1 December 20, 2022
ALLERGAN PUBLIC GLOBAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. Definitions........................................................................................................................................ 2 II. Participation by States and Condition to Preliminary Agreement........................................... 18 III. Cessation of Litigation Activities................................................................................................. 19 IV. Injunctive Relief............................................................................................................................ 20 V. Release............................................................................................................................................ 20 VI. Monetary Relief Overview and Maximum Payments................................................................ 25 VII. Annual Payments to Settlement Fund......................................................................................... 26 VIII. Allocation and Use of Settlement Funds ..................................................................................... 38 IX. Participation by Subdivisions and Special Districts .................................................................. 44 X. Condition to Effectiveness of Agreement and Filing of Consent Judgment ............................ 49 XI. Potential Payment Adjustments................................................................................................... 49 XII. Additional Restitution Amount.................................................................................................... 50 XIII. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs .......................................................................................... 51 XIV. Enforcement and Dispute Resolution.......................................................................................... 51 XV. Judgment and Settlement Set-Off Related to Teva.................................................................... 57 XVI. Miscellaneous................................................................................................................................. 58 2 December 20, 2022
ALLERGAN PUBLIC GLOBAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Whereas, the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, Participating Special Districts, and Allergan (as those terms are defined below) share a common desire to resolve disputes between them relating to opioid medications according to the terms set out in this agreement dated as of November 22, 2022 (the “Agreement”);
Whereas, the Parties, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts agree and understand that upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in Sections II and XI, this Agreement will be binding on the Settling States, Allergan, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts;
Whereas, the Parties, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts agree and understand that this Agreement will then be filed as part of Consent Judgments in the respective courts of each of the Settling States, pursuant to the terms set forth in Section III; Whereas, the Parties, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts agree and understand that they shall at all times act in good faith to implement and execute their obligations under this Agreement and shall not act in any way to purposefully frustrate the right of any party to receive the benefits due under the Agreement; Whereas, the Parties, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts to this Agreement now desire to avoid further expense and proceedings and to settle their disputes under the terms and conditions of this Agreement as set forth below; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the Parties, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts by and through their respective counsel, as follows:
I. Definitions
Unless otherwise specified, the following definitions apply:
1. “Abatement Accounts Fund” means a component of the Settlement Fund described in subsection VIII.F.
2. “Additional Restitution Amount” means the amount available to Settling States listed in Exhibit M of $16,192,680.76.
3. “Affiliated Company(ies)” means (1) when used with respect to AbbVie Inc. (“AbbVie”) all of the entities listed in Exhibit J-1; (2) when used with respect to Allergan all of the entities listed in Exhibit J-2; and (3) additionally shall include other entities owned now or in the past either wholly or partially and either directly or indirectly by either AbbVie or Allergan and/or each of their respective past parents, but only to the extent those other entities played any role relating to Covered Conduct and/or Released Claims during the period when they were owned 3 December 20, 2022
either wholly or partially and either directly or indirectly by either AbbVie or Allergan and/or each of their respective past parents.
4. “Agreement” means this Allergan Public Global Opioid Settlement Agreement, inclusive of all exhibits.
5. “Alleged Harms” means the alleged past, present, and future financial or societal and related expenditures arising out of the alleged misuse and abuse of opioid products, non-exclusive examples of which are described in the documents listed on Exhibit A, that have allegedly arisen as a result of the physical and bodily injuries sustained by individuals suffering from opioid-related addiction, abuse, death, and other related diseases and disorders, and that have allegedly been caused by Allergan.
6. “Allergan” means Allergan Finance, LLC (f/k/a Actavis, Inc., which, in turn, was f/k/a/ Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and Allergan Limited (f/k/a Allergan plc, which, in turn, was f/k/a Actavis plc). Allergan does not include Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (“Teva Ltd.”), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”), Cephalon, Inc. (“Cephalon”), Actavis LLC (f/k/a Actavis Inc.) (“Actavis LLC”), Watson Laboratories, Inc. (“Watson”), Actavis Pharma, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.) (“Actavis Pharma”), Actavis Elizabeth LLC (“Actavis Elizabeth”), Actavis Kadian LLC (“Actavis Kadian”), Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc. - Florida) (“Actavis Labs FL”), Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc. - Utah) (“Actavis Labs UT”), Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC (“Actavis Mid”), Actavis South Atlantic LLC (“Actavis South”), Actavis Totowa LLC (“Actavis Totowa”), or Anda, Inc. (“Anda”).
7. “Allocation Statute” means a state law that governs allocation, distribution, and/or use of some or all of the Settlement Fund amounts allocated to that State and/or its Subdivisions and/or its Special Districts. In addition to modifying the allocation, as set forth in subsection VIII.E.2, an Allocation Statute may, without limitation, contain a Statutory Trust, further restrict expenditure of funds, form an advisory committee, establish oversight and reporting requirements, or address other default provisions and other matters related to the funds. An Allocation Statute is not required to address all three (3) types of funds comprising the Settlement Fund or all default provisions.
8. “Annual Payment” means the total amount of the Net Abatement Amount payable into the Settlement Fund by Allergan on each Payment Date (including the Initial Year Payment), as calculated by the Settlement Fund Administrator pursuant to Section VII or agreed to pursuant to Section VII.B.6, which shall not exceed the maximum payment for any given year as set forth in Exhibit M. This term does not include the Additional Restitution Amount or amounts paid pursuant to Section XIII.
9. “Appropriate Official” means the official defined in subsection XVI.F.4. 4 December 20, 2022
10. “Attorney Fee and Cost Payment” means the total amount of the Global Settlement Attorney Fee Amount payable by Allergan on the Payment Date of each year into the (1) Attorney Fee and Cost Fund described in Exhibit R, (2) the State Cost Fund described in Exhibit T, and (3) the State Outside Counsel Fee Fund described in Exhibit S, for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of the Settling States and Participating Subdivisions.
11. “Attorney Fee and Cost Fund” means an account consisting of $187,115,422.10 to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of Litigating Subdivisions that become Participating Subdivisions and the MDL Expense Fund, amounts pursuant to the agreement on attorneys’ fees and costs attached as Exhibit R.
12. “Bar” means either (1) a ruling by the highest court of the State, or the intermediate court of appeals when not subject to further review by the highest court of the State in a State with a single intermediate court of appeals, setting forth the general principle that no Subdivisions or Special Districts in the State may maintain Released Claims against Released Entities, whether on the ground of the Agreement (or the release in it) or otherwise; (2) a law barring Subdivisions and Special Districts in the State from maintaining or asserting Released Claims against Released Entities (either through a direct bar or through a grant of authority to release claims and that authority is exercised in full); or (3) a Settlement Class Resolution in the State with full force and effect. For the avoidance of doubt, a law or ruling that is conditioned or predicated upon payment by a Released Entity (apart from payments by Allergan incurred under the Agreement) shall not constitute a Bar.
13. “Base Payment” means the payments made pursuant to Section VII.D.
14. “Case-Specific Resolution” means either (1) a law barring specified Subdivisions or Special Districts from maintaining Released Claims against Released Entities (either through a direct Bar or through a grant of authority to release claims and that authority is exercised in full) or (2) a ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction over a particular Subdivision or Special District that has the legal effect of barring the Subdivision or Special District from maintaining any Released Claims at issue against Released Entities, whether on the ground of the Agreement (or the release in it) or otherwise. For the avoidance of doubt, a law, ruling, or release that is conditioned or predicated upon a post-Effective Date payment by a Released Entity (apart from payments by Allergan incurred under the Agreement or injunctive relief obligations incurred by it) shall not constitute a Case-Specific Resolution.
15. “Claim” means any past, present or future cause of action, claim for relief, crossclaim or counterclaim, theory of liability, demand, derivative, claim, request, assessment, charge, covenant, damage, debt, lien, loss, fine, penalty, restitution, reimbursement, disgorgement, expenses, judgment, right, obligation, dispute, suit, contract, controversy, agreement, parens patriae claim, promise, performance, warranty, omission, or grievance of any nature whatsoever, whether legal, equitable, statutory, regulatory or administrative, whether arising under federal, 5 December 20, 2022
state or local common law, statute, regulation, guidance, ordinance or principles of equity, whether filed or unfiled, whether asserted or unasserted, whether known or unknown, whether accrued or unaccrued, whether foreseen, unforeseen or unforeseeable, whether discovered or undiscovered, whether suspected or unsuspected, whether fixed or contingent, and whether existing or hereafter arising, in all such cases, including but not limited to any request for declaratory, injunctive, or equitable relief, compensatory, punitive, or statutory damages, absolute liability, strict liability, restitution, subrogation, contribution, indemnity, apportionment, disgorgement, reimbursement, attorney fees, expert fees, consultant fees, fines, penalties, expenses, costs or any other legal, equitable, civil, administrative, or regulatory remedy whatsoever. Claim does not include any individuals’ personal injury or wrongful death cause of action.
16. “Claim Over” means a Claim asserted by a Non-Released Entity against a Released Entity on the basis of contribution, indemnity, or other claim over on any theory relating to a Non-Party Covered Conduct Claim asserted by a Releasor.
17. “Compensatory Restitution Amount” means the aggregate amount of payments by Allergan hereunder other than amounts paid as attorneys’ fees and costs or identified pursuant to subsection VIII.C as being used to pay attorneys’ fees and investigation costs or litigation costs.
18. “Consent Judgment” means a state-specific consent judgment, the general terms of which shall be agreed by the Settling States and Allergan prior to the Reference Date and shall include (1) approval of this Agreement and (2) the release set forth in Section V, including the full and final resolution of any Released Claims that the Settling State has brought against Released Entities.
19. “Court” means the respective court for each Settling State to which the Agreement and the Consent Judgment are presented for approval and/or entry as to that Settling State, or the Northern District of Ohio for purposes of administering the Attorney Fee and Cost Fund and any related fee and cost agreements.
20. “Covered Conduct” means any actual or alleged act, failure to act, negligence, statement, error, omission, breach of any duty, conduct, event, transaction, agreement, service, work, misstatement, misleading statement, or other activity of any kind whatsoever from the beginning of time through the Reference Date of this Agreement (and any past, present, or future consequence of any such act, failure to act, negligence, statement, error, omission, breach of duty, conduct, event, transaction, agreement, service, work, misstatement, misleading statement, or other activity) arising from or relating in any way to (a) the availability, discovery, research, development, manufacture, packaging, repackaging, marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling, relabeling, recall, withdrawal, distribution, delivery, monitoring, reporting, supply, sale, prescribing, dispensing, physical security, warehousing, use or abuse of, or operating procedures relating to, any Product, or any system, plan, policy, procedure, or advocacy relating to any Product or class of Products, including, but not limited to, any unbranded or branded 6 December 20, 2022
promotion, marketing, or advertising, unbranded information, patient support or assistance, educational programs, consultancy, research, or other programs, campaigns, lobbying, or grants, sponsorships, charitable donations, or other funding relating to any Product or class of Products; (b) the characteristics, properties, risks, or benefits of any Product or class of Products; (c) the monitoring, reporting, disclosure, non-monitoring, non-reporting, or non-disclosure to federal, state, or other regulators of orders for any Product or class of Products; (d) the selective breeding, harvesting, extracting, purifying, exporting, importing, applying for quota for, procuring quota for, handling, promoting, manufacturing, processing, packaging, supplying, distributing, converting, or selling of, or otherwise engaging in any activity relating to, a precursor or component of Product, including but not limited to natural, synthetic, semi-synthetic, or chemical raw materials, starting materials, finished active pharmaceutical ingredients, drug substances, or any related intermediate of Product; and/or (e) diversion control programs or suspicious order monitoring related to any Product. The foregoing is not intended to apply to claims alleging contamination of products.
21. “Covered Special Districts” means a Special District that is (1) a school district with K-12 student enrollment of at least 25,000 or 0.12% of a State’s population, whichever is greater; (2) a fire district that covers a population of 25,000, or 0.20% of a State’s population if a State’s population is greater than 18 million (though, if a fire district’s population is not easily calculable from state data sources and agreed to between the State and Allergan, it is calculated by dividing the population of the county or counties a fire district serves by the number of fire districts in the county or counties); or (3) a healthcare district or hospital district with at least 125 hospital beds in one or more hospitals rendering services in that district.
22. “Designated State” means New York.
23. “Divested Actavis Generic Entity(ies)” means Actavis LLC, Watson, Actavis Pharma, Actavis Elizabeth, Actavis Kadian, Actavis Labs FL, Actavis Labs UT, Actavis Mid, Actavis South, and Actavis Totowa.
24. “Divested Entity(ies)” means those companies listed on Exhibit J-3, which includes the Divested Actavis Generic Entities.
25. “Effective Date” means the date sixty (60) days after the Reference Date.
26. “Eligible State” means a State that is not a Prior Settling State and is thus eligible to participate in this Agreement and become a Settling State.
27. “Enforcement Committee” means a committee consisting of representatives of the Settling States and of the Participating Subdivisions. Exhibit B contains the organizational bylaws of the Enforcement Committee. Notice pursuant to subsection XVI.P shall be provided when there are changes in membership or contact information.
7 December 20, 2022
28. “Exhibit G Participant” means a Participating Subdivision or Participating Special District that appears in Exhibit G at the relevant point in time. Nothing about the use of the term Exhibit G Participant changes the ability to amend the list of entities listed on Exhibit G pursuant to this Agreement.
29. “Global Settlement Abatement Amount” means the total abatement amount of $2,149,873,027.00. (This figure does not reflect the application of the Prior Settlements Credit or potential offsets. It also does not include amounts paid to the Additional Restitution Amount, which may be used for abatement.)
30. “Global Settlement Amount” means $2,372,972,184.12 and consists of the Global Settlement Abatement Amount, the Global Settlement Attorney Fee Amount, and the Additional Restitution Amount.
31. “Global Settlement Attorney Fee Amount” means $206,906,476.36, which consists of the Attorney Fee and Cost Fund, the State Outside Counsel Fee Fund, and the State Cost Fund.
32. “Implementation Administrator” means the vendor agreed to by the Parties and retained by Teva and Allergan to provide notice pursuant to Section X.A and to manage the initial joinder period for Subdivisions and Special Districts, including the issuance and receipt of Settlement Participation Forms.
33. “Implementation Costs” means the costs for the Implementation Administrator, which shall be paid for pursuant to subsection VI.D.
34. “Incentive A” means the incentive payment described in subsection VII.E.5.
35. “Incentive B” means the incentive payment described in subsection VII.E.6.
36. “Incentive C” means the incentive payment described in subsection VII.E.7.
37. “Incentive D” means the incentive payment described in subsection VII.E.8.
38. “Incentive Payment” means the payments made pursuant to Section VII.E.
