[light bulb buzzing] <i>BARRY: Recently I was given evidence</i> <i>that could have changed the course</i> <i>of an American tragedy,</i> <i>but it was kept in the dark.</i> <i>[dramatic music]</i> <i>PAUL: I think that this is evidence</i> <i>that there is two systems of justice in America.</i> <i>JOANNE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Joanne Peterson.</i> <i>LEE: My name is Lee... MARIANNE: My name is Marianne...</i> <i>JAMES: I had not had a case in which...</i> <i>LEE: You killed my son.</i> <i>LYNN: 22-year-old son... PETER: Our daughter Emily.</i> <i>JAMES: So many victims wanted to testify.</i> <i>LEE: You and your drug OxyContin have caused</i> <i>legal genocide in this country.</i> <i>PROTESTOR 1: 400,000 deaths!</i> <i>PROTESTORS: 400,000 deaths!</i> <i>PROTESTOR 2: These are mass grave numbers.</i> <i>PROTESTORS: [echoing] 400,000 deaths!</i> <i>PAUL: It wasn’t the last time</i> that I saw the political process stand in the way of achieving justice in a way that affected all of America. <i>[introspective music]</i> <i>♪ ♪</i> [indistinct chatter] <i>BARRY: This courtroom in Massachusetts</i> <i>is full of lawyers.</i> BAILIFF: All rise, please. <i>BARRY: They’re here representing companies</i> <i>responsible for the manufacturing,</i> <i>distribution, and sale of opioids.</i> JUDGE: Who do we have here representing the defendants? - Timothy Blank, Your Honor, for Purdue. - Endo Pharmaceutical. - [indistinct] - Collegium Pharmaceutical. - Johnson & Johnson. - AmerisourceBergen. - McKesson. - Cardinal Health. - Allergan entities. <i>BARRY: Now take this image and multiply it,</i> <i>because the pharmaceutical industry is facing</i> <i>more than 1,600 lawsuits around the country,</i> <i>accusing them of playing a role in the deaths</i> <i>of 200,000 Americans in the opioid epidemic.</i> <i>♪ ♪</i> <i>I first started covering the story in 2001...</i> <i>NEWS ANCHORS: OxyContin...</i> <i>BARRY: When a new drug named OxyContin...</i> <i>NEWS ANCHOR: A powerful prescription painkiller...</i> <i>BARRY: Had become a source of addiction and abuse.</i> <i>Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin,</i> <i>has settled numerous lawsuits.</i> <i>And much of the testimony and evidence in those cases</i> <i>has remained under seal.</i> <i>For years, the wealthy and private members</i> <i>of the Sackler family that own Purdue</i> <i>distanced themselves from the headlines.</i> PROTESTOR: Let them fly? PROTESTORS: People die! <i>BARRY: But now they are facing a wave of lawsuits</i> <i>bringing old documents to light.</i> PROTESTORS: [echoing] Shame on Sacklers! <i>BARRY: Why the Sacklers?</i> <i>MAURA: Because we believe,</i> based on our investigation, that they are responsible. They were directing and controlling operations at this company. So we’re looking at more documents... <i>BARRY: In 2018, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey</i> <i>became the first state official to sue the Sacklers.</i> <i>Her team uncovered decades-old emails</i> <i>supporting allegations that Purdue knew</i> <i>about the havoc OxyContin was causing...</i> - We’ve seen countless deaths and destruction... - We’ve all buried people... <i>BARRY: But chose to cover it up.</i> - We relied on doctors to prescribe a safe medication. <i>MAURA: We’re uncovering documents and information</i> that should have come to light years ago about what this company and its executives and board members knew and when they knew it. - We’ve been fighting this good fight... <i>BARRY: Purdue and the Sacklers have denied these allegations</i> <i>and say they are committed to helping stop</i> <i>the opioid epidemic.</i> <i>But here’s something I’ve always wondered about:</i> <i>why did it take almost 20 years</i> <i>and hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths</i> <i>for these documents to finally emerge?</i> <i>Well, not long ago, I was given a confidential memo</i> <i>which showed that the government</i> <i>had uncovered similar evidence more than a decade ago.