed to by the Creditors' Committee, the Ad Hoc Committee, The Raymond Sackler Family and Beacon Company; any objection to the allowance of Baltimore's proof of claim is held in abeyance during the stipulation's Standstill Period. [src-039] - Documented: Exhibit X further lists as Shareholder Released Parties, solely in their capacity as service providers, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, described as legal counsel to Shareholder Released Parties and to the Debtors, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and other law, consulting, public-relations and litigation-support firms described as advisers to certain Shareholder Released Parties, and all professional advisors to Sackler Parties other than Excluded Parties. [src-058] - Documented: On April 1, 2026 counsel for The Raymond Sackler Family filed in the bankruptcy case (Docket No. 8992) a notice of orders and decrees of the State of Connecticut Court of Probate (1) granting the motion of the executor of the Estate of Jonathan D. Sackler for approval of settlement agreements and related credit support and collateral agreements pursuant to section 10.01(c) of the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement and (2) accepting and approving the same executor's Declaration of Insolvent Estate. [src-096] - Qualification: Known from the docket entry on the court-appointed claims agent's website; the decrees themselves were not retrieved. - Documented: Court records show that confirmation was appealed. Before the confirmation order was entered, a pro se objector filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2025 and sought a stay, which the Bankruptcy Court denied in its Modified Bench Ruling because the request did not address the stay factors and delay would harm claimants after six long years. On December 24, 2025 District Judge Nelson S. Román of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a memorandum endorsement in In re Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 7:25-cv-09681 (NSR), noted that the various matters related to the case had not been consolidated and that the court had only set a briefing schedule, and declined the pro se appellant's procedural requests. [src-111] [src-101] [src-020] - Qualification: Procedural rulings only. - Outcome: No decision on the merits of any appeal appears in the retained records; the plan became effective on May 1, 2026. - Attributed: A restructuring-case blog summarising the docket reports that pro se and represented appellants filed notices of appeal beginning December 4, 2025 and moved for stays pending appeal; that on February 12, 2026 Judge Lane denied all stay motions in a bench ruling, allowing distributions and the Effective Date to proceed; and that the appeals remained pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, some appellants arguing that the opt-in consent mechanism still does not satisfy Harrington. [src-088] [src-101] [src-020] - Qualification: Secondary summary; the February 12, 2026 ruling was not retrieved. Its start date for the appeals is later than the pro se notice of appeal of November 15, 2025 recorded in the Bankruptcy Court's ruling. - Response: The court-appointed claims agent's case website lists hearings on the motions for stay pending appeal on February 4 and February 12, 2026, with agendas filed by counsel for Purdue Pharma L.P.; in November 2025 the Bankruptcy Court had already denied a pro se request to stay confirmation. - Outcome: The plan became effective on May 1, 2026; no decision on the merits of any appeal appears in the retained records. - Documented: The plan's definitions fix certain Effective Date payments from the Debtors' Effective Date Cash: the Initial NAS PI Distribution to the PI Trust equals $48,213,070 plus $65,848,195, less an SOR Holdback of $1,809,265 and other deductions, and the Initial Public Schools Distribution to benefit the Public School Trust is stated "in the amount of $25,560,000 million", less retained direct-claim settlement amounts and an SOR Holdback of $60,000. [src-039] - Qualification: The public-schools figure is reproduced as printed; the word 'million' after a figure already written in dollars appears to be a drafting slip, and the amount actually paid is not in the retained records. These are estate funds of the Debtors, not family contributions. - Attributed: A May 2026 press report states that the bankruptcy plan requires the Sackler family owners to pay $6.5 billion to victims and to fund local government efforts against opioid addiction, and that no member of the Sackler family was charged with a crime related to the company's actions. It describes David Sackler as the son of former Purdue chief