39. “Initial Participating Special District” means a Special District that meets the requirements set forth in subsection IX.L.
40. “Initial Participating Subdivision” means a Subdivision that meets the requirements set forth in subsection IX.D.
41. “Initial Participation Date” means the date ninety (90) days after the Preliminary Agreement Date, unless it is extended by written agreement of Allergan and the Enforcement Committee.
42. “Initial Year Payment” means the first Annual Payment of the Net Abatement Amount payable into the Settlement Fund by Allergan on the Payment Date as 8 December 20, 2022
calculated by the Settlement Fund Administrator pursuant to Section VII or agreed to pursuant to Section VII.B.6, which shall not exceed the maximum payment for the Initial Year Payment as set forth in Exhibit M.
43. “Injunctive Relief Terms” means the terms described in Section IV and set forth in Exhibit P.
44. “Later Litigating Special District” means a Special District (or Special District official asserting the right of or for the Special District to recover for Alleged Harms to the Special District and/or the people thereof) that is not a Litigating Special District and that files a lawsuit bringing a Released Claim against a Released Entity, or that adds such a Claim to a pre-existing lawsuit, after the Preliminary Agreement Date. It may also include a Litigating Special District whose Claims were resolved by a Bar or Case-Specific Resolution, which is later revoked following the execution date of this Agreement, when such Litigating Special District takes any affirmative step in its lawsuit other than seeking a stay, removal or dismissal with prejudice.
45. “Later Litigating Subdivision” means a Subdivision (or Subdivision official asserting the right of or for the Subdivision to recover for Alleged Harms to the Subdivision and/or the people thereof) that is not a Litigating Subdivision and that files a lawsuit bringing a Released Claim against a Released Entity, or that adds such a Claim to a pre-existing lawsuit, after the Preliminary Agreement Date. It may also include a Litigating Subdivision whose Claims were resolved by a Bar or Case-Specific Resolution, which is later revoked following the execution date of this Agreement, when such Litigating Subdivision takes any affirmative step in its lawsuit other than seeking a stay, removal, or dismissal with prejudice.
46. “Later Participating Special District” means a Participating Special District that meets the requirements of subsection IX.M but is not an Initial Participating Special District.
47. “Later Participating Subdivision” means a Participating Subdivision that meets the requirements of subsection IX.E but is not an Initial Participating Subdivision.
48. “Litigating Special District” means a Special District (or Special District official asserting the right of or for the Special District to recover for Alleged Harms to the Special District and/or the people thereof) that brought any Released Claims against any Released Entities on or before the Preliminary Agreement Date that were not separately resolved prior to that date. Exhibit C includes an agreed list of the Litigating Special Districts. Exhibit C will be updated (including with any corrections) periodically, and a final version of Exhibit C will be attached hereto as of the Effective Date.
49. “Litigating Subdivision” means a Subdivision (or Subdivision official asserting the right of or for the Subdivision to recover for Alleged Harms to the Subdivision and/or the people thereof) that brought any Released Claims against any Released 9 December 20, 2022
Entities on or before the Preliminary Agreement Date that were not separately resolved prior to that date. A Prior Settling Subdivision shall not be considered a Litigating Subdivision. Exhibit C includes an agreed list of the Litigating Subdivisions. Exhibit C will be updated (including with any corrections) periodically, and a final version of Exhibit C will be attached hereto as of the Effective Date.
50. “National Arbitration Panel” means the panel described in subsection XIV.G.4.
51. “National Disputes” means the disputes described in subsection XIV.G.
52. “Net Abatement Amount” means $1,799,186,751.00, which is the Global Settlement Abatement Amount adjusted for the Prior Settlements Credit pursuant to subsection VI.C.2.
53. “Non-Litigating Covered Special District” means a Covered Special District that is not a Litigating Special District.
54. “Non-Litigating Special District” means a Special District that is neither a Litigating Special District nor a Later Litigating Special District.
55. “Non-Litigating Subdivision” means a Subdivision that is not (1) a Litigating Subdivision, (2) a Later Litigating Subdivision, or (3) a Prior Settling Subdivision.
56. “Non-Participating Special District” means a Special District that is not a Participating Special District.
57. “Non-Participating Subdivision” means a Subdivision that is not a Participating Subdivision. For the avoidance of doubt, Non-Participating Subdivision also includes Prior Settling Subdivisions.
58. “Non-Party Covered Conduct Claim” means a Claim against any Non-Released Entity involving, arising out of, or related to Covered Conduct (or conduct that would be Covered Conduct if engaged in by a Released Entity).
59. “Non-Party Settlement” means a settlement by any Releasor that settles any NonParty Covered Conduct Claim and includes a release of any Non-Released Entity.
60. “Non-Released Entity” means an entity that is not a Released Entity.
61. “Non-Settling State” means a State that is an Eligible State but not a Settling State.
62. “Opioid Remediation” means care, treatment, and other programs and expenditures (including reimbursement for past such programs or expenditures except where this Agreement restricts the use of funds solely to future Opioid Remediation) designed to (1) address the misuse and abuse of opioid products, (2) treat or mitigate opioid use or related disorders, or (3) mitigate other alleged effects of the opioid abuse crisis, including on those injured as a result of the opioid abuse crisis. Exhibit E 10 December 20, 2022
provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses.
63. “Participating Special District” means a Special District that signs the Settlement Participation Form annexed hereto as Exhibit K and meets the requirements for becoming a Participating Special District under Section IX. Participating Special Districts include both Initial Participating Special Districts and Later Participating Special Districts.
64. “Participating Subdivision” means a Subdivision that signs a Settlement Participation Form annexed hereto as Exhibit K and meets requirements for becoming a Participating Subdivision under Section IX. Participating Subdivisions include both Initial Participating Subdivisions and Later Participating Subdivisions.
65. “Parties” means Allergan and the Settling States (each, a “Party”).
66. “Payment Date” means the date on which Allergan makes its Annual Payments (including its Initial Year Payment), Additional Restitution Payments, and Attorney Fee and Cost Payments, pursuant to Section VII and XIII and Exhibits M-1 and M2. The first Payment Date is thirty (30) days after the Effective Date. The second Payment Date is July 15, 2024, the third Payment Date is July 15, 2025, the fourth Payment Date is July 15, 2026, the fifth Payment Date is July 15, 2027, the sixth Payment Date is July 15, 2028, and the seventh Payment Date is July 15, 2029.
67. “Payment Year” means the calendar year during which the applicable Annual Payment is due pursuant to subsection VII.B. Payment Year 1 is 2023, Payment Year 2 is 2024, and so forth. References to payment “for a Payment Year” mean the Annual Payment due that year. References to eligibility “for a Payment Year” mean eligibility in connection with the Annual Payment due during that year.
68. “Preliminary Agreement Date” means the date on which Allergan gives notice to the Settling States and MDL Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee of its determination that a sufficient number of States have agreed to be Settling States to proceed with notice pursuant to Section IX.A. This date shall be no more than fourteen (14) days after the end of the notice period to States (as set forth in Section II.A) unless it is extended by written agreement of Allergan and the Enforcement Committee.
69. “Primary Subdivision” means a Subdivision that has a population of 30,000 or more. A list of Primary Subdivisions in each State is provided in Exhibit I, and such list shall be updated if any Primary Subdivision is inadvertently missed or included.
70. “Prior Settlements Credit” means the credit of $350,686,276.00, reflecting that the allocations for Prior Settling States and Prior Settling Subdivisions for Claims related to the Covered Conduct against Allergan and/or other Released Entities were or will be separately settled. The credit is applied pursuant to subsection VI.A.1.
11 December 20, 2022
71. “Prior Settling State(s)” means Florida, Louisiana, New York, Rhode Island, and West Virginia and all Subdivisions and Special Districts within those States whose Claims were released as part of those States’ settlements.
72. “Prior Settling Subdivision(s)” means the City and County of San Francisco, California, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and Summit County, Ohio.
73. “Product” means any chemical substance, whether used for medicinal or nonmedicinal purposes, and whether natural, synthetic, or semi-synthetic, or any finished pharmaceutical product made from or with such substance, that is an opioid or opiate, as well as any product containing any such substance. It also includes: 1) the following when used in combination with opioids or opiates: benzodiazepine, carisoprodol, zolpidem, gabapentin, diazepam, estazolam, quazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, oxazepam, flurazepam, triozolam, temazepam, midazolam; and 2) a combination or “cocktail” of any stimulant or other chemical substance prescribed, sold, bought, or dispensed to be used together that includes opioids or opiates. For the avoidance of doubt, “Product” does not include benzodiazepine, carisoprodol, zolpidem, or gabapentin when not used in combination with opioids or opiates. “Product” includes but is not limited to any substance consisting of or containing buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, methadone, morphine, naloxone, naltrexone, oxycodone, oxymorphone, pentazocine, propoxyphene, tapentadol, tramadol, opium, heroin, carfentanil, any variant of these substances, or any similar substance. “Product” also includes any natural, synthetic, semi-synthetic or chemical raw materials, starting materials, finished active pharmaceutical ingredients, drug substances, and any related intermediate products used or created in the manufacturing process for any of the substances described in the preceding sentence. Further, “Product(s)” includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Anexsia, Bancap HC, Combunox, Dilaudid, Dilaudid HP, Duradyne, Esgic with Codeine, Fiorinal with Codeine, Fioricet with Codeine, Kadian, Lorcet, Lorcet Plus, Maxidone, MoxDuo, Norco, Procet, Reprexain, Vicodin, Vicodin ES, Vicodin HP, and Vicoprofen, and any type, version, strength, or dosage of the foregoing; and (b) Aspirin + butalbital + caffeine + codeine phosphate, Fentanyl citrate injection, Fentanyl citrate tablet, Fentanyl transdermal, Homatropine methylbromide + hydrocodone bitartrate, Hydrocodone + acetaminophen, Hydrocodone + ibuprofen, Hydromorphone tablet, Meperidine hydrochloride injection, Meperidine hydrochloride tablet, Morphine sulfate capsule, Morphine sulfate injection, Morphine sulfate tablet, Oxycodone, Oxycodone + acetaminophen, Oxycodone + aspirin, Oxycodone + hydrochloride, Oxycodone + ibuprofen, Oxymorphone tablet, Tramadol hydrocholoride, and any type, version, strength, or dosage of the foregoing.
74. “Reference Date” means the date on which Allergan is to inform the Settling States and MDL Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee of its determination whether there is sufficient resolution of Claims and potential Claims at the Subdivision level to go forward with the settlement. The Reference Date shall be no later than thirty (30) days after the Initial Participation Date, unless it is extended by written agreement of Allergan and the Enforcement Committee.
12 December 20, 2022
75. “Released Claims” means any and all Claims that directly or indirectly are based on, arise out of, or in any way relate to or concern the Covered Conduct occurring prior to the Reference Date. Without limiting the foregoing, “Released Claims” include any Claims that have been asserted against the Released Entities by any Settling State or any of its Litigating Subdivisions or Litigating Special Districts in any federal, state, or local action or proceeding (whether judicial, arbitral, or administrative) based on, relating to, in whole or in part, the Covered Conduct, or any such Claims that could be or could have been asserted now or in the future in those actions or in any comparable action or proceeding brought by a State or any of its Subdivisions or Special Districts or any Releasors (whether or not such State, Subdivision, Special District, or Releasor has brought such action or proceeding).
Released Claims also include all Claims against Released Entities asserted in any proceeding to be dismissed pursuant to the Agreement, whether or not such claims relate to Covered Conduct. “Released Claims” shall be interpreted broadly. This Agreement does not release Claims by private individuals. Claims by private individuals shall be treated in accordance with applicable law. Released Claims is also used herein to describe Claims brought by a Later Litigating Subdivision, Later Litigating Special District, or other non-party Subdivision or Special District that would have been Released Claims if they had been brought by a Releasor against a Released Entity before the Effective Date.
76. “Released Entities” means Allergan and (1) all of Allergan’s past and present direct or indirect parents, subsidiaries, divisions, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, affiliates, business units, assigns, agents (all of the foregoing solely in their capacity as such with respect to the Released Claims), and insurers (solely in their role as insurers, if any, with respect to the Released Claims), including, but not limited to, (a) AbbVie and (b) Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities (and their respective past and current parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, including but not limited to Teva Ltd., Teva USA, and their subsidiaries and affiliates) but solely as to the branded opioid drugs that are Products distributed and/or sold before August 2, 2016 by Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities and the operation of the Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities related to those branded opioid drugs that are Products before August 2, 2016; (2) any person or entity to the extent, and only to the extent, that such person or entity may have a Claim based on such person or entity having a business relationship with Allergan or AbbVie and/or any of Allergan or AbbVie’s Affiliated Companies, including, but not limited to, for contractual indemnity, equitable or implied indemnity, contribution, comparative fault, reimbursement, or apportionment (including, but not limited to, the respective past and present direct or indirect parents, subsidiaries, divisions, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, affiliates, business units, assigns, partners, manufacturers, contractors, agents, and insurers (all of the foregoing solely in their capacity as such with respect to the Released Claims) of any of the foregoing in (1), including Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Laboratories Inc. (“Abbott”), provided that, for avoidance of doubt, Abbott is not a Released Entity for purposes of Claims related to OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, or Purdue Pharma Inc.; and (ii) Halo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Shionogi Inc., Mikart, LLC, PDI, Inc., TMS Health, LLC, National Health Information Network, 13 December 20, 2022
Inc., Ventiv Commercial Services, LLC, inVentiv Commercial Services, LLC, UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., and King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and their respective past and current parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates) against Allergan or AbbVie and/or any of Allergan or AbbVie’s Affiliated Companies relating to any Covered Conduct, Products, class of Products, and/or Released Claims arising from such business relationship; and (3) the respective past and present employees, officers, directors, members, shareholders, partners, trustees, contractors, consultants, and agents (all of the foregoing solely in their capacity as such with respect to the Released Claims) of any of the foregoing in (1) and (2). Notwithstanding the foregoing (and subject to certain provisions, including, but not limited to, the NonParty Settlement at Section V.B.2 and the Set-Off at Section XV below), Released Entities shall exclude Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities (and their respective past and current parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, including but not limited to Teva Ltd., Teva USA, and their subsidiaries and affiliates, but not Allergan and other Released Entities), but solely as to: (i) their generic opioid drugs that are Products, and/or (ii) the operation of Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities related to those generic opioid drugs that are Products for which Releasors have also sought to hold Allergan (and/or other Released Entities) liable. For the avoidance of doubt, any entity acquired, or joint venture entered into by Allergan after the Reference date is not a Released Entity.
