Transcripts For CSPAN2 Ryan Hampton Unsettled - How The Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Failed The... 20221024

California. Im thrilled. Be here with my friend ryan hampton to. Do i think what is the introductory launch event of his wonderful new book, unsung world how the purdue former bankruptcy the victims of the american overdose crisis. So ryan and i been sort of circling around each other. The opioid space. So since my book dopesick came out in 2018, ive been following his work. We talk a lot and hes been just a wonderful friend and a resource to me. So how does its going to go today is ill be asking ryan questions. Hopefully we can have a bit of a dialog in about 40 minutes. We will have to answer your questions. And so if you want to just feel free at any you have a question to just it up into the text chat. Thatd be great. So in september 29, 19, Purdue Pharma, the maker oxycontin, a Company Controlled the infamous billionaire Sackler Family, filed for bankruptcy to itself from 2600 lawsuits for its role in fueling the u. S. Overdose crisis. Author and active ryan hampton served as cochair of the official Creditors Committee that acted as a watchdog during the process, one of only four victims, a pointed among representatives of big insurance companies, hospitals, pharmacies. He entered the case believing that exposing the sacklers and mobilizing against purdue would be enough to the scales of justice. But he soon learned that behind closed doors, justice had plenty of internal competition, and it came with hefty price tag. Unser road is its a riveting story. First of all, its its very accessible. It takes a of the headlines that that youll about the bankruptcy in newspapers which i find to be kind of opaque and hard to understand and it really breaks it down into two commonsense language that but also ryan is so good at weaving in his personal story as. Well, in a way that i its brilliant. It is the inside story of purdues excruciating chapter 11 bankruptcy of the companys eventual restructuring and the Sackler Familys exit from any true accountability. Its also the untold story of how a group of determined ordinary people tried to see justice against the odds and in the face brutal opposition from powerful institutions and even our government. So im just going to begin, ryan, with asking how you came to serve on this powerful committee its got kind of a wonky title the unsecured Creditors Committee. But so basically what you to get the spot on think it was nine members competing with over 70 lobbyists corporate creditors other big money special interests that thought they were deserving a seat at the table in order to divvy up the spoils of purdue. Sure. Well, thanks, but thrilled to be able to do launch event with you big fan of your also and congratulations on dopesick coming out week really excited to be watching that i think its great timing given where were at with the case. You know i what qualified me to to serve on the Committee First and foremost is i you know i wrote the book and im an activist and advocate in in the space but im also in recovery right so i was a victim of purdues product. It started for me in 2003 after an injury, i got caught up in the florida pill mills, was prescribed oxycontin, was also prescribed. Other purdue products for for pain relief. I write about dilaudid being the main one that it started with. I write about it in the book and that led, you know, overdose destruction at home, unemployment, homelessness, you know, eventually heroin i. V. Heroin use and i got sober in 2015. And after that started just losing a lot of friends of mine and eventually found my way into advocacy and activism and one of my main targets and has been for long time Purdue Pharma back in 2018. Cheryl juror who i write about a lot and unsettled and is a dear friend of mine who still serves on the unsecured Creditors Committee we held the largest protest, i guess you could say in front of Purdue Pharma and delivered a letter to craig landau demanding immediate reparations for people who were harmed in money for communities, had been devastated by. Purdues crimes over 500 people that that showed and when purdue you and i had written about purdue i wrote about them in my first book in American Fiction i wrote a lot of op and when Raymond Sackler died was pretty loud about it. When they decided to file for bankruptcy. As i kind of learned to do, i wanted to learn more about the process and i had already been talking to lawyers and attorneys about a possible kind of large civil action against the company, the family and literally stumbled on this thing called the unsecured Creditors Committee. Had no idea what it was, had no idea how bankruptcy worked. All i all i heard was what many people in the media heard, which was purdue was going to be going out of business they were going to be facing, you know, this litigation, the bankruptcy, all these state attorneys were going to be participating in it. And there was this kind unknown committee that serve as a sort of mega plaintiff in the bankruptcy, because really there is no plaintiff, its not really the same thing as a trial, you can imagine purdue is like the defend of a sense and then the ucc a as a as a plaintiff, they had have broad powers, subpoena powers, depositions, discover re consultants, lawyers to really get to the bottom of how much money to this company have what did they do that caused so harm right and well there goes the zoom stuff. What did they do that caused so much harm and what would the ultimate settlement be . And i and ended up you know, being invited to new york city to meet with the department of justice in the United States, trustee to interview you for this position. Nine people were seated. They up seating for victims cheryl being one of them and myself being one of them. And i thought at that moment, oh, my gosh, we have a seat at. The table. Right. Were going to were like this big band of, you know, people who hate purdue, you know, cant stand the sacklers going to hold them accountable. And were going to do this together. I no idea what i was in for. I had not had a clue really believe to my core that we were going to be able to do some and deliver some shred of justice for communities. But what i learned in the process, it was nothing short of maddening if you didnt live it, which is one of the reasons i wrote about it. And if i wasnt there and saw it with my own eyes, its almost unbelievable. Almost unbelievable. What a typical day like. Because i remember being shocked at how all consuming it was. The first time we spoke. Yeah, a it was all day for, you know, the