executive Richard Sackler and a member of the company's board before its bankruptcy who testified before Congress. [src-081] [src-015] - Qualification: Press summary; its $6.5 billion family figure matches the Disclosure Statement's Required Settlement Amount; the Disclosure Statement and the Confirmation Order elsewhere give up to $7 billion, and the retained records do not explain the difference. - Attributed: A June 2025 press report on the settlement stated that members of the Sackler family were understood to contribute $6.5 billion of their personal fortunes and Purdue Pharma around $900 million, with payouts to be completed within 15 years but expected mostly within three years. It reported that the $7.4 billion settlement had received approval from 55 attorneys general, that the family would relinquish control of the company and cease selling opioids in the United States, and that members of the family would not be required to declare bankruptcy. [src-094] [src-015] [src-020] - Qualification: Press account before confirmation; the family contribution is owed by family members, trusts and entities, while the approximately $900 million comes from the Debtors' estates. Its $6.5 billion matches the Disclosure Statement's Required Settlement Amount. - Response: The report states that the Sackler family has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. - Outcome: The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the plan on November 18, 2025, and the plan became effective on May 1, 2026. - Documented: In its ruling of October 8, 2026 the Bankruptcy Court recounted as undisputed that in early 2025, while settlement negotiations continued after the remand, Richard Sackler filed litigation under seal in Wyoming state court (the "Wyoming Litigation") challenging the authority of the Side B Trustees to act on behalf of all Side B family members and alleging that they were improperly "stripping" his powers over certain family trusts; the court observed that this litigation threatened the very heart of the settlement discussions. The parties resolved it in a stipulation dated August 1, 2025 providing for dismissal of the Wyoming Litigation without prejudice, a 14-month litigation standstill following the plan's Effective Date, covenants by Richard Sackler and Lin Gao (the "RSS Parties") not to interfere with implementation of the bankruptcy cases or any settlement, and irrevocable ratification of the Side B Trustees' actions; the Master Disbursement Trust was named a third-party beneficiary. [src-087] - Documented: Paragraph 33 of the Confirmation Order entered on November 18, 2025 ("Shareholder Settlement Document Undertakings") keeps in full force the rights and obligations of Richard S. Sackler and Lin Gao (together the "RSS Parties") under the Settlement Stipulation Dismissing Proceedings Without Prejudice (D.I. 7713, Exhibit A), including their agreement not to interfere, directly or indirectly, with the ability of the Trustees, the Shareholder Payment Parties or B-Side Payment Group 1 to perform under the plan and the Shareholder Settlement Agreements; not to take or omit any action that impairs any party's ability to meet its obligations or undermines the enforceability of the plan or those agreements, including by exercising a power of appointment over trust property of a Shareholder Payment Party; and not to assist others in doing so. The order directs the RSS Parties and the other members of Side B Payment Group 1 to comply, requires all Sackler parties to execute the settlement documents by a set date, and reserves to the Bankruptcy Court exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any failure of performance "by Richard Sackler or any other party" and to impose sanctions including contempt findings and monetary sanctions. At the confirmation hearing on November 14, 2025 counsel for Richard Sackler and counsel for Lin Gao each confirmed on the record that their client agreed to these provisions. [src-039] [src-087] - Documented: Annex G to the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement (filed on the Effective Date as part of Doc 9132) is the credit support annex for B-Side Payment Group 1, which it defines as the Richard Sackler family Payment Group. Its "Individual Pledgor" is Richard S. Sackler, together with any custodians, his estate and any trust acquiring his assets at his death, but not his heirs or beneficiaries, and its "Personal Limited Liability Company" is ABSG LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. As the Bankruptcy Court summarised Annex G, Richard Sackler's personal obligations under the MSA are distinct from those of the Side B Payment Group 1 parties, and he pledged 