77. “Releasors” means (1) each Settling State; (2) each Participating Subdivision; (3) each Participating Special District; and (4) without limitation and to the maximum extent of the power of each Settling State’s Attorney General and/or Participating Subdivision and Participating Special District to release Claims, (a) the Settling State’s, Participating Subdivision’s, and Participating Special District’s departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, Subdivisions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, including its Attorney General, and any person in their official capacity whether elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, (b) any public entities, public instrumentalities, public educational institutions, unincorporated districts, fire districts, irrigation districts, water districts, emergency services districts, school districts, healthcare districts, hospital districts, Sheriffs and law enforcement districts, library districts, coroner’s offices, and public transportation authorities, and other Special Districts in a Settling State, including those with the regulatory authority to enforce state and federal controlled substances acts or the authority to bring Claims related to Covered Conduct seeking money (including abatement (or remediation and/or restitution)) or revoke a pharmaceutical distribution license, and (c) any person or entity acting in a parens patriae, sovereign, quasi-sovereign, private attorney general, qui tam, taxpayer, or other capacity seeking relief, including but not limited to, fines, penalties, or punitive damages, on behalf of or generally applicable to the general public with respect to a Settling State or a Subdivision or Special District in a Settling State, whether or not any of them participate in the Agreement. “Releasors” does not include persons acting in an individual capacity, regardless of the type of relief sought. In addition to being a Releasor as provided herein, Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts shall also provide a Settlement 14 December 20, 2022
Participation Form, which is attached as Exhibit K. Each Settling State’s Attorney General represents that he or she has or has obtained (or will obtain no later than the Effective Date) the authority set forth in the Representation and Warranty subsection of Section V.
78. “Revocation Event” means with respect to a Bar, Settlement Class Resolution, or Case-Specific Resolution, a legislative amendment or a revocation, rescission, reversal, overruling, or interpretation that in any way limits the effect of such Bar, Settlement Class Resolution, or Case-Specific Resolution on Released Claims or any other action or event that otherwise deprives the Bar, Settlement Class Resolution or Case-Specific Resolution of force or effect in any material respect.
79. “Settlement Class Resolution” means a class action resolution in a court of competent jurisdiction in a Settling State with respect to a class of Subdivisions and Special Districts in that State that (1) conforms with that Settling State’s statutes, case law, and/or rules of procedure regarding class actions; (2) is approved and entered as an order of a court of competent jurisdiction in that State and has become final as defined in “State-Specific Finality”; (3) is binding on all Non-Participating Subdivisions and Non-Participating Special Districts in that State (other than opt outs as permitted under the next sentence); (4) provides that all such NonParticipating Subdivisions or Non-Participating Special Districts may not bring Released Claims against Released Entities, whether on the ground of the Agreement (or the releases herein) or otherwise; and (5) does not impose any costs or obligations on Allergan other than those provided for in the Agreement, or contain any provision inconsistent with any provision of the Agreement. If applicable state law requires that opt-out rights be afforded to members of the class, a class action resolution otherwise meeting the foregoing requirements shall qualify as a Settlement Class Resolution unless Subdivisions collectively representing more than 1% of the total population of all of that State’s Subdivisions listed in Exhibit G opt out. In seeking certification of any Settlement Class, the applicable State and Participating Subdivisions shall make clear that certification is sought solely for settlement purposes and shall have no applicability beyond approval of the settlement for which certification is sought. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes an admission by any Party that class certification would be appropriate for litigation purposes in any case.
80. “Settlement Fund” means the interest-bearing fund established under the Agreement into which Annual Payments by Allergan are made pursuant to subsection VII. The Settlement Fund comprises the Abatement Accounts Fund, State Fund, and Subdivision Fund.
81. “Settlement Fund Administrator” means the entity that determines the Annual Payments (including calculating Incentive Payments pursuant to Section VII and any amounts subject to offset pursuant to Sections VII.C and XI), and administers and distributes amounts into the Settlement Fund. It shall also administer and distribute the Additional Restitution Amount pursuant to Section XII. The duties of the Settlement Fund Administrator shall be governed by this Agreement. Prior to 15 December 20, 2022
the Initial Participation Date, the Parties shall agree to selection and removal processes for and a detailed description of the Settlement Fund Administrator’s duties all of which shall be appended to the Agreement as Exhibit L.
82. “Settlement Fund Administrator Costs” means any costs and fees associated with or arising out of the duties of the Settlement Fund Administrator with regard to Teva and Allergan’s payments to the Settlement Fund as described in Exhibit L and elsewhere in this Agreement, including those arising from the use of a bank or other financial institution to receive and disburse payments.
83. “Settlement Fund Escrow” means the interest-bearing escrow fund established pursuant to this Agreement to hold disputed payments made under this Agreement.
84. “Settlement Participation Form” means the form attached as Exhibit K that Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts must execute and provide to Allergan and the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator, and which shall (1) make such Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts signatories to this Agreement, (2) include a full and complete release of any and all of such Participating Subdivisions’ and Participating Special Districts’ Claims and (3) require prompt cessation of litigation activity as set forth in Section III, and request for dismissal with prejudice of any Released Claims that have been filed against Released Entities by any such Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts within fourteen (14) business days after the Reference Date.
85. “Settlement Payment Schedule” means the schedule of payments attached to this Agreement as Exhibit M. Actual payment amounts are subject to adjustments consistent with this Agreement.
86. “Settling State” means any Eligible State that has entered into this Agreement.
87. “Special District” means (1) formal and legally recognized sub-entities of a State recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau1and those listed on Exhibit C; and (2) any person, official, or entity thereof acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Special District. Special Districts do not include sub-entities of a State that provide general governance for a defined area that would qualify as a Subdivision. Entities that include any of the following words or phrases in its name shall not be considered a Special District: mosquito, pest, insect, spray, vector, animal, air quality, air pollution, clean air, coastal water, tuberculosis, and sanitary.
88. “State” means any state of the United States of America, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. Additionally, the use of non-capitalized “state” to describe 1 All such entities are found on the “Special District,” “School District,” and “DEP School District” tabs of the Census Bureau’s 2017 Government Units Listing spreadsheet available at https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/gus/datasets/2017/govt_units_2017.ZIP. 16 December 20, 2022
something (e.g., “state court”) shall also be read to include parallel entities in commonwealths, territories, and the District of Columbia (e.g., “territorial court”).
89. “State Allocation Percentage” means the allocation percentages for Eligible States as set forth in Exhibit F-2, which have been adjusted from the State Global Allocation Percentages to account for the Prior Settlements Credit.
90. “State Cost Fund” means the fund totaling $3,598,373.50 and described in Exhibit T.
91. “State Global Allocation Percentage” means the allocation percentages for all States as set forth in Exhibit F-1, which represents allocations before the Prior Settlements Credit is applied.
92. “State Fund” means a component of the Settlement Fund described in subsection VIII.D.
93. “State Outside Counsel Fee Fund” means the fund totaling $16,192,680.76 described in Exhibit S.
94. “State-Specific Finality” means, with respect to the Settling State in question:
a. the Agreement and the Consent Judgment have been approved and entered by the Court as to Allergan, including the release of all Released Claims against Released Entities as provided in this Agreement; b. for all lawsuits brought by the Settling State against Released Entities for Released Claims, either previously filed or filed as part of the entry of the Consent Judgment, the Court has stated in the Consent Judgment or otherwise entered an order finding that all Released Claims against Released Entities asserted in the lawsuit have been resolved by agreement; and
c. (1) the time for appeal or to seek review of or permission to appeal from the approval and entry as described in subsection (a) hereof and entry of such order described in subsection (b) hereof has expired; or (2) in the event of an appeal, the appeal has been dismissed or denied, or the approval and entry described in (a) hereof and the order described in subsection (b) hereof have been affirmed in all material respects (to the extent challenged in the appeal) by the court of last resort to which such appeal has been taken and such dismissal or affirmance has become no longer subject to further appeal (including, without limitation, review by the United States Supreme Court).
95. “State-Subdivision Agreement” means an agreement that a Settling State reaches with the Subdivisions in that State regarding the allocation, distribution, and/or use of funds allocated to that State and to Exhibit G Participants in that State. A StateSubdivision Agreement shall be effective if approved pursuant to the provisions of Exhibit O or if adopted by statute. Preexisting agreements addressing funds other 17 December 20, 2022
than those allocated pursuant to this Agreement shall qualify if the approval requirements of Exhibit O are met. A State and its Subdivisions may revise, supplement, or refine a State-Subdivision Agreement if approved pursuant to the provisions of Exhibit O or if adopted by statute.
96. “Statewide Payment Amount” means the amount from an Annual Payment to be paid to a Settling State, its separate types of funds (if applicable), and its Exhibit G Participants.
97. “Statutory Trust” means a trust fund established by state law to receive funds allocated to a State’s Abatement Accounts Fund and restrict their expenditure to Opioid Remediation purposes subject to reasonable administrative expenses. A State may give a Statutory Trust authority to allocate one or more of the three Settlement Funds, but this is not required.
98. “Subdivision” means (1) a formal and legally recognized sub-entity of a State that provide general governance for a defined area, such as a municipality, county, parish, city, town, incorporated township, village, borough, or any other entities that provide municipal-type government within a State, and (2) any person, official, or entity thereof acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Subdivision (including, without limitation, district attorneys, county attorneys, city attorneys, Sheriffs, and any other official, employee, or representative). Unless otherwise specified, “Subdivision” includes all functional counties and parishes and other functional levels of sub-entities of a State that provide general governance for a defined area. Historic, non-functioning sub-entities of a State (such as Connecticut counties) are not Subdivisions, unless the entity has filed a lawsuit that includes a Released Claim against a Released Entity in a direct, parens patriae, or any other capacity. For purposes of this Agreement, the term Subdivision does not include Special Districts.
99. “Subdivision and Special District Allocation Percentage” means for Subdivisions and Special Districts in a Settling State that are eligible to receive an allocation from the Subdivision Fund pursuant to subsection VIII.D or subsection VIII.E, the percentage as set forth in Exhibit G. The aggregate Subdivision and Special District Allocation Percentage of all Subdivisions and Special Districts receiving a Subdivision and Special District Allocation Percentage in each State shall equal 100%. Immediately upon the effectiveness of any State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, Statutory Trust, or voluntary redistribution allowed by subsection VIII.E.3 (or upon the effectiveness of an amendment to any StateSubdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, Statutory Trust, or voluntary redistribution allowed by subsection VIII.E.3) that addresses allocation from the Subdivision Fund, whether before or after the Initial Participation Date, Exhibit G will automatically be amended to reflect the allocation from the Subdivision Fund pursuant to the State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, Statutory Trust, or voluntary redistribution allowed by Section VIII.E.3. The Subdivision and Special District Allocation Percentages contained in Exhibit G may not change once notice is distributed pursuant to subsection X.A, except upon the effectiveness 18 December 20, 2022
of any State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, Statutory Trust, or voluntary redistribution allowed by subsection VIII.E.3 (or upon the effectiveness of an amendment to any State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, Statutory Trust, or voluntary redistribution allowed by subsection VIII.E.3) that addresses allocation from the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, no Subdivision or Special District not listed on Exhibit G shall receive an allocation from the Subdivision Fund and no provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted to create such an entitlement.
100. “Subdivision Fund” means a component of the Settlement Fund described in subsection VIII.A.
101. “Teva” means (i) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and, (ii) all of its respective past and present direct or indirect parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, assigns, including but not limited to the Divested Actavis Generic Entities and Anda Inc.
102. “Teva Global Opioid Settlement Agreement” means the settlement agreement between and among the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, Participating Special Districts, and Teva to resolve opioid-related Claims against Teva and the other Released Entities (as defined therein).
103. “Threshold Motion” means a motion to dismiss or equivalent dispositive motion made at the outset of litigation under applicable procedure. A Threshold Motion must include as potential grounds for dismissal, any applicable Bar or the relevant release by a Settling State, Participating Subdivision, or Participating Special District provided under this Agreement and, where appropriate under applicable law, any applicable limitations defense.
II. Participation by States and Condition to Preliminary Agreement A. Notice to States. On November 22, 2022 this Agreement shall be distributed to all Eligible States. The Eligible States’ Attorneys General shall then have a period of thirty (30) days to decide whether to become Settling States. Eligible States will decide whether to become Settling States for both this Agreement and the Teva Global Opioid Settlement Agreement, or decline participation in both settlements. However, if Teva enters bankruptcy prior to the Effective Date, Eligible States can choose to only join this Agreement. If a State is only an Eligible State with respect to one of the Agreements, the State need only decide whether to become a Settling State with respect to the Agreement for which it is an Eligible State.
States that determine to become Settling States shall so notify the Enforcement Committee and Allergan within thirty (30) days after November 22, 2022 and shall further commit to obtaining any necessary additional State releases prior to the Effective Date. This notice 19 December 20, 2022
period for States may be extended by written agreement of Allergan and the Enforcement Committee.
B. Ineligible States. Non-Settling States and Prior Settling States shall not be eligible for any payments or have any rights in connection with this Agreement.
C. Condition to Preliminary Agreement. Following the notice period to Eligible States set forth in subsection II.A above, Allergan shall determine on or before the Preliminary Agreement Date whether, in its sole discretion enough States have agreed to become Settling States to proceed with notice to Subdivisions as set forth in Section X below. The determination to proceed shall be in the sole discretion of Allergan and may be based on any criteria or factors deemed relevant by Allergan. If Allergan determines that this condition has been satisfied, and that notice to the Subdivisions should proceed, it will so notify the Settling States by providing notice to the Enforcement Committee on the Preliminary Agreement Date. If Allergan determines that this condition has not been satisfied, it will so notify the Settling States by providing notice to the Enforcement Committee, and this Agreement will have no further effect and all releases and other commitments or obligations contained herein will be void, other than Allergan’s funding of Implementation Costs to date. The Preliminary Agreement Date may be extended by written agreement of Allergan and the Enforcement Committee.
D. Later Joinder by States. After the Preliminary Agreement Date, an Eligible State may only become a Settling State with the consent of Allergan, in its sole discretion. If a State becomes a Settling State more than thirty (30) days after the Preliminary Agreement Date, the Subdivisions and Special Districts in that State that become Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts within ninety (90) days of the State becoming a Settling State shall be considered Initial Participating Subdivisions or Initial Participating Special Districts.