first several months of the case. I mean, it really depend on the corporate creditors. So youve got to know the makeup of the committee. So it was the four victims and then it was five corporate creditors, which included by the way, cvs, whose facing litigation right now in the multidistrict litigation for their role in the overdose crisis. They are victims. Me as well. And thats the interesting. Part of the makeup of the other five blue cross shield. Right, was representing insurance companies, Blue Cross Blue Shield denied me insurance more times than once when i needed help for my use disorder. Right. And they had a multi know several actually their claim was several hundred billion dollars against company that they had been harmed hospitals had claims and represented by westbrook a Medical Center now im from florida you know funny story i actually been kicked off the steps of west boca center and not given treatment or help or what i needed so you had these big Corporate Giants that were sitting there and then you had these four victims, the big Corporate Giants, you know they had paid lawyers. Then it almost like there was they did this for a living, right like they knew the bankruptcy process and they participate in it in calls. But the victims, ray, the four of us, i mean, we were everywhere right. We were on every call, asked every question, every deposition went through every file piece of material we get our hands on a lot of the first, you know, several months was just getting an education because i can remember in the first six weeks of the case, we jumped on the, we would have daily phone calls that would last and theyd be using this legal terminology. And i eventually just stopped them was like, you know, we dont do for a living. Youre going to have to slow down, really explain to us whats here, because it seems like its pretty important and its going to impact us. So i would say for the victims, it was more work than it was the lawyers. And we were. And then you already had a policy background. I mean, got to know more about the Opioid Crisis. Than about all different aspects of than just about anyone i know, which yeah, that was of the challenges for them because they were viewing this through the lens of bankruptcy law, which again not criminal law. Its, its a very special stylized version of like you put it on the civil side, but even civil lawyers arent really good in bankruptcy and then you mix it with Public Health and its like a disaster right because the goal of the bankruptcy is to, you know, preserve as much money as possible to pay off these creditors not necessary really to institute sound Public Health and actually help the people who were harmed the most like by the time we went into bankruptcy people see theres this big misconception is that the sackler heirs and purdue you know really home the settlement thats at hand and how the abatement dollars go down how much money the victims are getting nothing could be further from the truth. The sackler by the time they entered bankruptcy court, even sacklers were pretty much just kind of writing the checks. The bankruptcy system created this dynamic where victims had to fight other creditors. And when i say other creditors, i mean, the hospitals the pharmacies, the state general, the federal government to make claim that we had harmed more than them and ultimately, as i think is memorialized in the plan of confirmation, we lost that battle. Yeah. Know so give us a sense of how you made the decision to write the book there. A moment when youre like oh my goodness, i cant believe i got to do this. And certainly we know there were orders in place with this settlement. Are you afraid that broken any of those confidential confidentiality agreements have signed with that word to do that . Or was anyone actively trying to keep you from telling the story . I just want to know what those agreements what did you two and and i want you made the decision like what was that like was a scary were intimidated was what was weird place of that. Yeah i mean writing the book one of the more terrifying of my life i will also say like when i made the decision to write it like im not making anything from this all. The profits from the book are going to a Nonprofit Organization in marlborough, Massachusetts Team sharing that works with families whove lost loved ones to overdoses just didnt feel like the right project. You to to take a gain from. I really wanted to just write this to get the story out and made decision you know last spring. Ill tell you though like the book that i set out to write is not the book that i ended completing. Right. So if read the book, it takes you i wrote it in real time. So i set to actually write the original title. The book was sacked, right . I was originally writing a story which the bankruptcy write that was going to be about the Sackler Family right. From an activist advocate perspective, the Sackler Family and purdue. It wasnt going to be this story about what happened in bankruptcy. And i was about a third of the way through the book last spring when the narrative completely changed the lawyers actually in the case. I dont know if theyll cop to this these days, but i knew that i was writing book like counsel for the Unsecured Creditors was aware that i was writing a book. Now they didnt know that it eventually turned to be a for kind of shine the light on the bankruptcy but that shifted for me right february march of 2020 around the Emergency Relief Fund right. And what was that . So at the beginning right at the beginning of the case, i thought it was a crime itself. As i started to the bills and the invoices were coming in that i actually had to sign. Right, because i was the cochair, the committee in 50 million, 60 million. Just keep breaking up that are only going to lawyers and consultants in the case. And i thought it was a crime that money wasnt its way to the ground. It wasnt going to it wasnt going to get to communities in need they wasnt going to go to hell, you know, Serve Community based supports were fighting the overdose crisis folks who are oftentimes left out of funding cycles the states and we proposed this Emergency Relief Fund 200 million which would have been the most the investment in american history. I mean, we we have been struggling for dollars for a long time in Harm Reduction rights, exchange services, things like that. Fentanyl test strips, services for family, family members who lost loved ones to overdoses, Peer Services and coaching, Recovery Support services to Recovery Community organizations would have been so helpful during the pandemic as a right doses, as you