Ground-breaking framework empowers counties & cities to hold
defendants accountable while negotiating for resources required to abate
opioid epidemic in their community
CLEVELAND–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Today,
the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (PEC) in the National Prescription
Opiate Litigation (NPOL) filed a motion to create a new, innovative
class that will empower 24,500 American communities to negotiate with
opioid manufacturers, distributors, and other similarly situated
national defendants that are currently defendants in one of the most
complex legal actions in U.S. history.
Given the scale and devastation of the opioid epidemic—an epidemic that
the plaintiffs say was caused and exacerbated by these defendants—this
class will by default include 5,000 counties and 19,500 “incorporated
places” (cities, towns, villages, and municipalities) in the United
States, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, unless they elect to
opt-out. This Negotiation Class proposal is the plaintiffs’ solution to
U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster’s call for a truly comprehensive,
forward-looking, national, and voluntary resolution framework that
enables local governments to fight for opioid prevention, treatment, and
recovery funds.
This proposal, if accepted, would create a voting arrangement by which
all the county and municipal entities in the United States will be able
to participate collectively, through their representatives, in any
settlement discussions with national opioid manufacturers, distributors
and pharmacies.
Paul J. Hanly Jr., of Simmons Hanly Conroy, and Paul T. Farrell Jr., of
Greene Ketchum, Farrell, Bailey & Tweel, LLP and Joe Rice of Motley Rice
LLC, the co-leads of the MDL said:
“Time is of the essence in this litigation. American deaths related
to opioids continue to rise, while the national life expectancy
continues to fall. Cities and counties across the country continue to
pour a substantial percentage of their budgets and resources into
stemming this tide, protecting families, and aiding recovery. Joining
all cities and counties in the country together as a Negotiation Class
gives communities maximum negotiating power, makes the negotiation of
potential nationwide settlements a more practical process, allows
defendants to pursue complete resolution, and enables Class Members to
vote on all resulting settlement offers.”
Key Facts:
-
This is not a litigation class. Certification of the Negotiation Class
will not be used to litigate or try any claim, in any court, against
any of the defendants named in national opioid litigation. It does not
affect the prosecution of existing actions filed against opioid
manufacturers, opioid distributors, or pharmacies by Class members.
And it will not stop any individual cases brought by cities and
counties from proceeding or settling.
-
The Negotiation Class has important benefits for the Defendants as
well. Once the Negotiation Class is confirmed, Defendants will be able
to predict, with certainty, that any settlement reached with the Class
will be binding for a known percentage of cities and counties.
Defendants will not need to renegotiate innumerable settlements or
face new lawsuits from counties and cities that have not yet filed.
-
All Class members will have the right to opt-out of the proposed
Negotiation Class after receiving a Court-approved Class Notice after
the proposed class structure receives preliminary approval from the
Court.
-
Under the proposed Negotiation Class, there will be a voting process
that can approve a proposed settlement if more than 75% of voting
class members approve the proposed settlement, based on 75%
supermajorities of litigating and non-litigating counties and
municipal bodies by number and population.
-
Each potential Class member may determine its allocation of any
potential settlement at the County level by utilizing the Settlement
Allocation Map and Calculator posted on the Negotiation
Class Website – which will become available to the public when the
notice period starts.
-
For more information on negotiation class process, allocation formula,
supermajority voting mechanism and fees, see pages 15 – 26 in the
plaintiffs’ memorandum.
Contacts
Niall Janney, [email protected]