100% of the equity in a single limited liability company, 100% of the pledged shares of Sackler-controlled non-debtor foreign companies he owns, the related bank accounts and the proceeds of these assets. Unlike Side B Payment Group 1, he negotiated a so-called "naked pledge": the MDT must first exercise remedies against the other collateral of the group, and he keeps "unfettered control" over his personal assets in the meantime. Section 2.01 of Annex G lists as collateral, among other assets, 100% of the equity interests owned by Richard S. Sackler in the Personal Limited Liability Company he formed; the MDT is the secured party. [src-097] [src-087] - Documented: Section 5.01 of Annex G made the Settlement Effective Date subject to additional conditions, waivable by the MDT with the consent of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Creditors' Committee: a certificate that substantially all of Richard S. Sackler's assets had been transferred to and were held by ABSG LLC, other than assets that cannot lawfully or contractually be transferred, other assets worth no more than $5,000,000 in aggregate and his IAC account and IAC pledged shares; delivery by Richard S. Sackler and Lin Gao of an executed Further Assurances Undertaking, including an agreement to comply with the Stipulation; an irrevocable delegation by Richard S. Sackler to Cedar Cliff Inc. of all authority over payments of the group's obligations by the Trust U/A 11/5/74 FBO Beverly Sackler; and the transfer to ABSG LLC of all funds he had previously placed in trust for the benefit of Lin Gao or another family member, approximately $4 million held in two named trusts. [src-097] - Qualification: Whether and when each condition was satisfied or waived is not shown in the retained records. - Documented: Annex G defines the "RSS Parties" as Richard S. Sackler as Individual Pledgor, ABSG LLC, Richard S. Sackler in his capacity as an IAC Payment Party and any person under his exclusive control, and defines "RSS Related Party" to include Lin Gao, certain family members and persons they control. After an Enforcement Event, or during a breach trigger for a Specified Breach by the payment group or by him, any distribution, payment or other transfer of ABSG LLC's assets to Richard S. Sackler or to an RSS Related Party is a Restricted Payment. [src-097] - Documented: The October 8, 2026 ruling records that mere days after the May 1, 2026 Effective Date the RSS Parties filed four pleadings, which the Side B Trustees call the "Interference Actions", challenging the Side B Trustees' actions and seeking relief as to property pledged under Annex E: (1) a "Motion for Remedy for Breach" in the Wyoming Litigation asking the Wyoming court to terminate the Stipulation and reverse the order dismissing that litigation (the Rule 60 Motion); (2) an affidavit recorded in local land records giving notice of the dismissed Wyoming Litigation and seeking to quiet title in their favour to a real property held by a pledged Side B trust; (3) a petition in Wyoming state court against Data LLC, trustee of four pledged trusts, seeking an accounting and an order directing income distributions that the petition says are owed to Richard Sackler for August 1, 2019 through April 30, 2026; and (4) a lis pendens recorded on the same property giving notice of a new civil action against ARIT Investment Holdings LLC, a Shareholder Payment Party and Trust Pledgor. Under Annex E all trusts of Side B Payment Group 1 and their assets, including that property, are pledged to secure the group's payments, and every trust targeted by the four actions is a Trust Pledgor. [src-087] - Documented: In a Modified Bench Ruling dated October 8, 2026, memorialising a bench ruling read into the record on August 21, 2026 after which an order granting the motion was entered (ECF No. 9590), Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Side B Trustees' motion in full. The court held that the confirmed plan, the MSA and the Stipulation bind the RSS Parties and that each Interference Action violates them by interfering with the pledges securing Side B Payment Group 1's payments: the Rule 60 Motion seeks to revive the settled Wyoming Litigation despite the dismissal and the fourteen-month litigation standstill that runs through July 2027; the quiet-title affidavit and the lis pendens cloud title to a pledged trust asset; and the Data LLC petition seeks to have pledged trust funds distributed to Richard Sackler rather than used for the Side B payment obligations. It held that the MSA's general reservation of rights cannot override the specific terms of the MSA and the Stipulation, denied the RSS Parties' document request as moot, found it "crystal clear" that the RSS Parties had breached the clear unambiguous terms of the Confirmation Order, the MSA and the Stipulation, and ruled that it would award the Side B Trustees and the MDT their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on application, citing its power under the Confirmation Order to impose sanctions including monetary sanctions. The court also referred to earlier problems with Richard Sackler's compliance, including his refusal to timely execute documents required for the plan to become effective, discussed at a hearing on February 25, 2026 (ECF No. 8862). [src-087] [src-020] - Qualification: The retained records do not show the amount of fees awarded or whether the ruling was appealed. - Response: The RSS Parties had argued that the actions were protected by the MSA's reservation of rights and concerned an intra-family trust dispute. - Outcome: A hearing on Richard Sackler and Lin Gao's own motion to enforce the Confirmation Order and Settlement Stipulation was set for October 28, 2026; its outcome is not in the retained records. - Attributed: A restructuring-case blog summarising the docket reports that the court directed all Sackler Payment Parties to execute the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement and related documents by December 19, 2025, a deadline extended to February 10, 2026; that a supermajority of the Sackler Payment Parties signed but Richard S. Sackler did not; and that on February 24, 2026 the court entered an order to show cause requiring him to appear and explain his non-compliance, exposing him to potential contempt and monetary sanctions. [src-088] [src-087] - Qualification: Secondary summary; the order to show cause was not retrieved. The Bankruptcy Court's ruling of October 8, 2026 confirms that his failure to comply with Confirmation Order obligations, including his refusal to timely execute documents required for the plan to become effective, was discussed at a hearing on February 25, 2026. - Outcome: The plan became effective on May 1, 2026. - Attributed: An October 13, 2026 legal-press report states that a New York judge found that former Purdue Pharma chairman Richard Sackler and his wife Lin Gao violated the company's November 2025 plan confirmation order, the master settlement agreement governing the Sackler family's payment obligations and an August 2025 stipulation designed to prevent challenges to the trustees' authority, and that they were rebuked and ordered to unwind state court actions launched days after the plan became effective, which challenged family trustees and targeted pledged trust assets. [src-080] [src-087] - Qualification: Press account of the Bankruptcy Court's ruling of October 8, 2026; it matches the ruling's text in the retained copy. - Documented: Richard Sackler and Lin Gao, through counsel, filed their own Motion to Enforce the Confirmation Order and Settlement Stipulation; the court-appointed claims agent's case website lists a hearing on it before the Bankruptcy Court for October 28, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. (ET), set by their notice of hearing (Dkt. 9623). A case-tracking aggregator's docket listing shows an objection to their motion filed by an individual claimant on October 15, 2026 (ECF No. 9643) and an opposition to a motion of Richard Sackler and Lin Gao filed by another individual on October 16, 2026 (ECF No. 9645). [src-108] [src-020] - Qualification: The content of the motion and the outcome of the hearing are not in the retained records, which end before the hearing date. ## Sources - [src-001] Purdue's notice of suggestion of bankruptcy and automatic stay, with the Chapter 11 petition of Purdue Pharma L.P. (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P.), Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office of the Attorney General), 2019-09-16 - [src-015] Court record source · src-015 - [src-110] Florida filing: application of Purdue Pharma L.P. for authority to transact business and affidavit of capital contributions (2003), Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, 2003-11 - [src-103] Florida Division of Corporations record: Purdue Pharma L.P. (B03000000381), Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations - [src-039] Court record source · src-039 - [src-102] Florida Division of Corporations record: Purdue Pharma Inc. (F03000005558), Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, 2026-02-28 - [src-016] Court record source · src-016 - [src-046] Settlement agreement between the Purdue companies and Endo Pharmaceuticals (Exhibit 99.1), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2006-08-28 - [src-003] Memorandum decision and order of Judge Colleen