III. Cessation of Litigation Activities
A. Following the Preliminary Agreement Date, if Allergan has determined to proceed with notice pursuant to Section II, all Litigating States that intend to become Settling States and that are engaged in or have engaged in discovery and/or substantive motion practice (“Active Litigation”) against a Released Entity shall make reasonable efforts to immediately cease litigation activity (e.g., written and document discovery, depositions, expert disclosures, and motion practice) against Allergan where feasible, or to minimize litigation activity by means of agreed deadline extensions and agreed postponement of depositions, document productions, and motion practice. Allergan shall cooperate in such efforts. The obligations under this subsection do not extend past the Reference Date if Allergan determines it is not going forward with the Agreement. This paragraph III.A does not apply to Litigating States with a trial date within six (6) months of the Preliminary Agreement Date, though such Litigating States and Allergan shall engage in good faith discussions regarding the potential cessation of litigation activity.
B. Following the execution of the Settlement Participation Form, attached as Exhibit K, a Litigating Subdivision or Litigating Special District that is engaged in active litigation 20 December 20, 2022
against a Released Entity shall make all reasonable efforts to immediately cease all litigation activity (e.g., written and document discovery, depositions, expert disclosures, and motion practice) against Allergan, where feasible, or to minimize litigation activity by means of agreed deadline extensions and agreed postponement of litigation activity by means of agreed deadline extensions and agreed postponement of depositions, document productions, and motion practices. Allergan shall cooperate in such efforts. The obligations under this subsection do not extend past the Reference Date if Allergan determines it is not going forward with the settlement. This paragraph III.B does not apply to Litigating Subdivisions or Litigating Special Districts with a trial date within six (6) months of the Preliminary Agreement Date, though such Litigating Subdivisions or Litigating Special Districts and Allergan shall engage in good faith discussions regarding the potential cessation of litigation activity. Notwithstanding this provision no Litigating Subdivision is required to cease its litigation if it determines such action would be detrimental to its litigation.
C. Following the Reference Date, the Settling States shall endeavor to file Consent Judgments (the contents of which must be agreed upon with Allergan) within thirty (30) days of the Reference Date. Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts, as applicable, shall request dismissal of their actions with prejudice within fourteen (14) days of the Reference Date. The Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts shall use best efforts to get Consent Judgments or orders of dismissal with prejudice, as applicable, entered promptly after filing.
IV. Injunctive Relief
A. Entry of Injunctive Relief. As part of the Consent Judgment, the Parties agree to the Injunctive Relief Terms attached as Exhibit P.
V. Release
A. Scope. As of the Effective Date, the Released Entities will be released and forever discharged from all of the Releasors’ Released Claims. Each Settling State (for itself and its Releasors) and Participating Subdivision (for itself and its Releasors), and Participating Special District (for itself and its Releasors) will, on or before the Effective Date, absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenant not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist in bringing, or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Agreement are intended to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of each Settling State, its Attorney General, each Participating Subdivision, and each Participating Special District to release Claims. The release shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim of all Releasors. Nothing in this Agreement shall release or impair any Claims against Teva Ltd., Teva USA, Cephalon, or Anda, except to the extent expressly set forth in this Agreement.
21 December 20, 2022
B. Claim Over and Non-Party Settlement.
1. Statement of Intent. It is the intent of the Parties that:
a. Released Entities should not seek contribution or indemnification (other than pursuant to an insurance contract) from other parties for their payment obligations under this Agreement;
b. the payments made under this Agreement shall be the sole payments made by the Released Entities to the Releasors involving, arising out of, or related to Covered Conduct (or conduct that would be Covered Conduct if engaged in by a Released Entity);
c. Claims by Releasors against non-Parties should not result in additional payments by Released Entities, whether through contribution, indemnification or any other means; and
d. the Settlement meets the requirements of the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act and any similar state law or doctrine that reduces or discharges a released party’s liability to any other parties. e. The provisions of this subsection V.B are intended to be implemented consistent with these principles. This Agreement and the releases and dismissals provided for herein are made in good faith.
2. Contribution/Indemnity Prohibited. No Released Entity shall seek to recover for amounts paid under this Agreement based on indemnification, contribution, or any other theory from a manufacturer, pharmacy, hospital, pharmacy benefit manager, health insurer, third-party vendor, trade association, distributor, or health care practitioner, provided that a Released Entity shall be relieved of this prohibition with respect to any entity that asserts a Claim Over against it. However, and notwithstanding the foregoing, this provision shall not preclude any Released Entity from seeking indemnification, contribution, or any other theory from and against Teva Ltd., Divested Entities, Pfizer Inc., King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Alpharma Inc., and/or each of their respective past and current parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall prohibit a Released Entity from recovering amounts owed pursuant to insurance contracts.
3. Non-Party Settlement. To the extent that, on or after the Reference Date, any Releasor enters into a Non-Party Settlement, including in any bankruptcy case or through any plan of reorganization (whether individually or as a class of creditors), the Releasor will include (or in the case of a Non-Party Settlement made in connection with a bankruptcy case, will cause the debtor to include), unless prohibited from doing so under applicable law, in the Non-Party Settlement a prohibition on contribution or indemnity of any kind substantially equivalent to that required from Allergan in subsection V.B.2, or a release from such Non-Released Entity in favor of the Released Entities (in a form equivalent to the releases 22 December 20, 2022
contained in this Agreement) of any Claim Over. The obligation to obtain the prohibition and/or release required by this subsection is a material term of this Agreement. The sole remedy for a Releasor’s failure to include such a provision in a Non-Party Settlement shall be the application of Section V.B.4 below. NonReleased Entities include, but are not limited to, Teva Ltd., Teva USA, Divested Actavis Generic Entities or other Divested Entities, and Anda.
4. Claim Over. In the event that any Releasor obtains a judgment with respect to NonParty Covered Conduct against a Non-Released Entity that does not contain a prohibition like that in subsection V.B.3, or any Releasor files a Non-Party Covered Conduct Claim against a Non-Released Entity in bankruptcy or a Releasor is prevented for any reason from obtaining a prohibition/release in a Non-Party Settlement as provided in subsection V.B.3, and such Non-Released Entity asserts a Claim Over against a Released Entity, then Releasor and Allergan shall take the following actions to ensure that the Released Entities do not pay more with respect to Covered Conduct to Releasors or to Non-Released Entities than the amounts owed under this Agreement by Allergan:
a. Allergan shall notify that Releasor of the Claim Over within sixty (60) days of the assertion of the Claim Over or sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, whichever is later;
b. Allergan and that Releasor shall meet and confer concerning the means to hold Released Entities harmless and ensure that it is not required to pay more with respect to Covered Conduct than the amounts owed by Allergan under this Agreement;
c. That Releasor and Allergan shall take steps sufficient and permissible under the law of the State of the Releasor to hold Released Entities harmless from the Claim Over and ensure Released Entities are not required to pay more with respect to Covered Conduct than the amounts owed by Allergan under this Agreement. Such steps may include, where permissible:
(i) Filing of motions to dismiss or such other appropriate motion by Allergan or Released Entities, and supported by Releasors, in response to any Claim filed in litigation or arbitration; (ii) Reduction of that Releasor’s Claim and any judgment it has obtained or may obtain against such Non-Released Entity by whatever amount or percentage is necessary to extinguish such Claim Over under applicable law, up to the amount that Releasor has obtained, may obtain, or has authority to control from such Non-Released Entity;
(iii) Placement into escrow of funds paid by the Non-Released Entities such that those funds are available to satisfy the Claim Over; 23 December 20, 2022
(iv) Return of monies paid by Allergan to that Releasor under this Agreement to permit satisfaction of a judgment against or settlement with the Non-Released Entity to satisfy the Claim Over; (v) Payment of monies to Allergan by that Releasor to ensure it is held harmless from such Claim Over, up to the amount that Releasor has obtained, may obtain, or has authority to control from such NonReleased Entity; (vi) Credit to Allergan under this Agreement to reduce the overall amounts to be paid under the Agreement such that it is held harmless from the Claim Over; and
(vii) Such other actions as that Releasor and Allergan may devise to hold Allergan harmless from the Claim Over.
d. The actions of that Releasor and Allergan taken pursuant to paragraph (c) must, in combination, ensure Allergan is not required to pay more with respect to Covered Conduct than the amounts owed by Allergan under this Agreement.
e. In the event of any dispute over the sufficiency of the actions taken pursuant to paragraph (c), that Releasor and Allergan may seek review by the National Arbitration Panel, provided that, if the Parties agree, such dispute may be heard by the state court where the relevant Consent Judgment was filed. The National Arbitration Panel shall have authority to require Releasors to implement a remedy that includes one or more of the actions specified in paragraph (c) sufficient to hold Released Entities fully harmless. In the event that the panel’s actions do not result in Released Entities being held fully harmless, Allergan shall have a Claim for breach of this Agreement by Releasors, with the remedy being payment of sufficient funds to hold Allergan harmless from the Claim Over. For the avoidance of doubt, the prior sentence does not limit or eliminate any other remedy that Allergan may have.
C. To the extent that the Claim Over is based on a contractual indemnity, the obligations under subsection V.B.4 shall extend solely to a Non-Party Covered Conduct Claim against a pharmacy, clinic, hospital or other purchaser or dispenser of Products, a manufacturer that sold or promoted Products, a consultant, and/or a pharmacy benefit manager or other thirdparty payor. Allergan shall notify the Settling States, to the extent permitted by applicable law, in the event that any of these types of Non-Released Entities asserts a Claim Over arising out of contractual indemnity against it.
D. General Release. In connection with the releases provided for in the Agreement, each Settling State (for itself and its Releasors), Participating Subdivision and Participating Special District expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or 24 December 20, 2022
other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.
A Releasor may thereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Settling State (for itself and its Releasors), Participating Subdivision and Participating Special District hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases, and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Settling States’ decision to enter into the Agreement, the Participating Subdivisions’ decision to participate in the Agreement, or the Participating Special District’s decision to participate in the Agreement.
E. Res Judicata. Nothing in the Agreement shall be deemed to reduce the scope of the res judicata or claim preclusive effect that the settlement memorialized in the Agreement, and/or any Consent Judgment or other judgment entered on the Agreement, gives rise to under applicable law.
F. Representation and Warranty. The signatories hereto on behalf of their respective Settling State, its Participating Subdivisions, and its Participating Special Districts, expressly represent and warrant that they will obtain on or before the Effective Date (or have obtained) the authority to settle and release, to the maximum extent of the State’s power, all Released Claims of (1) their respective Settling State; (2) any of the Settling State’s past and present executive departments, state agencies, divisions, boards, commissions and instrumentalities with the regulatory authority to enforce state and federal controlled substances acts; (3) any of their respective Settling State’s past and present executive departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions and instrumentalities that have the authority to bring Claims related to Covered Conduct seeking money (including abatement and/or remediation) or revocation of a pharmaceutical distribution license; (4) any Participating Subdivisions; and (5) any Participating Special District. For the purposes of clause (3) above, executive departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, and instrumentalities are those that are under the executive authority or direct control of the State’s Governor. Also, for the purposes of clause (3), a release from a State’s Governor is sufficient to demonstrate that the appropriate releases have been obtained.
G. Effectiveness. The releases set forth in the Agreement shall not be impacted in any way by any dispute that exists, has existed, or may later exist between or among the Releasors. Nor shall such releases be impacted in any way by any current or future law, regulation, ordinance, or court or agency order limiting, seizing, or controlling the distribution or use 25 December 20, 2022
of the Settlement Fund or any portion thereof, or by the enactment of future laws, or by any seizure of the Settlement Fund or any portion thereof.
H. Cooperation. Releasors (i) will not encourage any person or entity to bring or maintain any Released Claim against any Released Entity and (ii) will reasonably cooperate with and not oppose any effort by a Released Entity to secure the prompt dismissal of any and all Released Claims.
I. Non-Released Claims. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything in the definition of Released Claims, the Agreement does not waive, release or limit any criminal liability, Claims for any outstanding liability under any tax or securities law, Claims against parties who are not Released Entities, Claims by private individuals, Claims for Medicaid rebates, Claims asserted, or that could be asserted, by any State, Subdivision, or Special District related to the causes of action in In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, in the United States District court for the District of Pennsylvania, MDL No. 2724, and any related action (such excluded claims include, but are not limited to, all antitrust claims and any claims related to any non-opioid generic drugs), and any claims arising under the Agreement for enforcement of the Agreement.
VI. Monetary Relief Overview and Maximum Payments
A. Excluding Allergan’s share of Implementation Costs and costs of the Settlement Fund Administrator, there are three main categories of monetary payments:
1. Annual Payments to the Settlement Fund. These payments are generally addressed in Section VII. The maximum amount Allergan shall pay in Annual Payments to the Settlement Fund is the Net Abatement Amount of $1,799,186,751.00, which reflects the application of the Prior Settlements Credit to the Global Settlement Abatement Amount. Annual Payments will be made over seven (7) years on the Payment Dates. The actual amount paid will depend on, among other things, the level of participation of Eligible States, their Subdivisions, and their Special Districts.
2. Additional Restitution Amount. These payments are generally addressed in Section XII. The maximum amount Allergan shall pay for the Additional Restitution Amount is $16,192,680.76. Payments for the Additional Restitution Amount will be made over four (4) years on the Payment Dates. The actual amount paid will depend on the number of Eligible States listed in Exhibit N that become Settling States.
3. Attorney Fee and Cost Payments. These payments are generally addressed in Section XII and Exhibits M, R, S, and T. They consist of payments for the State Outside Counsel Fee Fund, the State Cost Fund, and the Attorney Fee and Cost Fund. These payments will be made over four (4) on the Payment Dates. The maximum amount Allergan shall pay into these funds is the Global Settlement Attorney Fee Amount of $206,906,476.36.
26 December 20, 2022
B. The aggregate maximum amount Allergan shall pay for these for these payment categories is $2,022,285,908.12 (the “Post-Credit Global Settlement Amount”). This figure does not include costs related to injunctive relief and document disclosure addressed in Exhibit P, Implementation Costs, and Settlement Fund Administrator Costs addressed in this Agreement. AbbVie agrees to satisfy the obligations to make the payments due in this Section VI if for any reason Allergan fails to fulfill its payment obligations under Section VI (the “Payment Obligations”).
C. For purposes of this Agreement only, Releasors represent that fifty-six percent (56%) of the Post-Credit Global Settlement Amount payable by Allergan constitutes consideration for the settlement of Claims involving, arising from, or related to generic opioid drugs that are Products distributed and/or sold before August 2, 2016 by Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities and the operation of Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities related to those generic opioid drugs that are Products before August 2, 2016 that the Releasors are asserting or might otherwise assert or could assert that Allergan (or any other Released Entity) is directly or indirectly and/or jointly or severally liable, including but not limited to, based on parent or control liability or a substantially similar theory. Releasors represent that forty-four percent (44%) of the PostCredit Global Settlement Amount payable by Allergan constitutes consideration for the settlement of Claims involving, arising from, or related to branded opioid drugs that are Products of or attributable to Allergan or any other Released Entity (including but not limited to branded opioid drugs that are Products distributed and/or sold before August 2, 2016 by Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities and the operation of the Divested Actavis Generic Entities and the other Divested Entities related to those branded opioid drugs that are Products before August 2, 2016) that the Releasors are asserting or might otherwise assert or could assert against Allergan or any other Released Entity, of which seventy-seven percent (77%) is specifically involving, arising from, or related to Kadian® (including but not limited to Kadian® manufactured, distributed, marketed, and/or sold from 1997 through 2008 by King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and/or Alpharma Inc.).