know, have just continued go up. Right. Absolutely were skyrocketing. So we thought get this money on the ground. I it was a done deal. I was like this makes so much nobodys going to fight this like get money on the ground. Hundred million of what will eventually be a 10 billion settlement, get it to nonprofit, you know, a nongun criminal, organizations that that are falling through the gaps and having to close doors right now, actually, as a result of the pandemic and we proposed this and fought over it for about five months and eventually got killed didnt get killed by the sacklers get killed by purdue. It got killed by attorneys general in theres, as you know, famously split between mostly republicans and the democrats up until recent. But when it came to money, they were all in lockstep. State attorneys felt that if the dollars werent going their states and if they werent the decisions on how that money was going to be spent, that nobody deserved any money. And it was at that moment that i was like, oh, my gosh. Like, this isnt just everybody versus purdue. This is victims and people who are like struggling to stay afloat right now. Versus the whole system, you know, is in place about. Was that power . It was about power. I think a lot of it had to do with politics, too, because state attorneys general had put themselves so in the for and the spotlight of this case that claiming money that they was a win and made good headlines but what people more gubernatorial elections the road thats right every you know friend of mine says you know famously he says you know every attorney general wakes up in the morning and looks in mirror and sees a governor. And we were that. Now some of the attorneys general who, you know, were some of the most outspoken in this case, are going to be running for governor. Its no secret anymore. So the more headlines that they can generate around this issue, the for them but whose expense was that at right. It was at the expense of you know organizations doing a lot of good who dont get state funding and most that do a lot of good dont get state funding. Its very hard to into those funding cycles is it the expense victims without their claims the 130,000 victims in this case none of the state claims would even exist. You know. So it was then that i said this narrative of this book has now shifted, and i literally wrote it in real time. Like, you know, every day is things were happening. I was writing now you ask about confidentiality they threw us a ton of confidentiality in the beginning that i didnt understand honestly like i understood i couldnt talk about the case when it was going on. I couldnt do anything if i was fighting on behalf of victim creditors that would disrupt possibly a victims settlement at the end. And i respected that very much. But i had always intended to talk about this as soon as it as soon as it was over or as soon i left the committee, i tell you, up until now, you the noise has been a little bit quiet. Im almost certain that theres probably lawyers from, purdue, who are watching this right now live as well as. So, hey, davis and akin gump and everybody whos joining you, you get a shout out just like im going to say hi, mom. Im positive that theyre right now watching this. I did a letter from actually former Committee Counsel at again gump threatening that if i said anything in the book or said anything in the media that could undo the the settlement, i could be liable in potentially billions of dollars and the case they made is that no longer would the settlement be the responsibility of purdue but that i personally can be responsive ball to the entire claimant body which is probably one of the most absurd things ive ever received in entire life. Disgusting. You talk about a shift perception in the book and a lot of people just learning about the case. The news, see the company and, the family that ran it as sole villains in the story what was the moment you realized that this was way bigger than just taking on the sacklers and purdue, which personally i think you really explain . Well, a way that helped me understand it. But when was that . And what happened . Right. So it you know, i had worked, you know, a few months before i entered the bankruptcy case. I was out front in boston courthouse, you know, with a megaphone with nan goldin. And, you know, lot of our mutual friends and and others, you know, calling for accountability on behalf of the state. Massachusetts, in their lawsuit. And i give a lot of credit to the state of massachusetts for getting us to where were at. But what i didnt realize was the more the deeper that i got the case and coming out of that Emergency Relief Fund battle and then getting into the mediation on who gets wheres the money going to go, i had to start recognizing that state attorneys general as great as they are in front of a microphone, their client is the state their client is that state their job as the chief for that state is to recover as much money as possible for that state treasury. It wasnt to recover money for the loss of to a sons to overdoses other family members and their job was to fight for dollars to prevent future harm that would be going through their states and nowhere else and it was just this real aha moment me that we were not necessarily on the same side everything following that relief debacle that that whole debacle just kind of set the tone for the rest of the case. You know, when you think about the way the settlement has been structured for 92 and a half percent of the money is going to corporations and governments. Right. Like we hear about the headlines. But 92 and a half percent of its going to corporations and governments and theres a lot of reasons why and i write about it in the book and only seven and a half percent of it is to family members or people, you know, suffered from severe Substance Use or lost their loved ones, average of 5,000 per family. I mean, its lottery some thats the funeral can even play the funeral or in my case like to give people who were watching a sense of the costs like the economic like we hear these numbers of trillions of dollars of economic damage of the opioid or overdose crisis to communities. But what about the economic damage to families right like we understand that yes you know crime increased criminal justice costs social costs. Right costs. These hospitals and insurance companies, great. But my mom, whos watching i mean, can pull out. She has a file, you know, seven years later, eight years later, of all the bills, bills for so long, the treatment that totaled near a cash value, a half a Million Dollars easy. Half a Million