</i> <i>The trouble was, it was kept hidden.</i> <i>♪ ♪</i> There’s rarely been a story like this for me that 20 years later just keeps changing and has had these incredible twists and turns. <i>The latest twist came when I was given</i> <i>a confidential Justice Department report</i> <i>from 2006 known as a “prosecution memo.”</i> <i>The document was not supposed to be shared</i> <i>outside the department,</i> <i>so I can’t tell you how I got it.</i> <i>But it contains secret evidence</i> <i>from a federal investigation into Purdue,</i> <i>evidence that, had it come out, might have changed</i> <i>the trajectory of the opioid epidemic.</i> The tragedy here is that this is a disaster that didn’t have to happen, that could have been stopped. <i>So why wasn’t it?</i> <i>The search for that answer would take me back</i> <i>to the place where I first began my reporting in 2001.</i> <i>BETH: Hello? </i>BARRY: Yeah, Beth, it’s Barry. <i>BETH: Where are you now? Are you at the pharmacy?</i> BARRY: We’ve just crossed the railroad tracks. We’re on... <i>BETH: No, no, no, No, that’s the old place.</i> <i>That’s the place that burned down. [laughs]</i> <i>BARRY: Pennington Gap, Virginia,</i> <i>is a quiet former coal town</i> <i>nestled in the Appalachian Mountains.</i> Hey, Beth. How are you? - Well, come on in. <i>BARRY: Sister Beth Davies</i> <i>was part of a group of citizens here</i> <i>who were among the first to take on Purdue Pharma</i> <i>by sounding an alarm about OxyContin.</i> - In 1996, somebody comes in and another and another and another and they’re all talking about OCs and Oxys. Never heard of it. I didn’t know what they were talking about. <i>[eerie music]</i> <i>And I called Greg Stewart, the pharmacist.</i> <i>He said, “This is gonna be the worst disaster</i> <i>that ever hit Lee County.”</i> And he was absolutely right. <i>♪ ♪</i> <i>GREG: When OxyContin was introduced,</i> this thing accelerated so quickly. There are now addicts on the street that hadn’t been there before. There are people standing on corners, waiting for the delivery. <i>BARRY: The town began to see a wave of crime</i> <i>triggered by OxyContin addiction:</i> <i>break-ins, assaults, prostitution,</i> <i>and an abuse epidemic</i> <i>that was destroying the lives of young people.</i> <i>♪ ♪</i> <i>For months, a local doctor named Art Van Zee</i> <i>complained to Purdue,</i> <i>but they did little in response.</i> <i>So in March 2001, he led a group meeting</i> <i>at a local high school</i> <i>where a petition was introduced to recall the drug.</i> <i>♪ ♪</i> <i>Today many drugs make up the opioid epidemic.</i> <i>But back then, the public was just getting</i> <i>its first glimpse of what was to come.</i> <i>NEWS ANCHOR 1: When crushed and inhaled or injected,</i> <i>users get what they call a killer high.</i> <i>NEWS ANCHOR 2: It’s the fastest-growing drug in America: OxyContin.</i> <i>NEWS ANCHOR 1: Lawmaker is drafting legislation</i> <i>that would ban its prescription.</i> <i>BARRY: As calls to remove their drug intensified...</i> <i>NEWS ANCHOR: Let me bring in David Haddox</i> from Purdue Pharma, the company that makes OxyContin. <i>Good morning to you, sir. BARRY: Purdue responded</i> <i>by mounting its own PR campaign,</i> <i>blaming those who were addicted to its drug.</i> - As a physician, I am outraged that people would abuse this medication. I’m really outraged that people abuse this medication. We distributed 400,000 of these brochures... <i>BARRY: And it worked. Dr. Van Zee’s campaign failed.</i> <i>The drug remained on the market with a new warning label...</i> <i>PAUL: Mr. Chairman, thank you.</i> <i>BARRY: While Purdue’s executives</i> <i>repeated the same refrain.</i> - Everybody was taken by surprise what happened. We launched OxyContin in 1996, and for the first four years on the market, we did not hear of any particular problem. <i>BARRY: The company saw no signs of trouble</i> <i>before the year 2000.