D. Settlement Fund Administrator and Implementation Costs. If this Agreement becomes effective, Allergan shall be responsible for one-third of the Implementation Costs. The full amount of the Implementation Costs shall be jointly advanced by Teva and Allergan. If this Agreement becomes effective, then Allergan shall deduct from Allergan’s Initial Year Payment the difference between the excess amount it advanced for Implementation Costs and its one-third obligation for such costs. Settlement Fund Administrator Costs shall be paid out of interest accrued on the Settlement Fund. Should such interest prove insufficient to fully cover the costs, the remaining cost amounts shall be paid one-third by Teva, onethird by Allergan and one-third from the Settlement Fund through the disbursement of Allergan’s final Payment Allergan shall not be responsible for any costs incurred by the Settlement Fund Administrator after the disbursement of its final Payment.
VII. Annual Payments to Settlement Fund
27 December 20, 2022
A. Structure of Payments to Settlement Fund
1. All payments under this Section VII shall be made into the Settlement Fund, except that where specified, they shall be made into the Settlement Fund Escrow. The Settlement Fund shall be allocated and used only as specified in Section VIII.
2. Allergan shall pay into the Settlement Fund the Net Abatement Amount consisting of $1,799,186,751.00 minus: (1) any offsets specified in subsection VII.C below; (2) any unearned Incentive Payments under subsection VII.E below; and (3) any adjustments under Section XI below.
3. The payments to the Settlement Fund shall be divided into Base Payments and Incentive Payments as provided in subsections VII.D and VII.E below and set out in Exhibit M.
B. Settlement Fund Payment Process
1. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Allergan shall make one Initial Year Payment (the first Annual Payment) and six (6) additional Annual Payments of equal installments of the Net Abatement Amount (after all applicable offsets) into the Settlement Fund. The Settlement Payment Schedule is set forth in Exhibit M. Annual Payments shall be made on the Payment Date, provided that the necessary wire instructions, W-9 form, and Allergan’s Bank Verification Form process is completed for the Settlement Fund at least twenty-one (21) days before the relevant payment is due and Allergan has completed any process required by the Settlement Fund Administrator and/or its financial institution(s) to complete the transaction. If there is a delay in making a payment because any of these conditions were not completed at least twenty-one (21) days in advance of the Payment Date, then the Annual Payment will be made within twenty-one (21) days of the completion of these conditions.
2. The Initial Year Payment shall consist of only Base Payments (after all applicable offsets). The other six (6) Annual Payments shall each consist of Base Payments (after all applicable offsets) and Incentive Payments (after all applicable offsets).
The amount of the Initial Year Payment and each other Annual Payment, payable by Allergan shall not exceed the maximum amounts allocated to each Payment Year in Exhibit M.
3. To determine each Annual Payment for Payment Year 2 forward, the Settlement Fund Administrator shall use the data in its records sixty (60) days prior to the Payment Date for each payment. Prior to the Effective Date, the Parties will include an exhibit to the Agreement setting forth in detail the process for the Settlement Fund Administrator obtaining relevant data and for distributing funds to Settling States and Exhibit G Participants consistent with the terms of this Agreement as quickly as practical.
28 December 20, 2022
4. The Settlement Fund Administrator shall determine the Annual Payment and the Statewide Payment Amount for each Settling State, consistent with the provisions in Exhibit L, by:
a. determining, for each Settling State, the amount of Base Payments and Incentive Payments to which the State is entitled by applying the criteria in this Section;
b. applying any reductions, or offsets required by Sections VII and XI; and c. determining the total amount owed by Allergan to all Settling States and Exhibit G Participant.
5. If, no later than fifty (50) days prior to the Payment Date for each payment for Payment Year 2 forward, Allergan and the Enforcement Committee inform the Settlement Fund Administrator that they agree on the amount of the Annual Payment and the Statewide Payment Amount for each Settling State, Allergan shall pay the agreed-upon Annual Payment amount on the Payment Date and the Settlement Fund Administrator shall treat those amounts as the determination described in subsection VII.B.4. If the Settlement Fund Administrator is not so informed, it shall give notice to Allergan, the Settling States, and the Enforcement Committee of the amount of the Annual Payment, and the Statewide Payment Amount for each Settling State, following the determination described in subsection VII.B.4, and the following timeline shall apply:
a. Within twenty-one (21) days of the notice provided by the Settlement Fund Administrator, Allergan, any Settling State or the Enforcement Committee may dispute, in writing, the calculation of the Annual Payment, or the Statewide Payment Amount for a Settling State. Such disputing party must provide a written notice of dispute to the Settlement Fund Administrator, the Enforcement Committee, any affected Settling State, and Allergan identifying the nature of the dispute, the amount of money that is disputed, and the Settling State(s) affected.
b. Within twenty-one (21) days of the sending of a written notice of dispute, any affected party may submit a response, in writing, to the Settlement Fund Administrator, the Enforcement Committee, any affected Settling State, and Allergan identifying the basis for disagreement with the notice of dispute. c. If no response is filed, the Settlement Fund Administrator shall adjust the amount calculated consistent with the written notice of dispute, and Allergan shall pay the adjusted amount as the Annual Payment on the Payment Date. If a written response to the written notice of dispute is timely sent to the Settlement Fund Administrator, the Settlement Fund Administrator shall notify Allergan of the preliminary amount to be paid, which shall be the greater of the amount originally calculated by the Settlement Fund Administrator or the amount that would be consistent with 29 December 20, 2022
the notice of dispute, provided, however that in no circumstances shall the preliminary amount to be paid be higher than the maximum amount of Base Payments and Incentive Payments for that payment as set forth in Exhibit M. For the avoidance of doubt, a transfer of payments from the Settlement Fund Escrow for other Payment Years does not count toward determining whether the amount to be paid is higher than the maximum amount of Base Payments and Incentive Payments for that payment as set forth in Exhibit M.
d. The Settlement Fund Administrator shall place any disputed amount of the preliminary amount paid by Allergan into the Settlement Fund Escrow and shall disburse any undisputed amount to each Settling State and its Exhibit G Participants.
6. If a Settling State informs the Settlement Fund Administrator that it and its Exhibit G Participants have reached consensus on the amount of its Statewide Payment Amount, determined pursuant to subsection VII.B.3 or VII.B.4, to be distributed to the Settling State, among its separate types of funds (if applicable), and among its Exhibit G Participants, the Settlement Fund Administrator shall disburse the Statewide Payment Amount pursuant to the consensus distribution amounts provided by the Settling State. For a Settling States that does not so notify the Settlement Fund Administrator, the Settlement Fund Administrator shall allocate the Settling State’s Statewide Payment Amount, pursuant to Section VII, among the separate types of funds for the Settling State (if applicable), and among its Exhibit G Participants using the following procedures:
a. As soon as possible for each payment and following the determination described in subsection VII.B.3 and VII.B.4, the Settlement Fund Administrator shall give notice to the relevant Settling States and their Exhibit G Participants of the amount to be received by each Settling State, the amount to be received by the separate types of funds for each Settling State (if applicable), and the amount to be received by each Settling State’s Exhibit G Participants.
b. Within twenty-one (21) days of the notice provided by the Settlement Fund Administrator, any Settling State or Exhibit G Participant may dispute, in writing, the calculation of the amount to be received by a Settling State and/or its Exhibit G Participants. A dispute will be deemed invalid and disregarded if it challenges the allocations adopted by a State-Subdivision Agreement approved pursuant to the provisions of Exhibit O or by statute.
Such disputing party must provide a written notice of dispute to the Settlement Fund Administrator, any affected Settling State, and any affected Exhibit G Participant identifying the nature of the dispute, the amount of money that is disputed, and the Settling State(s) affected. c. Within twenty-one (21) days of the sending of a written notice of dispute, any affected Settling State or any affected Exhibit G Participant may submit 30 December 20, 2022
a response, in writing, to the Settlement Fund Administrator, any affected Settling State and any affected Exhibit G Participant identifying the basis for disagreement with the notice of dispute.
d. If no response is filed, the Settlement Fund Administrator shall adjust the amount calculated consistent with the written notice of dispute. e. The Settlement Fund Administrator shall place any disputed amount into the Settlement Fund Escrow and shall disburse any undisputed amount to the Settling State and its Exhibit G Participants.
7. Disputes described in this subsection (other than those for which no response is filed under subsection VII.B.5.c or VII.B.6.d) shall be resolved in accordance with the terms of Section XIV.
8. The Settlement Fund Administrator may combine the disbursements of Annual Payments with disbursement of funds under other comparable opioid settlements.
In determining when disbursements for each Annual Payment will be made, the Settlement Fund Administrator may take into account the timeline for the availability of disbursements under other comparable opioid settlements.
9. For the avoidance of doubt, Subdivisions and Special Districts not listed on Exhibit G shall not receive an allocation from the Subdivision Fund.
C. Offsets to Annual Payments to the Settlement Fund for Non-Settling States
1. An offset equal to the Net Abatement Amount of $1,799,186,751.00 times the State Allocation Percentage assigned to each Non-Settling State in Exhibit F-2 shall be deducted from the total amount to be paid by Allergan to the Settlement Fund.
2. Non-Settling States shall not be eligible for any payments or have any rights in connection with this Agreement. Accordingly, the stated maximum dollar amounts of the Annual Payments specified in Exhibit M are reduced by the aggregate State Allocation Percentage of Non-Settling States as set forth in Exhibit F-2.
D. Base Payments
1. Allergan shall make Base Payments into the Settlement Fund in an amount equal to 45% of the Net Abatement Amount of $1,799,186,751.00 minus any offsets for Non-Settling States specified in Section VII.C.I. The maximum total for Base Payments is $809,634,037.95. The Base Payments will be paid in accordance with the Settlement Payment Schedule specified by Exhibit M, subject to potential offsets for Non-Settling States as provided in Section VII.C.1.
2. The Base Payments will be allocated by Settling State proportionate to each Settling State’s State Allocation Percentage in Exhibit F-2, adjusted for any Non-Settling State.
31 December 20, 2022
E. Incentive Abatement Payments
1. Allergan shall make potential Incentive Payments totaling up to a maximum of 55% of the Net Abatement Amount of $1,799,186,751.00 for all Settling States with the actual amount depending on whether and the extent to which the criteria set forth below are met in each Settling State. The maximum total for Incentive Payments is $989,552,713.05.
2. The maximum total Incentive Payment for any Settling State shall be no more than the maximum total for Incentive Payments listed in Section VII.E.1 times the Settling State’s State Allocation Percentage specified in Exhibit F-2. Incentive Payments are state-specific, with each Settling State receiving an Incentive Payment based on the incentives for which it is eligible for that year under the criteria set forth below and any offset specified in Section XI.
3. The Incentive Payments shall be divided among four (4) categories, referred to as Incentives A–D. Incentives A–C will be due in installments over six (6) Payment Years beginning with Annual Payment 2 and Incentive D will be due in installments over four (4) years beginning with Annual Payment 4, as shown on Exhibit M. The total amount of Incentive Payments in an Annual Payment shall be the sum of the Incentive Payments for which individual Settling States are eligible for that Payment Year under the criteria set forth below. The Incentive Payments shall be made with respect to a specific Settling State based on its eligibility for that Payment Year under the criteria set forth below.
4. The maximum amount available for Incentive Payments, $989,552,713.05, is divided into two pools. The maximum amount of Incentive Payments for Incentives A-C shall be $863,609,640.48, which is 48% of the maximum Net Abatement Amount. A Settling State may be eligible for its full allocable share of this payment by either achieving Incentive A or by fully earning both Incentives B and C. The maximum amount of Incentive Payments for Incentive D shall be $125,943,072.57, which is 7% of the maximum Net Abatement Amount. (These figures represent maximum payments prior to being adjusted for any offsets and assumes every State is a Settling State and will satisfy the requirements specified below to earn its maximum incentive amount. The Incentive Payments will be paid in accordance with the payment schedule in Exhibit M, subject to potential deductions as provided herein.) A Settling State qualifies to receive Incentive Payments in addition to Base Payments if it meets the incentive eligibility requirements specified below. Settling States may qualify for Incentive Payments in four ways. If a Settling State qualifies for Incentive A, it will become entitled to receive the maximum payment allocable to the State for Incentives A-C as stated in subsection VII.E.5. If a Settling State does not qualify for Incentive A, it can alternatively qualify for Incentive B and/or Incentive C. A Settling State can qualify for Incentive D regardless of whether it qualifies for another Incentive Payment.
32 December 20, 2022
5. Incentive A: Full Participation or Fully Released Claims of Litigating Subdivisions, Litigating Special Districts, Non-Litigating Subdivisions with Population Greater Than 10,000, and Non-Litigating Covered Special Districts. a. A Settling State’s total potential Incentive A payment allocation is $863,609,640.48 times the percentage allocation assigned that Settling State in Exhibit F-2.
b. A State qualifies for Incentive A by: (1) complete participation in the form of releases consistent with Section V above from all Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts, Non-Litigating Subdivisions with population over 10,000, and Non-Litigating Covered Special Districts; (2) a Bar; or (3) a combination of approaches in clauses (1)-(2) that achieves the same level of resolution of Subdivision and Special District Claims (e.g., a law barring future litigation combined with full joinder by Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts). For purposes of Incentive A, a Subdivision or Special District is considered a “Litigating Subdivision” or “Litigating Special District” if it has brought Released Claims against Released Entities on or before the Reference Date; all other Subdivisions and Special Districts are considered “Non-Litigating.” For purposes of Incentive A, Non-Litigating Covered Special Districts shall not include a Special District with any of the following words or phrases in its name:
mosquito, pest, insect, spray, vector, animal, air quality, air pollution, clean air, coastal water, tuberculosis, and sanitary.
c. If a Settling State qualifies for Incentive A after receiving an Incentive Payment under Incentives B or C, described below, the Settling State’s payments under Incentive A will equal the remainder of its total potential Incentive A payments less any payments previously received under Incentives B or C. A Settling State that receives all of its total potential Incentive A payment allocation shall not receive additional Incentive Payments under Incentives B or C.
d. A Settling State that is not eligible for Incentive A as of two (2) years after the Effective Date shall not be eligible for Incentive A for that Payment Year or any subsequent Payment Years.