Dollars. Right. What about costs right there . Like nobody that into account the states didnt care. They didnt care like the bar for individuals proving in this case was set so so high yet states were able to just walk in and make their claim based on all costs associated the Opioid Overdose Crisis like we victims actually had to prove to purdue is the causation of the harm and i know well get to the Solutions Later but but real quick could i add in a question like what mechanism in there going to make sure that the money gets the the kinds of help for the what point 6 million americans that are still suffering from opioid use disorder and somehow reversed almost 90 treatment gap that is only 10 of people in our country with. Oh youd actually have had access to treatment in the last year how do we get is there anything coming out of this thats really going to address that . I mean, sadly, you know, the first i know were talking, you know, in purdue, a settlement that could between 9 to 10 billion. But lets also look, you know, at the time that it spread, right, its going to be about a nine year span until. That moneys completely paid off. And the multi district litigation, youre looking even longer than that. And then divided by 50 states, its really in the scheme of things, not that much money to to really do what we need to to combat the overdose crisis. Theres estimates that say we need closer to to 30 billion a year right now. Back to your question about what mechanism protects, make sure that money goes to the right place at the right place and we dont end up in another tobacco 2. 0. Ive actually said and ill stand by this today and beth you and can jump on zoom or maybe do it in person in ten years but i think that you know the opioid litigation will go down in history as one of the most epic class of Public Health failures ever ever. Only about half the states have passed legislation that will protect those dollars to be spent for prevention and treatment recovery. But its up to each individual state to define that looks like right so we know so many so much the money previously has gone right into abstinence only models, which largely dont work for opioid use disorder, not to Harm Reduction, not to Harm Reduction, but also, like ive seen, the abatement plan out party like its just very Broad Strokes and says you you can spend dollars on this but it doesnt say how many dollars in every single plan every single version that i saw criminal is a big part of it. Right so what does that mean, right. Are we going to be looking at more laws that lock people up and throw them asylums like we just dont we dont know. But the best, the best tool we have, which is why i do work that i do. And one of the reasons i wrote this book is its advocacy. Its activism. Its really, you know, examination of where these dollars going and people on the ground really wholly Holding Public policymakers to the floor. You know, it was in in in during the bankruptcy. We had around the Emergency Relief Fund in talks abatement, sitting in a room with, you know, 40 different representative lives of 48 different states in the United States. Department of health and human services, the Southern District of new york. You know, talking about how we should spend dollars and on citing chapter and verse from the United States Surgeon Generals and federal data and. I write about this probably for the big chunk of the middle part, the book, and theyre all telling me. They disagree with their own data like they saying, you know, we appreciate you citing this data and how these dollars should be spent. But sorry, mr. Empty, we just dont agree with you on this. We dont think these dollars should be going out this way unless you know, you know, the state of florida has a bigger say or controls the board of directors of how the dollars get spent like it was very much a power play and you wouldnt see this happen in other kind of mass towards i think you wouldnt see this happen in other bankruptcies this was very unique bankruptcy. You also have to realize were dealing with addiction they saw me as an addict. Right. A lot of them hated the fact i was even there, you know, kind of schooling on the Public Health side of this and, you know, you could see the systemic bias and the discrimination and the prejudice, you know, just shined through in every decision made against people in recovery, family members, people who drugs. So it how far we have to come until. They actually really give you give a meaningful c really listen to us try stigma. I mean its almost a cliche to say to talk about stigma but it really its so true. And what ive realized, you know, after ten years of reporting on this myself, is that, you know, there were things i didnt understand either, but i didnt realize i was stigmatizing and my views. And so you really thats what books like this are important because you you can you can really have this opportunity to educate folks on the difference with you to best though and ill just because this is like over time as weve developed this relationship is that youve really listened to our community and youve spent time with them right. And you and you acknowledge that right. And you changed how you about it. Right. And you change. You talk about it and, that stuff matters. But policymakers, they had all of the knowledge. They had all of the lawyers, they had all of the money. They knew exactly what they were going to do, which was just edge us out every single step of the way. Theres a moment in the book when you sat down face to face with David Sackler, the of Richard Sackler, who was president of the company. And, you know behind the launch oxycontin today this is only known meeting between a victim adversary or activist against the family and. A member of the Sackler Family. What was that like and how did you get that mean . Yeah, it was almost an obsession for me, you know, shortly the after the the Emergency Relief Fund issue. So i originally actually requested and demanded a meeting with Richard Sackler because there was all of this communication going around, how much money . Was the Sackler Family going to put in to this settlement . And where was it going to go . Right in my view. And i share this view was at three. And the original members billion dollars was they needed to go way above 3 billion . If we were going to be able compensate for the you know, get anywhere near compensating for harm to so many victims, right. I had the view of it should be full sackler wealth meaning of the sacklers are worth 10 billion. We want 10 billion, right. If youre going to walk away because this whole conversation around the third