Richard S. Sackler: Purdue roles, settlement and rulings

analysisRichard Stephen Sackler belongs to the Raymond Sackler side of the family ("Side B"). The District Court describes him as a son of Raymond Sackler, who was Purdue's co-chief executive with his brother Mortimer D. Sackler and died in 2017, and as the father of David Sackler and Marianna Sackler; his mother Beverly Sackler, Raymond's wife, and his brother Jonathan Sackler also sat on Purdue's board, and an online reference biography gives the same parentage. All of them had roles at Purdue (see the family page). The corporate ownership statement filed with Purdue's Chapter 11 petitions in September 2019 records that he and Jonathan Sackler, as trustees under a trust agreement of 5 November 1974, directly own 98% of Rosebay Medical Company L.P., a partnership in Purdue's ownership chain. Securities prospectuses of 2010 and 2017 name him as a director or officer of its general partner, Rosebay Medical Company, Inc., whose directors held voting and investment control over the partnership's holdings in the issuers concerned. In their 2020 settlement with the United States he and the other Named Sacklers are described as beneficiaries of trusts that indirectly own Purdue Pharma L.P. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7}

analysisHe was a director of Purdue Pharma Inc., the general partner that managed Purdue Pharma L.P., from 2 October 1990 to 24 July 2018, according to the tenure list in the United States' 2020 settlement; in a sworn declaration in the Massachusetts action he said he was never a director of Purdue Pharma L.P. and was no longer an employee or officer of either company after 15 May 2007. The District Court found that he was also president of Purdue from 2000 to 2003, co-chair of the board from 2003 to 2007 and chair from about 2008 until 2010 or 2011. State complaints give other periods: Connecticut's describes him as President and CEO from 1999 to 2003 after rising from assistant to the president in the 1970s, and names him as an inventor on dozens of patents relating to oxycodone and other pain medications, and New York's has him head of research and development from at least 1990 through 1999. These are complaint allegations, and an online reference biography dates his start to 1971. Outside Purdue, Companies House records him as a director of the UK IACs Napp Pharmaceutical Group Limited from 20 June 1995 and Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited from 31 March 1999, both until 11 June 2018, and the District Court as a director of the IAC advisory board MNP/MNC until 2018. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14}

analysisCourts and governments have described his part in Purdue's decisions; none of these accounts is a judgment against him. The District Court named him, with Mortimer D.A. and Theresa Sackler, among family members who "aggressively set and pushed sales targets for OxyContin" above those recommended by Purdue executives, and records that at the 2021 confirmation hearing he acknowledged overseeing "many settlements, both private and public" as a director, including approval of Kentucky's $24 million settlement in 2015, and agreed that the board had transferred billions of dollars to family trusts and holding companies in 2008 to 2018 ("Yes . . . yes, that we did"); the Bankruptcy Court made no finding that the transfers were fraudulent conveyances, and the Sacklers vehemently deny that they were. According to the same decision he was one of nine family members named as defendants in state lawsuits, none of which reached judgment before the Bankruptcy Court halted and then enjoined them in October and November 2019. In Addendum A to its 2020 settlement the United States alleged that he at times kept an office at Purdue's headquarters, communicated directly with executives, took part in employment decisions for the CEO and sales leadership and in 2013 arranged a board meeting with a consulting company outside the presence of Purdue executives; the agreement itself alleges that, as a result of the conduct set out in Addendum A, the five Named Sacklers as a group knowingly caused false claims for OxyContin to be submitted to federal healthcare programs from 2013 to 2018. The Named Sacklers expressly deny the allegations. A March 2019 press report quotes his email in the Massachusetts complaint: "We have to hammer on the abusers in every way possible." A dissent in the Supreme Court's decision of June 2024 records that neither the U.S. Government nor any State had brought criminal charges against any of the Sacklers individually, him included. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8}

analysisHis personal civil settlement is separate from Purdue's corporate plea. In October 2020 he, David Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler, Kathe Sackler and the Estate of Jonathan Sackler agreed to pay the United States $225,000,000 plus interest; the agreement is not an admission of liability, they deny the allegations, criminal liability is reserved, and the debtors' 2025 Disclosure Statement records the sum as already paid directly to the Justice Department outside the plan. Under the 2025 plan's shareholder settlement his obligations sit beside those of B-Side Payment Group 1, the Richard Sackler family payment group: a draft list filed before confirmation names him among its members, but the Bankruptcy Court later stated that he is not a party to the group in his individual capacity and that his own obligations are set out in Annex G, its credit-support annex. Under Annex G he pledged all the equity of his personal limited liability company, ABSG LLC, his shares in Sackler-controlled foreign companies, the related bank accounts and their proceeds, and kept control of his personal assets until the Master Disbursement Trust has first used the group's other collateral. Annex G also made the settlement's effectiveness subject to conditions, including the transfer of substantially all his assets to ABSG LLC and of about $4 million he had placed in trust for Lin Gao or another family member; whether each condition was met or waived is not shown. Exhibit X to the same agreement, filed on 1 May 2026, lists him among the B-Side released parties and describes him as a family member, trust beneficiary, current or former trustee, and current or former director, manager or officer of entities in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s ownership chain and of a trust company, without naming them or giving periods. ^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8}

analysisDisputes over the Side B trusts led to a ruling against him. In early 2025, while settlement talks continued, he filed sealed litigation in Wyoming challenging the Side B trustees' authority and alleging that they were "stripping" his powers over certain family trusts; a stipulation of 1 August 2025 dismissed it without prejudice, imposed a 14-month litigation standstill after the plan's effective date and bound him and Lin Gao (the "RSS Parties") not to interfere with the settlement, and the Confirmation Order of 18 November 2025 kept those undertakings in force after counsel for each confirmed their agreement on the record on 14 November 2025. Days after the plan took effect on 1 May 2026 the RSS Parties filed four actions, a motion to revive the Wyoming litigation, a quiet-title affidavit and a lis pendens affecting property of a pledged trust, and a petition seeking trust income distributions to Richard Sackler, which the Side B trustees, joined by the Master Disbursement Trust, asked the Bankruptcy Court to stop. Richard Sackler and Lin Gao argued that the actions were permitted by the settlement agreement's reservation of rights and concerned an intra-family trust dispute. In a bench ruling of 21 August 2026, memorialised on 8 October 2026, Judge Sean H. Lane granted the motion in full, found it "crystal clear" that they had breached the Confirmation Order, the settlement agreement and the stipulation, and said he would award the trustees and the Master Disbursement Trust their reasonable fees and costs; the amount and any appeal are not in the retained record. The ruling also referred to earlier problems with his compliance, including his refusal to sign in time documents required for the plan to take effect, discussed at a hearing on 25 February 2026. Their own motion to enforce the Confirmation Order and the stipulation was set for hearing on 28 October 2026, after the retained records end, so its content and outcome are unknown. ^{1 2 3 4}