6. Incentive B: Early Participation or Released Claims by Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts.
a. If a Settling State does not qualify for Incentive A, it may still qualify to receive up to 60% of its total potential Incentive A payment allocation under Incentive B.
b. A Settling State can qualify for an Incentive B payment if Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts collectively representing at least 75% of the Settling State’s litigating population are either Participating 33 December 20, 2022
Subdivisions, Participating Special Districts, or have their claims resolved through Case-Specific Resolutions.
(i) A Settling State’s litigating population is the sum of the population of all Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts. A Settling State’s litigating population shall include all Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts whose populations overlap in whole or in part with other Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts, for instance in the case of a Litigating Special District, city, or township contained within a county. (ii) For example, if School District A is a Litigating Special District in City B with a population of 1, City B is itself a Litigating Subdivision with a population of 8, and City B is located within County C, and County C is a Litigating Subdivision with a population 10, then each of their individual populations shall be added together (i.e., 1 + 8 +10) to determine the total litigating population (i.e., 19).
c. The following time periods apply to Incentive B payments:
(i) Period 1: Zero to two hundred ten (210) days after the Effective Date.
(ii) Period 2: Two hundred eleven (211) days to one year after the Effective Date.
(iii) Period 3: One year and one day to two years after the Effective Date. d. Within Period 1: If Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts collectively representing at least 75% of a Settling State’s litigating population are Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts, or have their Claims resolved through Case-Specific Resolutions during Period 1, then a sliding scale will determine the share of the funds available under Incentive B, with a maximum of 60% of the Settling State’s total potential Incentive Payment allocation available. Under that sliding scale, if Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts collectively representing 75% of a Settling State’s litigating population become Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts, or achieve Case-Specific Resolution status by the end of Period 1, a Settling State will receive 50% of the total amount available to it under Incentive B. If more Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts become Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts, or achieve Case-Specific Resolution status, the Settling State shall receive an increased percentage of the total amount available to it under Incentive B as shown in the table below.
34 December 20, 2022
Participation or Case-Specific
Resolution Levels
(As percentage of litigating
population)
Incentive B Award
(As percentage of total
amount available to Settling State
for Incentive B)
75% 50%
76% 52%
77% 54%
78% 56%
79% 58%
80% 60%
85% 70%
90% 80%
95% 90%
100% 100%
e. Within Period 2: If a Settling State did not qualify for an Incentive B payment in Period 1 but Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts collectively representing at least 75% of the Settling State’s litigating population become Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts, or achieve Case-Specific Resolution status by the end of Period 2, then the Settling State qualifies for 75% of the Incentive B payment it would have qualified for in Period 1.
f. Within Period 3: If a Settling State did not qualify for an Incentive B payment in Periods 1 or 2, but Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts collectively representing at least 75% of the Settling State’s litigating population become Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts, or achieve Case-Specific Resolution status by the end of Period 3, then the Settling State qualifies for 50% of the Incentive B payment it would have qualified for in Period 1. g. A Settling State that receives the Incentive B payment for Periods 1 and/or 2 can receive additional payments if it secures participation from additional Litigating Subdivisions and/or Litigating Special Districts (or Case-Specific Resolutions of their Claims) during Periods 2 and/or 3. Those additional payments would equal 75% (for additional participation or Case-Specific Resolutions during Period 2) and 50% (for additional participation or CaseSpecific Resolutions during Period 3) of the amount by which the increased litigating population levels would have increased the Settling State’s Incentive B payment if they had been achieved in Period 1. h. The percentage of the available Incentive B amount for which a Settling State is eligible by the end of Period 3 shall cap its eligibility for that Payment Year and all subsequent Payment Years. If Litigating Subdivisions and Litigating Special Districts that have become Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts, or achieved Case-Specific Resolution 35 December 20, 2022
status collectively represent less than 75% of a Settling State’s litigating population by the end of Period 3, the Settling State shall not receive any Incentive B payment.
i. If there are no Litigating Subdivisions or Litigating Special Districts in a Settling State, and that Settling State is otherwise eligible for Incentive B, that Settling State will receive its full allocable share of Incentive B. j. Incentives earned under Incentive B shall accrue after each of Periods 1, 2, and 3. Calculations to increase Incentive Payments in later periods based on additional joinder shall not reduce any amount already vested at the end of a prior period.
7. Incentive C: Participation or Release of Claims by Primary Subdivisions a. If a Settling State does not qualify for Incentive A, it may still qualify to receive up to 40% of its total potential Incentive A payment allocation under Incentive C, which has two parts.
b. Part 1: Under Incentive C, Part 1, a Settling State can receive up to 75% of its Incentive C allocation. A Settling State can qualify for a payment under Incentive C, Part 1 only if Primary Subdivisions (whether Litigating Primary Subdivisions or Non-Litigating Primary Subdivisions as of the Reference Date) collectively representing at least 60% of the Settling State’s Primary Subdivision population become Participating Subdivisions or achieve Case-Specific Resolution status.
(i) A Settling State’s Primary Subdivision population is the sum of the population of all Primary Subdivisions (whether Litigating Primary Subdivisions or Non-Litigating Primary Subdivisions as of the Reference Date). A Settling State’s Primary Subdivision population shall include all Primary Subdivisions whose populations overlap in whole or in part with other Primary Subdivisions, for instance in the case of a Primary Subdivision that is a city contained within a Primary Subdivision that is a county. Because Primary Subdivisions include Subdivisions whose populations overlap in whole or in part with other Subdivisions, the Settling State’s Primary Subdivision population may be greater than the Settling State’s total population. (Special Districts are not relevant for purposes of Incentive C calculations.)
(ii) For example, if City A is a Primary Subdivision with a population of 1 within County B, and County B is a Primary Subdivision with a population of 10, then each of their individual populations shall be added together (i.e., 1+10) to determine the total Primary Subdivision population (i.e., 11).
36 December 20, 2022
c. A sliding scale will determine the share of the funds available under Incentive C, Part 1 to Settling States meeting the minimum 60% threshold.
Under that sliding scale, if a Settling State secures participation or CaseSpecific Resolutions from Primary Subdivisions representing 60% of its total Primary Subdivision population, it will receive 40% of the total amount potentially available to it under Incentive C, Part 1. If a Settling State secures participation or Case-Specific Resolutions from Primary Subdivisions representing more than 60% of its Primary Subdivision population, the Settling State shall be entitled to receive a higher percentage of the total amount potentially available to it under Incentive C, Part 1, on the scale shown in the table below. If there are no Primary Subdivisions, and that Settling State is otherwise eligible for Incentive C, that Settling State will receive its full allocable share of Incentive C, Part 1.
Participation or Case-Specific
Resolution Levels
(As percentage of total Primary
Subdivision population)
Incentive C, Part 1 Award
(As percentage of total
amount available to Settling State
for Incentive C, Part 1)
60% 40%
70% 45%
80% 50%
85% 55%
90% 60%
91% 65%
92% 70%
93% 80%
94% 90%
95% 100%
d. Part 2: If a Settling State qualifies to receive an incentive under Incentive C, Part 1, the Settling State can also qualify to receive an additional incentive amount equal to 25% of its total potential Incentive C allocation by securing 100% participation of the ten (10) largest Subdivisions by population in the Settling State. (Special Districts are not relevant for purposes of this calculation.) If a Settling State does not qualify for any amount under Incentive C, Part 1, it cannot qualify for Incentive C, Part 2. e. Incentives earned under Incentive C shall accrue on an annual basis up to three years after the Effective Date. At one, two, and three years after the Effective Date, the Settlement Fund Administrator will conduct a lookback to assess which Subdivisions had agreed to participate or had their Claim resolved through a Case-Specific Resolution that year. Based on the lookback, the Settlement Fund Administrator will calculate the incentives accrued under Incentive C for the year. The percentage of the available Incentive C amount, for both Part 1 and Part 2, for which a Settling State is 37 December 20, 2022
eligible three years after the Effective Date shall cap its eligibility for that Payment Year and all subsequent Payment Years.
8. Incentive D: No Qualifying Lawsuits Surviving Threshold Motions at Two LookBack Dates. a. A Settling State’s total potential Incentive D payment allocation is $125,943,072.57 times the percentage allocation assigned that Settling State in Exhibit F-2.
b. If, at any time within five and one-half (5.5) years of the Preliminary Agreement Date, any Subdivision or Special District within a Settling State files litigation pursuing Released Claims against any Released Entity (a “Qualifying Lawsuit”), then Allergan shall, within thirty (30) days of Allergan or any Released Entity being served or otherwise informed of the prosecution of such Released Claims, provide notice to the Settling State in which such Released Claims are being pursued and shall give the relevant Settling State a reasonable opportunity to extinguish the Released Claims without any payment or any other obligations being imposed upon any Released Entities (apart from the Global Settlement Amount payable by Allergan under the Agreement or the Injunctive Relief Terms incurred by it). The relevant Settling State and Allergan shall confer and use reasonable efforts to promptly resolve a Qualifying Lawsuit so that it is dismissed with prejudice. Nothing in this subsection creates an obligation for a Settling State to make a monetary payment or incur any other obligation to an entity filing a Qualifying Lawsuit.
c. Part 1: Under Incentive D, Part 1, a Settling State shall receive 50% of its total potential Incentive D payment allocation if, at two years after the Effective Date (the “First Look-Back Date”), there are no pending Released Claims from a Qualifying Lawsuit that survived a Threshold Motion within the Settling State against any Released Entities.
d. Part 2: Under Incentive D, Part 2, a Settling State shall receive 50% of its total potential Incentive D payment allocation if, at five and one-half (5.5) years after the Preliminary Agreement Date (the “Second Look-Back Date”), there are no pending Released Claims from a Qualifying Lawsuit that survived a Threshold Motion within the Settling State against any Released Entities.
e. After the First Look-Back Date, a Settling State can become re-eligible for Incentive Payment D Part 1 if the lawsuit that survived a Threshold Motion is dismissed pursuant to a later motion on grounds included in the Threshold Motion, in which case the Settling State shall become eligible for Incentive Payment D less any litigation fees and cost incurred by the Released Entity in the interim, except that if the dismissal motion occurs after the 38 December 20, 2022
completion of opening statements in such action, the Settling State shall not be eligible for Incentive Payment D.
VIII. Allocation and Use of Settlement Funds
A. Components of Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund shall be comprised of an Abatement Accounts Fund, a State Fund, and a Subdivision Fund for each Settling State. The payments under Section VI into the Settlement Fund shall be initially allocated among those three (3) sub-funds and distributed and used as provided below or as provided for by a StateSubdivision Agreement (or other State-specific allocation of funds). Unless otherwise specified herein, payments placed into the Settlement Fund do not revert back to Allergan.
B. Use of Settlement Payments. It is the intent of the Parties that the payments disbursed from the Settlement Fund to Settling States and Exhibit G Participants be for Opioid Remediation, subject to limited exceptions that must be documented in accordance with subsection VII.C. In no event may less than 85% of Allergan’s payments pursuant to Section VI.A.1-3 over the entirety of all Payment Years (but not any single Payment Year) be spent on Opioid Remediation.
C. While disfavored by the Parties, a Settling State or Exhibit G Participant may use monies from the Settlement Fund (that have not been restricted by this Agreement solely to future Opioid Remediation) for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation. If, at any time, a Settling State or Exhibit G Participant uses any monies from the Settlement Fund for a purpose that does not qualify as Opioid Remediation, such Settling State or Exhibit G Participant shall identify such amounts and report to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Allergan how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, litigation costs, or costs related to the operation and enforcement of this Agreement, respectively. It is the intent of the Parties that the reporting under this subsection VIII.C shall be available to the public. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) any amounts not identified under this subsection VIII.C as used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs shall be included in the “Compensatory Restitution Amount” for purposes of subsection VIII.G and (b) Participating Subdivisions not listed on Exhibit G or Participating Special Districts that receive monies from the Settlement Fund indirectly may only use such monies from the Settlement Fund for purposes that qualify as Opioid Remediation.
D. Allocation of Settlement Fund. The allocation of the Settlement Fund allows for different approaches to be taken in different states, such as through a State-Subdivision Agreement.
Given the uniqueness of States and their Subdivisions, Settling States and Participating Subdivisions are encouraged to enter into State-Subdivision Agreements in order to direct the allocation of their portion of the Settlement Fund. As set out below, the Settlement Fund Administrator will make an initial allocation to three (3) state-level sub-funds. The Settlement Fund Administrator will then, for each Settling State and its Exhibit G Participants, apply the terms of this Agreement and any relevant State-Subdivision Agreement, Statutory Trust, Allocation Statute, or voluntary redistribution of funds as set out below before disbursing the funds.
39 December 20, 2022
1. Base Payments. The Settlement Fund Administrator will allocate Base Payments under subsection VII.D among the Settling States in proportion to their respective State Allocation Percentages. Base Payments for each Settling State will then be allocated 15% to its State Fund, 70% to its Abatement Accounts Fund, and 15% to its Subdivision Fund. Amounts may be reallocated and will be distributed as provided in subsection VIII.E.
2. Incentive Payments. The Settlement Fund Administrator will treat Incentive Payments under subsection VII.E on a State-specific basis. Incentive payments for which a Settling State is eligible under subsection VII.E will be allocated 15% to its State Fund, 70% to its Abatement Accounts Fund, and 15% to its Subdivision Fund. Amounts may be reallocated and will be distributed as provided in subsection VIII.E.
3. Application of Adjustments. If any offset under Section XI applies with respect to a Settling State, the offset shall be applied proportionally to all amounts that would otherwise be apportioned and distributed to the State Fund, the Abatement Accounts Fund, and the Subdivision Fund for that State.
4. Settlement Fund Administrator. Prior to the Initial Participation Date, Allergan and the Enforcement Committee will agree to a detailed mechanism consistent with the foregoing for the Settlement Fund Administrator to follow in allocating, apportioning, and distributing payments, which shall be appended hereto as Exhibit L.
E. Settlement Fund Reallocation and Distribution. As set forth below, within a particular Settling State’s account, amounts contained in the Settlement Fund sub-funds may be reallocated and distributed per a State-Subdivision Agreement or other means. If the apportionment of amounts is not addressed and controlled under subsections VIII.E.1-2, then the default provisions of subsection VIII.E.4 apply. It is not necessary that a StateSubdivision Agreement or other means of allocating funds pursuant to subsections VIII.E.1-2 address all of the Settlement Fund sub-funds. For example, a Statutory Trust might only address disbursements from a Settling State’s Abatement Accounts Fund.