Party Releases is meaning the sackler would get civil immunity moving forward. Like, i know its in the news a lot, but you have to remember, weve known about that since before the bankruptcy even the sacklers had a term sheet that they negotiated with the majority of state attorneys general before going bankruptcy, saying were going to get a its just depending on how much money are we going to pay. So i wanted to sit face to with him. I thought id meeting with richard. We have some of like catharsis maybe attached to it. And maybe if he talked to a victim, heard my story, heard a story because joined the meeting as well, met caras son who is autistic and was born with us. But there might be a moment there where theyd say, you know what, i am sorry. And like heres full well pie in the sky. Absolutely well the lawyers came back said there is no way that were putting you in a room with Richard Sackler. You two will kill each other and they offered up jonathan sackler. They said that next is is you can meet with jonathan. And as you know, jonathan was sick with cancer. We didnt know at the time and he died before the meeting. Eventually i ended up with david and by this time the pandemic had in full swing shut down orders the country and we had to do it by zoom and if you ever want to know what sitting across you know a table from pure evil looks get a meeting with David Sackler i mean he was privileged i think i believe still this day and i know you and i have had this conversation and it sounds crazy, but i believe he believes that he doesnt think hes done anything wrong. You know, we disagreed on several points. The meeting got quite heated and then we agreed one thing, which was that whatever the Sackler Family puts in it should to victims. But he made very clear that that wasnt his call, that that would be up to the states and he essentially cried broke to me saying, we dont have more than 3 billion. The familys not going to put more than 3 billion in and that they would rather fight this out in court than contribute more money to the bankruptcy and that they were convinced that if they had to go court and have an actual trial, that they would win. Its to close the loop on that, though. The more i reviewed the case, the more evidence saw, the more documents that i, the more sealed depositions i they actually may have a point because. Were talking post 2007 at this point because, you know they couldnt be sued for anything pre 2007 and the states were kind of empowered as watchdogs after the 2007 consent judgment and dropped the ball so i put the blame as much at states and municipalities and the government for not holding the sacklers feet to the fire when they had access to what they had access to and allowed them to operate the way they did. And, you know, theres theres part of the sacklers that really are kind of gunning for a fight. And theyre like, fight me. And it may it may explain why, you know, not one of the 50 or even the department of justice themselves has indicted them or, has brought a criminal charge. None them have sat before a grand jury. As a follow up, you do about sitting face to face with richard during his depositions. And im just wondering, was there anything cathartic about having that front row seat . Was there an apology offered from the family . Do you think therell be any chance of getting a criminal indictment against . Any member of the sac . Sackler Family Moving forward and . And if not, why . Yeah, the meeting. Best way to describe it is sitting you know, in a room with someone and. You were throwing every piece evidence at them that known to man. I think they could have literally, you know, drawer drawn a Straight Line between like Richard Sackler and like the death of every single 130,000 victims who filed claims and it didnt make difference because he knew going this that the outcome was already set in stone like he knew matter what he wasnt going to face any jail time. The worst thing thats going to happen to is he may have to write a little bit of a larger and he joked, you know he cracked jokes here. And there during the deposition, hes smart. He smiled, he laughed. You know, he called certain attorneys that were questioning him old friends. He was laid back in his i said the other night like and i and i write about in the book its like the best description is like a guy who just zero acts given he didnt care and it was frustrating to like sheryl and myself and others who are watching this because it was one of the most powerless feelings you could ever have. And and i would jump off those calls and be like, okay, hes getting civil immunity. Theres still he can still be charged criminally. The family can be charged criminally. And it would be explained to me that thats not to happen. I know theres a lot of like hoopla by some of these state ags going around talking about how the settlement doesnt include a criminal and they could still be criminally charged. But i would challenge anyone who likes research and kind of look at these things to go find a state where theres been a major civil settlement with a corporation individual and where that state has right around in and charge them criminally. It was just a tacit wink, wink, nod, nod that, you know, they received the civil they wouldnt be charged criminally. And i dont think theres any i think the evidence is just clear or else it would have been done and is part of it too. That once the money starts coming down, i think called equitable, equitable munis. Yeah, because the states want that money and they want to claim that political victory, they want to claim that political victory. I mean they get in is look, im a democrat, you know im a liberal democrat. Im you know, im an alumnus of of a democratic administration. At one point before, you know, becoming addicted. But watching certain state general, even some of the ones right now who are in the people talk about the crimes of the Sackler Family and purdue and they actually have are the only ones that have the power to press these charges. And here we are years later and we havent seen one it just doesnt the smell test for me were were starting to get some questions i think ask one more and then ill ill go to them them. And many of the government state representatives say the money from the settlement will be used to abate the overdose crisis. Weve seen all on tv claiming, you know i got it across the finish line that it will go toward prevention treatment and recovery resource. So as all things i know you care deeply about whats not right about that to you. Yeah so theres theres wrong with it right but preventing future harm is way different