</i> <i>♪ ♪</i> So as I think you know, we were able to obtain the prosecution memo, basically... <i>But the prosecution memo paints a different picture.</i> That was never shown to you before, was it? - No, I’ve never seen it. BARRY: Do you see the paragraph, “Beginning as early as“? - “Beginning as early as November 4, 1997, “and continuing throughout 1998, 1999, “on approximately 117 occasions, “sales reps in Alabama, California, Connecticut, <i>“Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky,</i> <i>“Louisiana, Maine, West Virginia, Maryland,</i> <i>“Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,</i> <i>“Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,</i> <i>“North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,</i> <i>“Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin</i> “reported that health-care professionals told them “that OxyContin was selling on the street and/or was being abused or diverted. BARRY: So according to the federal investigators, they found at least 117 reports where Purdue Sales reps were telling the company that OxyContin had become effectively a popular drug of abuse. - Right. I had not seen that information before, but it could have made a real difference. <i>♪ ♪</i> <i>BARRY: So why didn’t it see the light of day?</i> <i>BARRY: Half a century before OxyContin,</i> <i>Arthur Sackler shaped the art of medical advertising.</i> <i>He was a scientific showman who created an early ad</i> <i>for an antibiotic which featured endorsements</i> <i>from doctors who didn’t exist.</i> <i>He would go on to make millions</i> <i>by promoting the liberal use of tranquilizers like Valium.</i> <i>He and his brothers, Raymond and Mortimer,</i> <i>purchased the company that would become Purdue Pharma</i> <i>to start making their own drugs.</i> <i>But Arthur would die</i> <i>and his children would sell his stake</i> <i>before the release of OxyContin,</i> <i>a drug that would swell his brothers’ fortunes</i> <i>beyond their wildest dreams.</i> <i>They showcased their wealth</i> <i>with Cirque du Soleil-themed birthday parties;</i> <i>a mansion in Bel Air;</i> <i>a tasteful photo spread in</i> Vogue <i>magazine</i> <i>on their Hamptons estate, complete with a kale garden;</i> <i>and in a seemingly endless parade</i> <i>of cultural institutions</i> <i>all bearing the Sackler name.</i> <i>But in 2002,</i> <i>in the far southwestern corner of Virginia</i> <i>in a town called Abingdon,</i> <i>a small team of prosecutors began an investigation</i> <i>that would threaten Purdue and the family’s fortune.</i> - Hey, Mr. Meier. Rick Mountcastle. BARRY: Hey, Rick, so good to see you. - Over here? <i>BARRY: Rick Mountcastle is speaking publicly</i> <i>for the first time.</i> <i>He was one of the prosecutors who launched</i> <i>the federal investigation into Purdue back in 2002.</i> <i>And he was lead author of the prosecution memo.</i> What were the basic conclusions you made about how Purdue was violating the law in the marketing of OxyContin? - Purdue went about marketing it as less addictive than other painkillers and less subject to abuse, and that was false, and they knew it was false. - There’s no need for anyone to suffer in pain anymore. <i>BARRY: Like something straight out</i> <i>of Arthur Sackler’s playbook,</i> <i>the company produced commercials</i> <i>and hired doctors as paid speakers...</i> - We doctors were wrong in thinking that opioids can’t be used long-term. They can be and they should be. <i>BARRY: All to convey one message:</i> <i>there was an epidemic of untreated pain...</i> BOTH: Pain. <i>BARRY: In America.</i> - Leg pain. - Back pain. - So much pain. <i>BARRY: And OxyContin...</i> - I feel as though the opioids have given my life back to me. <i>BARRY: Was a safe and effective treatment.</i> - Less than 1% of patients taking opioids actually become addicted. BARRY: That’s your goody box? - It’s usually up in the attic. <i>BARRY: Dr. Art Van Zee saw firsthand</i> <i>how Purdue marketed OxyContin.