1. Distribution by State-Subdivision Agreement. If a Settling State has a StateSubdivision Agreement, amounts apportioned to that State’s State Fund, Abatement Accounts Fund, and Subdivision Fund under subsection VIII.D shall be reallocated and distributed as provided by that agreement. Any State-Subdivision Agreement entered into or amended after July 26, 2022 shall be applied only if it requires: (1) that all amounts be used for Opioid Remediation except as allowed by subsection VIII.C, and (2) that at least 70% of amounts be used solely for future Opioid Remediation (references to “future Opioid Remediation” include amounts paid to satisfy any future demand by another governmental entity to make a required reimbursement in connection with the past care and treatment of a person related to the Alleged Harms). For a State-Subdivision Agreement to be applied to the relevant portion of an Annual Payment, notice must be provided to Allergan 40 December 20, 2022
and the Settlement Fund Administrator at least sixty (60) days prior to the Payment Date.
2. Distribution by Allocation Statute. If a Settling State has an Allocation Statute and/or a Statutory Trust that addresses allocation or distribution of amounts apportioned to such State’s State Fund, Abatement Accounts Fund, and/or Subdivision Fund and that, to the extent any or all such sub-funds are addressed, requires (1) all amounts to be used for Opioid Remediation except as allowed by subsection VIII.C, and (2) at least 70% of all amounts to be used solely for future Opioid Remediation, then, to the extent allocation or distribution is addressed, the amounts apportioned to that State’s State Fund, Abatement Accounts Fund, and Subdivision Fund under subsection VIII.D shall be allocated and distributed as addressed and provided by the applicable Allocation Statute or Statutory Trust. For the avoidance of doubt, an Allocation Statute or Statutory Trust need not address all three (3) sub-funds that comprise the Settlement Fund, and if the applicable Allocation Statute or Statutory Trust does not address distribution of all or some of these three (3) sub-funds, the applicable Allocation Statute or Statutory Trust does not replace the default provisions in subsection VIII.E.4 of any such unaddressed fund. For example, if an Allocation Statute or Statutory Trust that meets the requirements of this subsection VIII.E only addresses funds restricted to abatement, then the default provisions in this Agreement concerning allocation among the three (3) sub-funds comprising the Settlement Fund and the distribution of the State Fund and Subdivision Fund for that State would still apply, while the distribution of the applicable State’s Abatement Accounts Fund would be governed by the qualifying Allocation Statute or Statutory Trust.
3. Voluntary Redistribution. A Settling State may choose to reallocate all or a portion of its State Fund to its Abatement Accounts Fund. An Exhibit G Participant may choose to reallocate all or a portion of its allocation from the Subdivision Fund to the State’s Abatement Accounts Fund or to another Participating Subdivision or Participating Special District. The Settlement Fund Administrator is not required to honor voluntary redistribution for which notice is provided to it less than sixty (60) days prior to the Payment Date.
4. Distribution in the Absence of a State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, or Statutory Trust. If subsections VIII.E.1-2 do not apply, and subject to any voluntary redistribution pursuant to subsection VIII.E.3, amounts apportioned to that State’s State Fund, Abatement Accounts Fund, and Subdivision Fund under subsection VIII.D shall be distributed as follows:
a. Amounts apportioned to that State’s State Fund shall be distributed to that State.
b. Amounts apportioned to that State’s Abatement Accounts Fund shall be distributed consistent with subsection VIII.F. Each Settling State shall submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator a designation of a lead state agency or other entity to serve as the single point of contact for that Settling 41 December 20, 2022
State’s funding requests from the Abatement Accounts Fund and other communications with the Settlement Fund Administrator. The designation of an individual entity is for administrative purposes only and such designation shall not limit funding to such entity or even require that such entity receive funds from this Agreement. The designated entity shall be the only entity authorized to request funds from the Settlement Fund Administrator to be disbursed from that Settling State’s Abatement Accounts Fund. If a Settling State has established a Statutory Trust then that Settling State’s single point of contact may direct the Settlement Fund Administrator to release the State’s Abatement Accounts Fund to the Statutory Trust.
c. Amounts apportioned to that State’s Subdivision Fund shall be distributed to Participating Subdivisions in that State listed on Exhibit G per the Subdivision Allocation Percentage listed in Exhibit G. Subsection X.I shall govern amounts that would otherwise be distributed to Non-Participating Subdivisions listed in Exhibit G.
d. Special Districts shall not be allocated funds from the Subdivision Fund, except through a voluntary redistribution allowed by subsection VIII.E.3. A Settling State may allocate funds from its State Fund or Abatement Accounts Fund for Special Districts.
5. Restrictions on Distribution. No amounts may be distributed from the Subdivision Fund contrary to Section IX, i.e., no amounts may be distributed directly to NonParticipating Subdivisions or to Later Participating Subdivisions in excess of what is permissible under subsection IX.E. Amounts allocated to the Subdivision Fund that cannot be distributed by virtue of the preceding sentence shall be distributed into the sub-account in the Abatement Accounts Fund for the Settling State in which the Subdivision is located, unless those payments are redirected elsewhere by a State-Subdivision Agreement described in subsection VIII.E.1 or by an Allocation Statute or a Statutory Trust described in subsection VIII.E.2.
F. Provisions Regarding Abatement Accounts Fund.
1. State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, and Statutory Trust Fund Provisions. A State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, or Statutory Trust may govern the operation and use of amounts in that State’s Abatement Accounts Fund so long as it complies with the requirements of subsection VIII.E.1 or VIII.E.2 as applicable, and all direct payments to Subdivisions comply with subsections IX.E-H.
2. Absence of a State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, or Statutory Trust.
In the absence of a State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, or Statutory Trust that addresses distribution, the Abatement Accounts Fund will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation and the following shall apply with respect to a Settling State:
42 December 20, 2022
a. Regional Remediation.
(i) At least 50% of distributions for remediation from a State’s Abatement Accounts Fund shall be annually allocated and tracked to the regional level. A Settling State may allow the Advisory Committee established pursuant to subsection VIII.F.2.d to define its regions and assign regional allocations percentages. Otherwise, a Settling State shall (1) define its initial regions, which shall consist of one (1) or more Subdivisions and which shall be designated by the State agency with primary responsibility for substance abuse disorder services employing, to the maximum extent practical, existing regions established in that State for opioid abuse treatment or other public health purposes; and (2) assign initial regional allocation percentages to the regions based on the Subdivision Allocation Percentages in Exhibit G and an assumption that all Subdivisions listed on Exhibit G will become Participating Subdivisions.
(ii) This minimum regional expenditure percentage is calculated on the Settling State’s initial Abatement Accounts Fund allocation and does not include any additional amounts a Settling State has directed to its Abatement Accounts Fund from its State Fund, or any other amounts directed to the fund. A Settling State may dedicate more than 50% of its Abatement Accounts Fund to the regional expenditure and may annually adjust the percentage of its Abatement Accounts Fund dedicated to regional expenditures as long as the percentage remains above the minimum amount. (iii) The Settling State (1) has the authority to adjust the definition of the regions, and (2) may annually revise the percentages allocated to each region to reflect the number of Subdivisions in each region that are Non-Participating Subdivisions.
b. Subdivision Block Grants. Certain Subdivisions listed on Exhibit G shall be eligible to receive regional allocation funds in the form of a block grant for future Opioid Remediation. A Participating Subdivision listed on Exhibit G eligible for block grants is a county or parish (or in the case of States that do not have counties or parishes that function as political subdivisions, a city) that (1) does not contain a Litigating Subdivision or a Later Litigating Subdivision for which it has the authority to end the litigation through a release, Bar, or other action; (2) either (i) has a population of 400,000 or more or (ii) in the case of California has a population of 750,000 or more; and (3) has funded or otherwise managed an established health care or treatment infrastructure (e.g., health department or similar agency). Each Subdivision listed on Exhibit G eligible to receive block grants shall be assigned its own region.
43 December 20, 2022
c. Small States. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection VIII.F.2.a, Settling States with populations under four (4) million that do not have existing regions described in subsection VIII.F.2.a shall not be required to establish regions. However, such a Settling State that contains one (1) or more Subdivisions listed on Exhibit G eligible for block grants under subsection VIII.F.2.b shall be divided regionally so that each block-grant eligible Subdivision listed on Exhibit G is a region and the remainder of the State is a region.
d. Advisory Committee. The Settling State shall designate an Opioid Settlement Remediation Advisory Committee (the “Advisory Committee”) to provide input and recommendations regarding remediation spending from that Settling State’s Abatement Accounts Fund. A Settling State may elect to use an existing advisory committee or similar entity (created outside of a State-Subdivision Agreement or Allocation Statute); provided, however, the Advisory Committee or similar entity shall meet the following requirements:
(i) Written guidelines that establish the formation and composition of the Advisory Committee, terms of service for members, contingency for removal or resignation of members, a schedule of meetings, and any other administrative details;
(ii) Composition that includes at least an equal number of local representatives as state representatives;
(iii) A process for receiving input from Subdivisions and other communities regarding how the opioid crisis is affecting their communities, their abatement needs, and proposals for abatement strategies and responses; and
(iv) A process by which Advisory Committee recommendations for expenditures for Opioid Remediation will be made to and considered by the appropriate state agencies.
3. Abatement Accounts Fund Reporting. The Settlement Fund Administrator shall track and assist in the report of remediation disbursements as agreed to among the Parties.
G. Nature of Payment. Allergan, the Settling States, the Participating Subdivisions, and the Participating Special Districts, acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the scope of the Released Claims:
1. Allergan has entered into this Agreement to avoid the delay, expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty of further litigation;
2. The Settling States, the Participating Subdivisions, and the Participating Special Districts sought compensatory restitution (within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. 44 December 20, 2022
§ 162(f)(2)(A)) as damages for the Alleged Harms allegedly suffered by the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts;
3. By executing this Agreement the Settling States, the Participating Subdivisions, and the Participating Special Districts certify that: (a) the Compensatory Restitution Amount is no greater than the amount, in the aggregate, of the Alleged Harms allegedly suffered by the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts; and (b) the portion of the Compensatory Restitution Amount received by each Settling State, Participating Subdivision or Participating Special Districts is no greater than the amount of the Alleged Harms allegedly suffered by such Settling State, Participating Subdivision or Participating Special Districts;
4. The payment of the Compensatory Restitution Amount by Allergan constitutes, and is paid for, compensatory restitution (within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 162(f)(2)(A)) for alleged damage or harm (as compensation for alleged damage or harm arising out of alleged bodily injury) allegedly caused by Allergan;
5. The Compensatory Restitution Amount is being paid as compensatory restitution (within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 162(f)(2)(A)) in order to restore, in whole or in part, the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts to the same position or condition that they would be in had the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts not suffered the Alleged Harms;
6. No portion of the Compensatory Restitution Amount represents reimbursement to any Settling State, Participating Subdivision, Participating Special District, or other person or entity for the costs of any investigation or litigation. The entire Compensatory Restitution Amount is properly characterized as described in subsection VIII.G. No portion of the Compensatory Restitution Amount constitutes disgorgement or is properly characterized as the payment of statutory or other fines, penalties, punitive damages, other punitive assessments, or attorneys’ fees; and
7. The Designated State, on behalf of all Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts (the “Form 1098-F Filer”) shall complete and file Form 1098-F with the Internal Revenue Service on or before February 28 (March 31 if filed electronically) of the year following the calendar year in which the order entering this Agreement becomes binding. On the Form 1098-F, the Form 1098-F Filer shall identify the entire Compensatory Restitution Amount received by the Form 1098-F Filer as remediation/restitution. The Form 1098-F Filer shall also, on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the order entering this Agreement becomes binding, furnish Copy B of such Form 1098-F (or an acceptable substitute statement) to Allergan.
IX. Participation by Subdivisions and Special Districts 45 December 20, 2022
A. Notice. No later than fifteen (15) days after the Preliminary Agreement Date, the Settling States, with the cooperation of Allergan, shall send individual written notice (which may be delivered via e-mail or other electronic means) of the opportunity to participate in this Agreement and the requirements of participation to all Subdivisions and Special Districts in the Settling State that are (1) Litigating Subdivisions or Litigating Special Districts, or (2) Non-Litigating Subdivisions listed in Exhibit G. To the extent a Non-Litigating Special District is entitled to an allocation for a direct payment through its inclusion in Exhibit G pursuant to a State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, Statutory Trust, or voluntary redistribution, the Settling States shall also send individual written notice (which may be delivered via e-mail or other electronic means) of the opportunity to participate in this Agreement and the requirements of participation to such Special District. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the version of Exhibit G used for notice shall be the one in place as of the Preliminary Agreement Date. Allergan’s share of costs of the written notice shall be paid by Allergan as part of the Implementation Costs. Notice (which may be delivered via e-mail or other electronic means) shall also be provided simultaneously to counsel of record for Litigating Subdivisions, Litigating Special Districts, and known counsel for Non-Litigating Subdivisions listed on Exhibit G and Non-Litigating Special Districts listed on Exhibit G. The notice will include that the deadline for becoming an Initial Participating Subdivision or Initial Participating Special District is the Initial Participation Date. Nothing contained herein shall preclude a Settling State from providing further notice to or otherwise contacting any of its Subdivisions or Special Districts about becoming a Participating Subdivision or Participating Special District, including beginning any of the activities described in this paragraph prior to the Preliminary Agreement Date.
B. Requirements for Becoming a Participating Subdivision: Non-Litigating Subdivisions. A Non-Litigating Subdivision in a Settling State may become a Participating Subdivision by returning an executed Settlement Participation Form to the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator (which may be executed and returned by electronic means established by the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator) specifying (1) that the Subdivision agrees to the terms of this Agreement pertaining to Subdivisions, (2) that the Subdivision releases all Released Claims against all Released Entities, (3) that the Subdivision agrees to use monies it receives, if any, from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the applicable requirements of Section VIII, and (4) that the Subdivision submits to the jurisdiction of the Court where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that Court’s role under the Agreement. The required Settlement Participation Form is attached as Exhibit K. A Non-Litigating Subdivision will decide whether to become a Participating Subdivision for both this Agreement and the Teva Global Opioid Settlement Agreement, or neither. However, if Teva enters bankruptcy prior to the Effective Date, a Non-Litigating Subdivision can choose to only join this Agreement.
