What makes resolution of the litigation particularly urgent is that the harm from opioids, including overdose deaths, is still continuing as the cases move through the court process. But the legal challenges are daunting.

The benefit for municipal plaintiffs is straightforward. There is no certainty that they could recover anything on their own. Here, the funds to abate the deadly crisis would be guaranteed and delivered more swiftly than if the municipalities pursued their own cases.

To determine what each municipality would receive, the lead plaintiffs’ lawyers have created an interactive map that will immediately show each participant their expected share of any proposed settlement. The lawyers created the map using federal data pinpointing distribution of prescriptions as well as opioid overdoses and deaths nationwide.

The map is anticipated to be made public if Judge Polster approves the new proposal. A hearing is scheduled for later this month.

“I think this plan is a really clever way to get a handle on the opioid settlement negotiations,” said Howard Erichson, who teaches complex litigation at Fordham Law School and has been an outspoken critic of other large-scale agreements.

The plan would create a “negotiation class” consisting of every municipality in the country. If a local government does not opt out up front, it is presumed to have opted in. Even as negotiations are underway, plaintiffs would be free to keep pressing their cases to trial, traditionally understood to be a necessary stick to prod everyone to the table. The first trial in the federal litigation is relatively imminent, now set for late October.

According to the proposal, all plaintiffs would vote on any settlement offer. To be accepted, 75 percent of the voters would have to approve. If that supermajority were reached, the agreement would be binding on all participating localities.