than compensating for past harms. And this is important because the multi district, i mean theres a lot of news right now about whats going on in pollsters courtroom. You have to remember the pharma companies, the the the pharmacies, the big pharma companies, theyre all settling. Theyre going to if they havent yet, theyre going to settle. Theres going to be a settlement there. But the only plaintiffs in those cases are government. You know, plaintiffs. Right. It seems its municipalities, its states. Theyre going take 100 of the money. And those are going to get a release similar whats happening in purdue. So they cant be sued in the future. So individual those who are harmed by these pharmaceutical Companies Wont be able to sue those specific companies. Right. For for happened in the past. So now start over to purdue for a second. Purdue pharma bankruptcy is the only mechanism that exists where individual as a collective power have a claim against the company, get any sort of compensation from them. Right. And sadly here in the United States, and particularly in this case justice means a paycheck right, the only way individual allies can, can, can, can get any dollars in is out of the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy. All of the things the states say want to do. Look, theyre entitled. Absolutely. Theyve been harmed a piece of the settlement, but theyre not entitled to all of it. Theyre not even in my theyre not entitled to even a majority of it because all those services i pay taxes as an american taxpayer and you taxes for people who are listening or paying pay taxes for they should be providing those services to us anyway. Right. But they shouldnt saying, you know, screw the victims. Right. Like were not going to pay them. Were not going to were not going to compensate them for the death, destruction and everything thats happened to because we want to fix the future problem. Any other mass tort bankruptcy. And ive learned more about bankruptcy. I care to to know and. Dont ever want to like after this is over care about it anymore. But any other mass toward bankruptcy that would never happen right. So i give this example and then ill we can move the questions and use the state of massachusetts and you i have talked about this example and people are like, oh okay, that makes sense. So theres a chemical in boston, massachusetts, thats poisoning the water for benefit and all of a sudden, 130,000 bostonians lose their lives because this company has been poisoning the water. Attorney general of massachusetts comes in and says, hey, were going to sue this company because of what they did wrong. Right. And were going to and were going to, you know, sue them for, you know, 10 billion or whatever. And the company have enough money in the bank, cover the liability they filed for 11. Theyre going to bankruptcy court. Those 130,000 people or so in the boston filed bankruptcy claim because they lost a loved one from this water thats been poisoned right. Do you think that the state, massachusetts, in that case would stand up and say in open court . But we believe that the state should recover 92 and a half percent of that money because we want to build a better system for the future, not for but the victims lost their their lives. You know that. Yeah. You know, we should be struggling, help struggling with health issues. You know, theyll be okay because going to were going to fix it for future i mean thats not what happened in the Boston Marathon case. I mean, theres theres theres bankruptcy cases where theres been 40 seatbelts, right . Where people have been harmed from the seatbelts in these car companies. And they received a bruise, a result of the seatbelt and. Theyre getting more money than. What a mother will get if she, her son or daughter to oxycontin right. It goes right back to that stigma, bias, discrimination. They see its different. They see us as not worthy. I was during the bankruptcy by and i write about and unsettle the deputy a. G. Who they dont believe we have we. We should get anything the victims should get anything because we do this to ourselves in the states, were the ones providing the services. When the cameras were off, they wouldnt do your so yeah yeah. Well, speaking of families, one woman whos on here might be one parent whos on here says they lost their son at age 27, 1,000,000,000, couldnt bring him back. We know so many people. And they its almost an insult. This average 5,000 claims. But the question here is, relative to the costs, has the cost for the loss of life ever been put in financial terms . Yes. And i think this is so there is two mediators in the case, you know, lane phillips and ken feinberg, ken feinberg being the same one who mediated the 911 fund and. There had to be sheets that were put together. The different creditor groups that were mediated under those two. You know chief kind of negotiators of what you know, what what is the cost of a human life. And i think that was with the dollars that were presented at this time was 750 million before attorneys fees by the way. So itll probably be closer to 500 million split between 230,000 victims. But the number they landed on was about. 48,000 for four death. Right. And then it scaled down to 30 500. But getting that 48,000 bar or its like, you know its like hitting a jack sick jackpot in a sense, because the harm that you have to prove youve to get to that 48,000 is extra ordinary right not only do you need to go to go a a process with the claims administrator which has yet to start right for people who have claims. But you have to show prescriptions that that say that you were prescribed purdue. Youve got to then show record hands of like treatment in a hospital records and really this Straight Line that purdue cause that arm now that sound just like your average Listener Reader or viewer okay well that makes sense except for many people dont have those records. And many states or pharmacies and you know given, the amount of time thats passed dont have the records like im the perfect example, right . Like i had pretty prescriptions, i had oxycontin prescriptions, but i was in the state of florida state. Of florida. Laws only require that Pharmacy Records be maintained for five years. So good luck going back and fighting and, you know, 12 year records from 12 years ago and a lot families, particularly when there was an overdose death. One of the things that i that i experienced was it was really reliving extraordinary trauma for them. Right. Like these lawyers, these plaintiff lawyers were really putting them through the through the wringer on to go and kind of just re investigate