</i> ART: So they had OxyContin beach hats that they were giving. Here’s a little pedometer: “A step in the right direction.” And this was the CD of swing tunes: “Swing in the right direction with OxyContin.” BARRY: This is part of the mainstreaming of OxyContin: “We’re gonna market this drug just like a heart medication, a diabetes medication.” ART: You know, you wouldn’t have a beach hat that says morphine on it, or you wouldn’t have a beach hat that says heroin on it. <i>BARRY: But Rick Mountcastle subpoenaed millions</i> <i>of internal Purdue records,</i> <i>and he discovered that the claim it was safer</i> <i>and less addictive was false and Perdue knew it.</i> You prepared a prosecution memo in which you recommended that the corporate executives be charged with felony crimes. - I can’t—I’m not able to speak to that. <i>BARRY: Mountcastle is barred</i> <i>from discussing confidential information,</i> <i>so I’ll tell you what his memo said.</i> <i>Prosecutors uncovered internal records</i> <i>showing that executives of Purdue were told</i> <i>that OxyContin was being abused</i> <i>soon after it hit the market.</i> <i>They also discovered executives sent reports</i> <i>directly to members of the Sackler family,</i> <i>detailing problems with the companies drugs.</i> <i>When asked about those reports,</i> <i>the family’s representatives declined to comment.</i> <i>The Sacklers were not accused of any wrongdoing.</i> <i>But as four years of investigation came to a close,</i> <i>Rick Mountcastle and his colleagues</i> <i>finished a memo that aimed to charge Purdue’s CEO,</i> <i>general counsel, and chief medical officer</i> <i>with felony charges of fraud.</i> <i>RICK: I think we were hoping that this would</i> be the first step in a, you know, way of doing prosecutions of business entities that would hold executives accountable. BARRY: But that didn’t happen, did it? - Apparently not. <i>BARRY: By the early 2000s,</i> <i>Purdue was facing a string of OxyContin-related lawsuits.</i> <i>In response, they had hired</i> <i>an all-star team of lawyers and advisors</i> <i>headed by former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.</i> <i>So when Rick Mountcastle’s team informed Purdue in 2006</i> <i>that they planned to bring a groundbreaking case</i> <i>that could put pharmaceutical executives in prison,</i> <i>Purdue was ready.</i> <i>They sought a meeting with Mountcastle’s boss,</i> <i>United States Attorney John Brownlee.</i> <i>RICK: For well-financed defendants,</i> they will want to meet with the U.S. attorney and explain how the government may be taking in the wrong view. <i>BARRY: Brownlee was reportedly unmoved by Purdue’s pleas.</i> <i>The case was strong.</i> <i>And my understanding is that,</i> you know, at the end of that meeting, the response is, “You know what? We think we’ve got this right.” - So I can’t— I’m not gonna— I cannot dispute that. <i>BARRY: Brownlee sent the prosecution memo</i> <i>to Washington, D.C.,</i> <i>where the Department of Justice</i> <i>would conduct a final review.</i> <i>PAUL: It was probably the most detailed</i> <i>prosecution memo I had ever seen.</i> They had covered every base and they had crossed every T and dotted every I. <i>BARRY: Paul Pelletier</i> <i>was the deputy chief of the fraud section</i> <i>at the Criminal Division</i> <i>of the Department of Justice in Washington.</i> <i>Though he won’t discuss specifics,</i> <i>the prosecution memo was reviewed by his office.</i> - It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what Purdue Pharma had done. So we determined it was a righteous case to go forward with. - What happens next? Where does it go after that? - [sighs] Where did it go, or where is it supposed to go? <i>BARRY: Pelletier says it went up the chain.</i> <i>And sometime in the fall of 2006,</i> <i>lawyers for Purdue and its executives</i> <i>made one last appeal.</i> <i>They met behind closed doors with senior DOJ officials</i> <i>appointed by the Bush administration.</i> <i>PAUL: This whole process is a search for the truth, right?