Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, has reached a tentative deal with about half the states and thousands of local governments over its role in America’s deadly opioid epidemic, but criticism by several state attorneys general clouded prospects for an end to litigation against the company and the family that owns it.

Arizona’s attorney general, Mark Brnovich, said the agreement included more money from the Sackler family, which had become a sticking point during the recent talks.

“Talks are progressing rapidly, but this is the quickest and surest way to get immediate relief for Arizona and for the communities that have been harmed by the opioid crisis and the actions of the Sackler family,” Brnovich told the Associated Press.

Sources with direct knowledge of the talks say that Stamford, Connecticut-based Purdue will pay up to $12bn over time and that the Sackler family will give up control of the company. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The company and a group of family members have been sued coast to coast by US cities, counties, states and Native American tribes, accused of knowingly underplaying the risks of addiction and death from the branded opioid OxyContin. The offer is the same as one publicly reported several weeks ago. It was not clear whether the announcement signaled the end of the fraught negotiations to reach a nationwide settlement with Purdue or moved the talks into a new phase.

The company and the family have vehemently denied all wrongdoing in the current cases, but have acknowledged talks to settle the matter.

Purdue Pharma is set to tussle with states opposing its settlement offer in bankruptcy proceedings starting as soon as next week, people familiar with the matter said.

Late on Tuesday, lead lawyers representing more than 2,000 cities, counties and other plaintiffs suing prescription painkiller manufacturer Purdue, along with more than two dozen states and US territories, were close to agreeing on an offer from the company and members of its controlling Sackler family to settle lawsuits in a deal valued at up to $12bn, the people said.

More than a dozen other states remain opposed or uncommitted to the deal, setting the stage for a legal battle over Purdue’s efforts to contain the opioid litigation in bankruptcy court, they said.

States were expected on Wednesday to update a federal judge on the settlement offer’s support, which remained in flux, the people said.

Critics of the deal under discussion began weighing in on Wednesday afternoon.

The New York state attorney general, Letitia James, who has sued Purdue and the core multibillionaire members of the Sackler family, said:

“While our country continues to recover from the carnage left by the Sacklers’ greed, this family is now attempting to evade responsibility and lowball the millions of victims of the opioid crisis.”

She continued, in a statement: “A deal that doesn’t account for the depth of pain and destruction caused by Purdue and the Sacklers is an insult, plain and simple. As attorney general, I will continue to seek justice for victims and fight to hold bad actors accountable, no matter how powerful they may be.”

Purdue’s board is scheduled to be briefed on settlement progress on Thursday, one of the people said. There remained a chance negotiations could fall apart and the company’s plans, including the timing of a bankruptcy filing, could change.

Leading multibillionaire members of the Sackler family, well-known wealthy philanthropists, have declined to revise their proposed settlement contribution of $3bn over seven years and another $1.5bn or more through the eventual sale of another business they own called Mundipharma, several people familiar with the matter said.

New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut, where privately held Purdue is based, are among the states opposed to the current offer and have pushed the family to guarantee $4.5bn, the people said.

Last weekend, the involved members of the Sacklers “refused to budge” after attorneys general in North Carolina and Tennessee presented the family with counterproposals they said had widespread support from other states, according to correspondence reviewed by Reuters.

The lawsuits, which have in some cases targeted as many as eight Sacklers as well as Purdue, claim the family and company contributed to a public health crisis that claimed the lives of nearly 400,000 people between 1999 and 2017, according to the latest data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The suits allege Purdue aggressively marketed prescription painkillers while misleading doctors and patients about their addiction and overdose risks. Purdue and the Sacklers have denied the allegations.

Negotiations over the family’s contribution to a settlement have been at loggerheads. Purdue has been preparing to file for bankruptcy protection with the outlines of a settlement in hand.

“The family supports working toward a global resolution that directs resources to the patients, families and communities across the country who are suffering and need assistance,” Sackler family members said in a statement.

“This is the most effective way to address the urgency of the current public health crisis, and to fund real solutions, not endless litigation,” the statement added.

Company representatives had no immediate comment.

Since the potential deal only involves 22 states’ attorneys general, with many more as yet unaligned, it’s not clear if or when a plan can be agreed.

It would involve dissolving Purdue in its current shape and forming another company that would continue to sell the company’s narcotic painkillers with the income being channeled to the plaintiffs, according to the New York Times.



Andrew Kolodny, an expert in the field of opioid addictions and the opioids crisis, said: “It’s bad because states will be put in the position of profiting off the future sales of Purdue products and that should be a non-starter. They should not be paid back for the opioid crisis from the sale of opioids. It’s inappropriate. No deal is better than a bad deal.”