their childs death. And we saw many family members kind of give up in the process right and say, you know, its not worth it. Its not worth it to me. Its like traumatizing for them, you know, just all while, though and ive got to point back out, though, like that victim versus state dynamic, because the outsized role of government in this case, the federal government, state governments, they were allowed to show up and filed their claim without having to prove that those trillions of dollars which was their original claim, a claim amount came as a direct result of purdue just using the theory. Right. They use this theory that all Overdose Deaths in one way or another were derived from purdue because they saw purdue as the taproot. Now, im not disagreeing with, but they didnt have to show same proof that individual rules did rhyme like many people like like we should have been at least held to the same standard is our own government right exactly. Another question is can anything be done about the state level in regards to the attorneys general and what theyve done . Great question. Yes. And this is why im a big advocate and talk about in the book and its voting and asking the right questions. Right. I know i am Firm Believer of holding attorneys general to account, showing up, go to their town meetings, ask them why these dollars were driven away from victims when victims should have been front and center ask them what theyre doing with these opioid dollars. Ask them, you know, get involved in the tracking process of how these dollars are being spent. And and and, you know, dont them to politicize the issue, hold them accountable. If youre in a state that hasnt passed legislation to at least put some basic guardrails and know half the states have not yet around how the dollars are being spent. Then find yourselves a good state representative or an ally in the state legislature and help them write that bill. Reach out to me, tweet at me, email me. Id be more than happy to work with you on this because this writing on settled wasnt just about getting this story out there. It was hopefully the people who read it are as outraged as i in this process and are ready to get involved and make a difference so this doesnt happen again, because if we dont change the system, this is going to happen again. And its just going to be worse next time. Yeah. And other viewer says thank you for writing this book. Ryan. There was Media Coverage about how the family didnt suffer financially. All was that a factor in the bankruptcy case . No. And one of the again, one of the more angering angering facts of the case was that while their wealth. Right. While well, while theyre their net wealth was certainly a factor in what they in their initial contribution is averaged around four its going to be somewhere around 4. 4 to 4. 5 billion. Theyre worth about 11 billion. Thats what we came find towards the end of the case. This they have paid that 4. 5 billion out, which is over nine years, and its a couple of hundred Million Dollars a year. There are several models that show that the soccer family, if they dont work another day in their life just based on Interest Rates and based on Current Investments that they will actually be richer than they are today. They recover the money that they have paid out in the settlement and end up in the net. Theres models that show that they could be worth upwards of 16 billion by the time the nine years ends. So that was not taken account when you really, you know, my eyes were open because i actually looked wish i had the chart here happy to share with anybody if they they reach to me afterwards but theres a chart that shows how their wealth goes up each year and how much theyre paying each year. Right. And how much theyre paying each year kind of stays constant, but their continues to grow. That was not a factor. And when you really look at it kind of in black and, white like that. You know, patrick, our friend Patrick Radden keefe, says at best that is billionaire justice. That is that is how this works in the United States of america. And it is wrong. It is this is a great question. And i get i get this myself is calling the Opioid Epidemic a crisis White America a Fair Assessment or is it more intricate than that that . So we have more than lets be like dead honest, like the attention on the quote unquote, Opioid Crisis is an overdose crisis. And we got a crisis in this country that predates the last ten years, gained a tremendous amount of attention when it started impacting White Communities and it was white families who were who were getting the attention from policymakers. And i think famously, most notably in the 2016 president ial election, was really the first president ial cycle to see it, you know, raise to the level that that it has. That being said, still in 2021, theres a Massive Health disparity terms of where these dollars are going, right. Black communities, communities of color do not the same resources. White communities do still today and summer of or september where. Are we september . What month is it september . October, october 20 october of 2021. Those communities receive the same resources. They dont have the same access to medication, access to treatment. They dont have the same access to Recovery Supports. You know, you see, you know, White Communities where you can do like telehealth than like take home methadone. Yet in communities of color. Like the only way to get is to show up at 5 00 in the morning and get dosed right at some clinic that can throw you out for having like, dirty urine. I mean, were in spills over into the criminal Justice System. Its that we have that discussion and dialog because it is happening. And yes, that that isnt that is a very true assessment 100 . And communities color are disproportionately impacted by so it really doesnt make much sense communities of color die at a much rapid and higher rate than. White communities do. Yeah and get incarcerated and absolutely, i mean, there i as a white you know im as a white i should have been arrested many times you know, i was using for things that, you know, many friends of mine did who not white some of them who are still serving sentences, small crimes right. That is a direct result of my white privilege. I recognized that like that is a real thing like it is not colorblind when it comes the criminal Justice System today. Yeah. So right now there are several appeals to the bankruptcy plan and play and im unsettled essentially ends up for the majority of non consenting states led by the Massachusetts Attorney general more maura healey joined the sackler settlement essentially