</i> The last people in this type of process that you’re gonna get the truth from is usually the defense attorneys. Now, they’re not gonna sit there and lie to you, but they’re advocates for their client. <i>BARRY: In this case, Purdue and its executives</i> <i>had hired lawyers like Mary Jo White,</i> <i>the former United States attorney for Manhattan,</i> <i>and Howard Shapiro, former counsel to the FBI.</i> <i>They had served the Justice Department</i> <i>for years before entering private practice</i> <i>and were considered legends in the halls of D.C.</i> <i>Now they were back,</i> <i>sitting on the other side of the table,</i> <i>challenging the government’s case.</i> - It looked like people were exercising privilege over prudence. <i>BARRY: When I approached Mary Jo White and Howard Shapiro,</i> <i>they declined to comment.</i> <i>We don’t know who exactly made the call,</i> <i>but it was apparently after that meeting</i> <i>that the Justice Department chose not to move forward</i> <i>with some of the recommendations in the memo.</i> - Well, good afternoon, and thank you all for being here. <i>BARRY: Instead, on May 10, 2007,</i> <i>John Brownlee announced a proposed settlement,</i> <i>negotiated with the lawyers</i> <i>for Purdue and its executives.</i> - Purdue has agreed to pay over $600 million in criminal and civil penalties, fines, and forfeiture and acknowledge that it illegally marketed and promoted OxyContin... <i>BARRY: A Purdue company would plead guilty</i> <i>to a felony and pay a fine,</i> <i>while its executives would serve no jail time,</i> <i>pleading to a single misdemeanor charge</i> <i>that did not accuse them of wrongdoing.</i> <i>They’ve continued to insist that they did nothing wrong.</i> - An absolutely remarkable job. Rick Mountcastle, assistant United States attorney... <i>BARRY: And because no one faced trial,</i> <i>critical pieces of evidence from the memo</i> <i>would never be seen by the public.</i> <i>But a judge would still have to decide</i> <i>whether to accept the terms of the settlement.</i> - It was a joke. It was a joke. When a company is saying, “I committed a felony— “I the company committed a felony act “by lying to doctors about the abuse potential and people are dying because of my lies,” there is no, no justification for which you shouldn’t prosecute those individuals— none. <i>BARRY: On July 20, 2007,</i> <i>outside the federal courthouse in Abingdon, Virginia,</i> <i>a few dozen people gathered in protest.</i> <i>A judge would decide whether to accept a plea deal</i> <i>that would allow Purdue’s executives to avoid jail time,</i> <i>a deal that would also keep critical evidence hidden.</i> <i>Protestors hoped to persuade the judge</i> <i>to reject the agreement.</i> - They should have been arrested and they should have been in jail. They should have done jail time. - Jail time or prison time— it would change the behavior of other corporate executives instead of just, you know, taking it as the cost of doing business. <i>JAMES: I remember walking into the courtroom that day,</i> <i>seeing all the people.</i> <i>I had not had a case</i> <i>in which so many victims wanted to testify.</i> That was somewhat unusual. <i>our courtroom sits about 100 people, and it was full.</i> <i>JOANNE: Good afternoon, Your Honor.</i> <i>Thank you for allowing us the opportunity</i> <i>for our voices to be heard today.</i> <i>My name is Joanne Peterson.</i> <i>LEE: My name is Lee... MARIANNE: My name is Marianne...</i> <i>LYNN: My name is Lynn Locascio.</i> <i>PETER: My name is Peter W. Jackson.</i> <i>LEE: My husband and I lost our only child,</i> <i>an 18-year-old son named Randall.</i> <i>MARIANNE: I had a beautiful 29-year-old daughter named...</i> <i>LYNN: 22-year-old son...</i> <i>PETER: Our daughter Emily, only 18 years of age.</i> <i>MAN: I woke up to discover my wife</i> <i>unresponsive next to me.</i> <i>LEE: The cause of his death</i> <i>was an accidental overdose of OxyContin.</i> <i>MAN: She was prescribed OxyContin.</i> <i>LYNN: He was prescribed OxyContin.