McMahon vacating the confirmation order, In re Purdue Pharma L.P., S.D.N.Y. 21-cv-7532 (CM) (master case; filed as Document 148 in related case 7:21-cv-07585), Office of the Connecticut Attorney General, 2021-12-16 - [src-030] Other source · src-030 - [src-028] Other source · src-028 - [src-029] Other source · src-029 - [src-105] Court record source · src-105 - [src-038] Proof of claim of the United States (Department of Justice) in In re Purdue Pharma L.P., with attachment, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office of the Attorney General), 2020-07-30 - [src-096] Court record source · src-096 - [src-026] Corporate registry source · src-026 - [src-004] Settlement agreement between the United States and the Named Sacklers, with addenda, U.S. Department of Justice, 2020-10 - [src-058] Court record source · src-058 - [src-045] DOJ press release: global resolution of criminal and civil investigations with Purdue Pharma and civil settlement with the Sackler family, U.S. Department of Justice, 2020-10-21 - [src-014] Court record source · src-014 - [src-078] Court record source · src-078 - [src-044] Court record source · src-044 - [src-051] Amended complaint, State of Connecticut v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. X07 HHD-CV-19-6105325-S (partially redacted), Office of the Connecticut Attorney General, 2019-05-06 - [src-025] Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. prospectus (Rule 424(b)(3)), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2010 - [src-073] Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. prospectus (Rule 424(b)(3)), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2017-02 - [src-104] Wyoming Secretary of State business entity detail: Cedar Cliff Fiduciary Management Inc., Wyoming Secretary of State, 2026-08-05 - [src-054] Form 4 statement of changes in beneficial ownership, Key Technology Inc. (reporting person M3C Holdings LLC), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2015-04-20 - [src-112] Schedule 13D Amendment No. 4 regarding Amtech Systems, Inc., U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2018-11-27 - [src-040] Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124, opinion of the Court and dissent, Supreme Court of the United States, 2024-06-27 - [src-007] Declarations of the director defendants, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 1884-cv-01808(B), Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office of the Attorney General), 2019-07-16 - [src-037] Majority staff memorandum, House Committee on Oversight and Reform, on the December 2020 hearing with Purdue and Sackler witnesses, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, 2020-12-08 - [src-055] Court record source · src-055 - [src-006] State of Delaware news release: Purdue–Sackler $7.4 billion opioid settlement goes into effect, State of Delaware (Department of Justice), 2026-05-01 - [src-101] Court record source · src-101 - [src-094] Media source · src-094 - [src-005] New York Attorney General press release on the shutdown of Purdue Pharma and the start of Knoa Pharma, Office of the New York State Attorney General, 2026-05-01 - [src-074] Company statement source · src-074 - [src-100] Written testimony of Dr. Craig Landau, CEO of Purdue Pharma L.P., before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Reform, 2020-12-17 - [src-021] Other source · src-021 - [src-008] Company statement source · src-008 - [src-035] SunEdison, Inc. Form 8-K on the appointment of John S. Dubel as chief executive officer, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2016-06-22 - [src-011] Declaration of Craig Landau in support of the CEO defendants' motion to dismiss, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office of the Attorney General), 2019-07-03 - [src-056] Media source · src-056 - [src-091] Media source · src-091 - [src-047] Court record source · src-047 - [src-032] Declaration of Mark Timney in support of the CEO defendants' motion to dismiss, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office of the Attorney General), 2019-07-03 - [src-093] Media source · src-093 - [src-033] Declaration of John Stewart in support of the CEO defendants' motion to dismiss, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office of the Attorney General), 2019-07-03 - [src-098] Other source · src-098 - [src-043] Company statement source · src-043 - [src-024] Strategic Alliance Agreement between Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. (Exhibit 10.1), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2008-11-19 - [src-020] Court record source · src-020 - [src-027] Other source · src-027 - [src-086] Media source · src-086 - [src-085] Media source · src-085 - [src-092] Media source · src-092 - [src-022] Companies House officer appointments page: Jonathan David Sackler, Companies House (UK) - [src-076] Companies House filing history: Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited (03486244), page 5, Companies House (UK) - [src-089] Companies House officers page: Napp Pharmaceutical Group Limited (00884285), Companies House (UK) - [src-084] Companies House officer appointments page: Stuart David Baker, Companies House (UK) - [src-069] Companies House officers page: The Sackler Trust (07022224), Companies House (UK), 2026-10-22 - [src-070] Companies House officers page: Tradewhiz Limited (03896720), Companies House (UK) - [src-071] Companies House officer appointments page: Tiercel Services Limited, Companies House (UK) - [src-009] Companies House officer appointments page: Theresa Elizabeth Sackler, Companies House (UK) - [src-031] Charity Commission register: trustees of The Dr Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation (charity no. 1128926), Charity Commission for England and Wales - [src-023] Companies House officer appointments page: Beverly Sackler, Companies House (UK) - [src-075] Media source · src-075 - [src-083] Media source · src-083 - [src-113] Media source · src-113 - [src-107] Media source · src-107 - [src-049] Media source · src-049 - [src-059] Research source · src-059 - [src-010] Settlement agreement between Purdue Pharma L.P. and affiliates and Depomed, Inc. (Exhibit 10.10), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2018-08-28 - [src-036] WIPO administrative panel decision, Case No. D2010-1811 (OxyContin domain names), WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, 2010-12-04 - [src-041] Information, United States v. Purdue Pharma L.P., D.N.J. Criminal No. 20-1028 (MCA), U.S. Department of Justice, 2020-11-24 - [src-079] Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Elimination System draft permit No. RI0023868 for Rhodes Technologies, Coventry (2015), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (archived snapshot), 2015 - [src-063] Company statement source · src-063 - [src-082] Media source · src-082 - [src-072] Village of Hastings-on-Hudson notice: protest petitions for the Route 9A property withdrawn, Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, Board of Trustees, 2005 - [src-048] Media source · src-048 - [src-050] Media source · src-050 - [src-095] Media source · src-095 - [src-114] Federal Election Commission committee record: Purdue Pharma Inc. Political Action Committee (C00370643), U.S. Federal Election Commission - [src-052] Court record source · src-052 - [src-034] HHS-OIG news release: administrative law judge upholds exclusions of responsible corporate officers in the OxyContin case, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, 2009-01-23 - [src-106] Media source · src-106 - [src-002] Consultants' filing in the Utah Division of Consumer Protection case against Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. (DCP Legal File No. CP-2019-005), Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Consumer Protection - [src-060] New York Attorney General press release: more than $573 million from McKinsey & Company, Office of the New York State Attorney General, 2021-02-04 - [src-109] Media source · src-109 - [src-064] Media source · src-064 - [src-065] Media source · src-065 - [src-115] GovInfo United States Courts opinions record for case 19-23649, Purdue Pharma L.P., U.S. Government Publishing Office (GovInfo) - [src-062] New York Attorney General press release: $350 million from Publicis for its role in the opioid crisis, Office of the New York State Attorney General, 2024-02-01 - [src-068] DOJ press release: resolution of criminal and civil investigations into McKinsey & Company's work for Purdue, U.S. Department of Justice, 2024-12-13 - [src-061] Complaint, The People of the State of New York v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, Index No. 400001/2021, Office of the New York State Attorney General, 2021-02-05 - [src-067] Information against McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States (Attachment 4 to the deferred prosecution agreement), U.S. Department of Justice, 2024-12-13 - [src-077] DOJ press release: opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma sentenced for fraud and kickback conspiracies, U.S. Department of Justice, 2026-04-28 - [src-042] Court record source · src-042 - [src-087] Court record source · src-087 - [src-111] Court record source · src-111 - [src-088] Media source · src-088 - [src-081] Media source · src-081 - [src-097] Court record source · src-097 - [src-080] Media source · src-080 - [src-108] Other source · src-108