ensuring the confirmation of the plan that gave the sackler broad releases so maybe just in the last minutes we could talk about whats going happen next, what reforms would you propose to keep this from ever again . Super important question. It is still alive. Ball in the purdue bankruptcy case right now, there are active appeals from the United States trustee. Theres active appeals from state of maryland state washington specifically the constitutionality of. Consensual third Party Releases. Its very complicated. The problem the issue is. The 750 million its been carved out victims. If those appeals go through. And i asked the United States trustee this as four days ago, why in a conversation with them about it, i asked what happens to the victims money if the appeals are successful. And the answer was we dont there a very real shot and i wrote about in Time Magazine today that that 750 million goes from that to zero overnight and government creditors take all the dollars so theyre its a complicated situation now should there be some sort of plan or scenario where that money could be. And we go after the constitutionality and the problems with the nine consensual third Party Releases . I would hope so. But nobody has been able to explain to me that makes much. And i think i kind of understand, you know, more than most the mechanics of of of of this process. It also brings in a question like what what happens if it is a people like what happens to the sacklers. Right. And i play this down the court as much as i can. So lets say the appeal is successful. People can go back to suing the sacklers sacklers now have, you know of dollars of liability against them. Whats going to happen . Theyre going to file for bankruptcy and. Were going to be back to square one. It doesnt change the fact that theyre not going to ever, you know, be locked up, never going to face a criminal trial. And it also means they probably government will outsize victims once again in a sackler bankruptcy ryan will probably get way less if at all. So its really very political and a lot of unknowns. So ive really shifted my focus coming out of out of out of the launching. Unsettled is how we reform the bankruptcy process. If you would have told me two years ago that out of this out of this experience that like one of my main objectives for the next year or two is going to be a reformed bankruptcy laws in the United States. I get no way like i dont know anything about bankruptcy, but what ive learned is that victims come last in right now of of this that this case impacts, not just, you know, the victims of purdue, the victims of weinstein, harvey weinstein, the victims in the boy scout case, the victims of future cases similar to this there there is legislation thats on the table right now around. Nonconsensual third Party Releases. There is legislation addressing bankruptcy reform. Senator warren, senator blumenthal or senator durbin . Representative maloney, i mean they all have kind of the outline of what something could look like. Sadly, none of that legislation addresses for me, you know, the main issue at hand, which is centering victims, making sure they have to get in line behind the government and big corporations. Billion Dollar Corporation to collect when theyve been harmed more than all of them. Like it blows mind that none of the legislation addresses the direct harm to an actual human beings. It addresses pretty everything else, but not that. So i believe that, you know, hopefully out of this were going to get in front of congress. Were going to talk about this experience, going to make sure that victims arent that victims do come first and hopefully prevent this from again and really exposing truth here. You know, im closed on this and just say this bankruptcy Purdue Pharma has been touted as the most transparent process by marshal huebner, who im sure is right now the chief lawyer for purdue davis. Bob, its the most transparent process, bankruptcy, the history of the world, you would say in the history of, the world, and then youd hear, you know, attorney general healey, attorney general general james of new york, get out in front of the microphone, say, you know what, we didnt get as much money as we wanted victims and get the best settlement. But the best thing going to come out of this bankruptcy is information, right . Its going to be a ton of information, 30 million documents, all the depositions the whole american publics going to know what happened here right. Well, im telling what is today, again, its october 6th, that infamous has yet to drop. And the second i decided i was going to write this book and start telling my truth of what really happened, this bankruptcy, im hit with a letter saying. Either you shut up or were going to sue you for billions of dollars. Something not right here. Absolutely. Just one last question. Now that your book is, whats next for you . And advocacy . Im bill. I have never been more grateful to be done with this case. I am looking forward. You know, theres a lot of work to be done here in my hometown, las vegas people are dying. Friends of mine need help there are, you know Centers Closing down left and right . We have struggles within our own state around how are going to be spent. I, i am looking forward to, you know, at least in the foreseeable future really spending time here close to home because the, you know, and it its been painful in the sense that i got so caught up in this bankruptcy for two years and people close to me, you know, were hurting. And i thought that we were going to make a difference in this. And we lost a lot of people this year. And so i wanted to i to get to back to basics where it really matters, you know, you just i just want to thank everybody for in and just most of my thanks to you ryan for for getting in there just so thanks so brave about telling and taking on this massive topic when youre also struggling with losing some so many members of your community at the same time its just reminder again with the proceeds from unsettled are going to go to Fund Treatment prevention and nonprofit which we know the ones out there meeting people where they are are really saving lives and really trying to turn back the stigma that prevents people from getting the care and i know this book will help with issue and hopefully will begin to you know start to close that treatment gap which is just unconscionable. But thanks again appreciate for tuning in. Thanks to the Commonwealth Club of california and i hope you have a great book tour. And now on book tv. We want to introduce you to baylor Professor Robert marks, who is also the author of non comple