</i> <i>MARIANNE: She left behind her son,</i> <i>who was six years old.</i> <i>LYNN: He should be a firefighter right now.</i> <i>PETER: She was a bright, funny, artistic, loving,</i> <i>friendly, compassionate person.</i> <i>JOANNE: We all grieve for the losing of the future</i> <i>they were meant to have.</i> <i>LYNN: Michael Friedman, Howard Udell,</i> <i>and Paul Goldenheim, you are responsible...</i> <i>MARIANNE: They are criminals</i> <i>who criminally marketed OxyContin.</i> <i>LEE: Your Honor, please reject the plea agreement,</i> <i>Money means nothing to them.</i> <i>Let the punishment fit the crime.</i> BETH: And the medical director and the attorneys and all, they sat there stone-faced, you know, the whole time— nothing. BARRY: All right, I’m going to give you this. <i>At the end of the hearing, Judge Jones read from a prepared statement.</i> JAMES: [clears throat] Most of our fellow citizens will believe it inappropriate for no prison sentences to be imposed. I must confess that it bothers me also, and I’ve studied this case for many months. However, after careful deliberations, I have concluded that the plea agreements should be accepted. While this may not be a popular decision, my job is not to make popular decisions, but to follow the law. - And so you’re— basically, you’re saying your hands were tied by the agreement that the government and the defendants— - No, I wouldn’t say that. I don’t ever feel my hands are tied. Had they had the proof that justified prison sentences for the individuals, they would have presented it, and I just felt, under the circumstances, it wasn’t there. <i>BARRY: But Judge Jones never saw the prosecution memo</i> <i>because the Justice Department never brought felony charges</i> <i>against Purdue’s executives.</i> <i>He had no idea that there was evidence</i> <i>that indicated they may have lied to the public.</i> Do you think it would have been important or helpful for that information to have become public at the time? - All information is important. And sentencing judges are encouraged to try to get as much information as they can. <i>BARRY: Instead, the epidemic only grew.</i> <i>Over the next six years,</i> <i>shipments of prescription opioids</i> <i>rose by more than 50%</i> <i>and nearly 100,000 people died of overdoses</i> <i>involving prescription painkillers.</i> <i>Meanwhile, members of the Sackler family</i> <i>with stakes in Purdue</i> <i>saw their personal fortunes skyrocket.</i> <i>And two of the executives who pled guilty</i> <i>took home at least $8 million in payments.</i> <i>As far as why the Justice Department</i> <i>didn’t proceed with recommendations</i> <i>in Rick Mountcastle’s memo, he has a theory.</i> - Because there’s not a history of executives in the pharmaceutical business being prosecuted, there’s a fairness issue that then comes into play. - You know, we never popped anybody for this before, so these guys may not know what the guardrails are, what the rules are. - Right, I think that’s a good way of putting it in layman’s terms, yes. <i>BARRY: But for others,</i> <i>this process was far from fair.</i> <i>PAUL PELLETIER: When you choose to handle it</i> <i>in a slap-on-the-wrist way,</i> you’re setting a tone that allows a sort of permissiveness in this area that’s never good for the general public. But I think that this is evidence that there is two systems of justice in America. <i>BARRY: Time and time again,</i> <i>secrecy has served the interests</i> <i>of companies like Purdue,</i> <i>while the public would have been served</i> <i>if those secrets had been revealed.</i> - 200 dead every day! LAWYER: We’re gonna give you a quick update on where things stand with the litigation. <i>BARRY: Today in the new round of lawsuits,</i> <i>state officials claim that they plan</i> <i>to go about things differently</i> <i>and that they won’t stop until the whole truth</i> <i>about what these companies knew</i> <i>comes to light.</i> <i>We’ve heard that before.</i> <i>Will this time be different?</i>