C. Requirements for Becoming a Participating Subdivision: Litigating Subdivisions/Later Litigating Subdivisions. A Litigating Subdivision or Later Litigating Subdivision in a Settling State may become a Participating Subdivision by returning an executed Settlement Participation Form to the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator (which may be executed and returned by electronic means established by the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator) that, in addition to the requirements set out in subsection IX.B for Non-Litigating Subdivisions, commits it to 46 December 20, 2022
promptly dismissal its legal action. The required Settlement Participation Form is attached as Exhibit K. A Litigating Subdivision or Later Litigating Subdivision will decide whether to become a Participating Subdivision for both this Agreement and the Teva Global Opioid Settlement Agreement, or neither. However, if Teva enters bankruptcy prior to the Effective Date, a Litigating Subdivision or Later Litigating Subdivision can choose to only join this Agreement. Except for trials begun before the Initial Participation Date, a Litigating Subdivision or a Later Litigating Subdivision may not become a Participating Subdivision after the completion of opening statements in a trial of a legal action it brought that includes a Released Claim against a Released Entity.
D. Initial Participating Subdivisions. A Subdivision qualifies as an Initial Participating Subdivision if it meets the applicable requirements for becoming a Participating Subdivision set forth in subsections IX.B or IX.C by the Initial Participation Date. Provided however, all Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms shall be held by the Implementation Administrator until Allergan provides the notice in subsection X.B that it intends to proceed with the settlement, at which time the obligations created by such forms become effective. If Allergan determines not to proceed, all Settlement Participation Forms shall be returned to Counsel for Litigating Subdivisions or to the Subdivisions not represented by counsel or destroyed to the extent that such destruction is not prohibited by then existing document preservation obligations.
E. Later Participating Subdivisions. A Subdivision that is not an Initial Participating Subdivision may become a Later Participating Subdivision by meeting the applicable requirements for becoming a Participating Subdivision after the Initial Participation Date and agreeing to be subject to the terms of a State-Subdivision Agreement (if any) or any other structure adopted or applicable pursuant to subsections VIII.E or VIII.F. The following provisions govern what a Later Participating Subdivision can receive (but do not apply to Initial Participating Subdivisions):
1. A Later Participating Subdivision shall not receive any share of any Base or Incentive Payments paid to the Subdivision Fund that were due before it became a Participating Subdivision.
2. A Later Participating Subdivision that becomes a Participating Subdivision after the Initial Participation Date but before June 15, 2023 shall receive 75% of the share of the Initial Year Payment that it would have received had it become an Initial Participating Subdivision (unless the Later Participating Subdivision is subject to subsections IX.E.3 or IX.E.4 below). A Later Participating Subdivision that becomes a Participating Subdivision after June 15, 2023 shall receive no share of the Initial Year Payment.
3. A Later Participating Subdivision that, after the Initial Participation Date, maintains a lawsuit for a Released Claim(s) against a Released Entity and has judgment entered against it on every such Claim before it became a Participating Subdivision (other than a consensual dismissal with prejudice) shall receive 50% of the share of future Base Payments or Incentive Payments that it would have received had it become a Later Participating Subdivision prior to such judgment; provided, 47 December 20, 2022
however, that if the Subdivision appeals the judgment and the judgment is affirmed with finality before the Subdivision becomes a Participating Subdivision, the Subdivision shall not receive any share of any Base Payments or Incentive Payments.
4. A Later Participating Subdivision that becomes a Participating Subdivision while a Bar or Case-Specific Resolution involving a different Subdivision exists in its State shall receive 25% of the share of future Base Payments or Incentive Payments that it would have received had it become a Later Participating Subdivision without such Bar or Case-Specific Resolution.
F. No Increase in Payments. Amounts to be received by Later Participating Subdivisions or Later Participating Special Districts shall not increase the payments due from Allergan.
G. Ineligible Subdivisions and Special Districts. Prior Settling Subdivisions and Subdivisions and Special Districts in Non-Settling States or Prior Settling States are not eligible to be Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts.
H. Non-Participating Subdivisions and Non-Participating Special Districts. NonParticipating Subdivisions and Non-Participating Special Districts shall not directly receive any portion of any Base Payments or Incentive Payments, including from the State Fund and direct distributions from the Abatement Accounts Fund; however, a Settling State may choose to fund future Opioid Remediation that indirectly benefits Non-Participating Subdivisions and Non-Participating Special Districts.
I. Unpaid Allocations to Later Participating and Non-Participating Subdivisions. Any Base Payments and Incentive Payments allocated pursuant to subsection VII.E to a Later Participating or Non-Participating Subdivision or a Later Participating or NonParticipating Special District that cannot be paid pursuant to Section IX, will be allocated to the Abatement Accounts Fund for the Settling State in which the Subdivision is located, unless those payments are redirected elsewhere by a State-Subdivision Agreement or by a Statutory Trust.
J. Requirements for Becoming a Participating Special District: Non-Litigating Special Districts. A Non-Litigating Special District in a Settling State may become a Participating Special District by returning an executed Settlement Participation Form to the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator (which may be executed and returned by electronic means established by the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator) specifying (1) that the Special District agrees to the terms of this Agreement pertaining to Special Districts, (2) that the Special District releases all Released Claims against all Released Entities, (3) that the Special District agrees to use monies it receives, if any, from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the applicable requirements of Section VIII, and (4) that the Special District submits to the jurisdiction of the Court where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that Court’s role under the Agreement. The required Settlement Participation Form is attached as Exhibit K. A NonLitigating Special District will decide whether to become a Participating Special District for both this Agreement and the Teva Global Opioid Settlement Agreement, or neither. 48 December 20, 2022
However, if Teva enters bankruptcy prior to the Effective Date, a Non-Litigating Special District can choose to only join this Agreement.
K. Requirements for Becoming a Participating Special District: Litigating Special Districts/Later Litigating Special Districts. A Litigating Special District or Later Litigating Special District in a Settling State may become a Participating Special District by returning an executed Settlement Participation Form to the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator (which may be executed and returned by electronic means established by the Implementation Administrator or Settlement Fund Administrator) that, in addition to the requirements set out in subsection IX.J for Non-Litigating Special Districts, commits it to promptly dismiss its legal action. The required Settlement Participation Form is attached as Exhibit K. A Litigating Special District or Later Litigating Special District will decide whether to become a Participating Special District for both this Agreement and the Teva Global Opioid Settlement Agreement, or neither. However, if Teva enters bankruptcy prior to the Effective Date, a Litigating Special District or Later Litigating Special District can choose to only join this Agreement. Except for trials begun before the Initial Participation Date, a Litigating Special District or a Later Litigating Special District may not become a Participating Special District after the completion of opening statements in a trial of a legal action it brought that includes a Released Claim against a Released Entity.
L. Initial Participating Special Districts. A Special District qualifies as an Initial Participating Special District if it meets the applicable requirements for becoming a Participating Special District set forth in subsections IX.J or IX.K by the Initial Participation Date. Provided however, all Special District Settlement Participation Forms shall be held by the Implementation Administrator until Allergan provides the notice in subsection X.B that it intends to proceed with the settlement, at which time the obligations created by such forms become effective.
M. Later Participating Special Districts. A Special District that is not an Initial Participating Special District may become a Later Participating Special District by meeting the applicable requirements for becoming a Participating Special District after the Initial Participation Date and agreeing to be subject to the terms of a State-Subdivision Agreement (if any) or any other structure adopted or applicable pursuant to subsections VIII.E or VIII.F. or any agreement reached by the applicable Settling State with Initial Participating Special Districts. The following provisions govern what a Later Participating Special District can receive (but do not apply to Initial Participating Special Districts):
1. Except for the Initial Year Payment, a Later Participating Special District shall not receive any share of any Base or Incentive Payments paid to the Subdivision Fund that were due before it became a Participating Special District.
2. A Later Participating Special District that becomes a Participating Special District after Initial Participation Date but before June 15, 2023 shall receive 75% of the share of the Initial Year Payment that it would have received had it become an Initial Participating Special District (unless the Later Participating Special District is subject to subsections IX.M.3 or IX.M.4 below). A Later Participating Special 49 December 20, 2022
District that becomes a Participating Special District after June 15, 2023 shall receive no share of the Initial Year Payment.
3. A Later Participating Special District that, after the Initial Participation Date, maintains a lawsuit for a Released Claim(s) against a Released Entity and has judgment entered against it on every such Claim before it became a Participating Special District (other than a consensual dismissal with prejudice) shall receive 50% of the share of future Base Payments or Incentive Payments that it would have received had it become a Later Participating Special District prior to such judgment; provided, however, that if the Special District appeals the judgment and the judgment is affirmed with finality before the Special District becomes a Participating Special District, the Special District shall not receive any share of any Base Payments or Incentive Payments.
4. A Later Participating Special District that becomes a Participating Special District while a Bar or Case-Specific Resolution involving a different Special District exists in its State shall receive 25% of the share of future Base Payments or Incentive Payments that it would have received had it become a Later Participating Special District without such Bar or Case-Specific Resolution.
X. Condition to Effectiveness of Agreement and Filing of Consent Judgment A. Determination to Proceed With Settlement. Allergan will determine on or before the Reference Date whether there has been a sufficient resolution of the Claims of the Subdivisions and Special Districts in the Settling States (through participation under Section IX, Case-Specific Resolution(s), and Bar(s)) to proceed with this Agreement. The determination shall be in the sole discretion of Allergan, in good faith, and may be based on any criteria or factors deemed relevant by Allergan.
B. Notice by Allergan. On or before the Reference Date, Allergan shall inform the Settling States and MDL Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee of its determination pursuant to subsection X.A. If Allergan determines to proceed, the Parties will proceed to file the Consent Judgments. If Allergan determines not to proceed, this Agreement will have no further effect and all releases (including those given by Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts) and other commitments or obligations contained herein will be void and Settlement Participation Forms returned to the Subdivision or Special District or destroyed to the extent not prohibited by then existing legal obligations or document holds.
XI. Potential Payment Adjustments
A. Settlement Class Resolution Opt Outs. If a Settling State is eligible for Incentive A on the basis of a Settlement Class Resolution, and a Primary Subdivision that opted out of the Settlement Class Resolution maintains a lawsuit asserting a Released Claim against a Released Entity, the following shall apply. If the lawsuit asserting a Released Claim either survives a Threshold Motion or has an unresolved Threshold Motion fewer than sixty (60) days prior to the scheduled start of a trial involving a Released Claim, and is resolved with 50 December 20, 2022
finality on terms requiring payment by the Released Entity, Allergan shall receive a dollarfor-dollar offset for the amount paid against its obligation to make remaining Incentive A payments that would be apportioned to that State or Participating Subdivisions listed on Exhibit G.
B. Revoked Bar, Settlement Class Resolution, or Case-Specific Resolution.
1. If Allergan made a payment as a result of the existence of a Bar, Settlement Class Resolution, or Case-Specific Resolution in a Settling State, and that Bar, Settlement Class Resolution, or Case-Specific Resolution is subject to a Revocation Event, Allergan shall receive a dollar-for-dollar offset against its obligation to make remaining payments that would be apportioned to that State or Participating Subdivisions or Participating Special Districts listed on Exhibit G. This offset will be calculated as the dollar amount difference between (1) the total amount of Incentive Payments paid by Allergan during the time the Bar, Settlement Class Resolution, or Case-Specific Resolution subject to the Revocation Event was in effect, and (2) the total amount of Incentive Payments that would have been due from Allergan during that time without the Bar, Settlement Class Resolution, or Case-Specific Resolution subject to the Revocation Event being in effect. The amount of Incentive Payments that would have been due, referenced in (2) above, will be calculated based on considering any Subdivision or Special District that provides a release within one hundred eighty (180) days after the Revocation Event as having been a Participating Subdivision or Participating Special District (in addition to all other Participating Subdivisions and Participating Special Districts) during the time that the Bar, Settlement Class Resolution, or Case-Specific Resolution subject to the Revocation Event was in effect. If a Revocation Event causes a Settling State to no longer qualify for one or both parts of Incentive D, the Settling State and its Exhibit G participants shall return to Allergan all relevant payments made under Incentive D through offsets as set forth above.
2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in paragraph 1 above, if a Bar or CaseSpecific Resolution is reinstated by the Settling State, either through the same or different means as the initial Bar or Case-Specific Resolution, Allergan’s right to an offset is extinguished and any amounts withheld to offset amounts paid on account of the revoked, rescinded, reversed, or overruled Bar or Case-Specific Resolution shall be returned to the Settling State, less and except any Incentive Payments that would have been paid during the period in which the Bar or CaseSpecific Resolution was revoked, rescinded, reversed, or overruled.
XII. Additional Restitution Amount
A. Additional Restitution Amount. Allergan shall pay an Additional Restitution Amount to each Settling State listed in Exhibit N in the amount and on the schedule set forth in Exhibit M. The maximum Additional Restitution Amount of $16,192,680.76 shall be reduced by the allocation set forth on Exhibit N for any Non-Settling States listed on Exhibit N. The Settlement Fund Administrator shall allocate such funds among and within the Settling 51 December 20, 2022
States listed in Exhibit N at the same time as its allocation of Annual Payments pursuant to Section VII.B.
B. Additional Restitution Amount funds shall not be subject to allocation as provided in Sections VIII.D through VIII.F
XIII. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
A. Attorneys’ fees and costs are addressed in the following exhibits and are incorporated herein by reference:
1. The State Outside Counsel Fee Fund is addressed in Exhibit U.
2. The State Cost Fund is addressed in Exhibit S.
3. The Attorney Fee and Cost Fund is addressed and the Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Costs is set forth in Exhibit R.
XIV. Enforcement and Dispute Resolution
A. Enforceability. The terms of the Agreement and Consent Judgment applicable to or in a Settling State will be enforceable solely by that Settling State and Allergan. Settling States or Participating Subdivisions shall not have enforcement rights with respect either to the terms of this Agreement that apply only to or in other States or to any Consent Judgment entered into by another Settling State. Participating Subdivisions shall not have enforcement rights against Allergan with respect to the Agreement or any Consent Judgment except as to payments that would be allocated to the Subdivision Fund or Abatement Accounts Fund pursuant to Section VII; provided, however, that each Settling State shall allow Participating Subdivisions in that State to notify it of any perceived violations of the Agreement or Consent Judgment.
B. Consent to Jurisdiction and Service of Process. Allergan consents to the jurisdiction of the Court in which the Consent Judgment is filed, and any appellate court thereof, limited to resolution of disputes identified in subsection XIV.G.2; for a civil action for any appropriate relief to enforce compliance with the Parties’ Agreement for Injunctive Relief pursuant to Exhibit P, Section K.5 herein; and for any proceedings for or related to the enforcement or collection of any payments on the Consent Judgment for resolution in the Court in which the Consent Judgment is filed. Allergan further agrees any service of process or notice required for such action or proceeding may be effectuated on Allergan through delivery of all required papers by hand or by a nationally recognized private courier on Allergan’s representatives identified in Section XVI.P herein. To be clear, for the purposes of this Agreement only, Allergan consents to personal jurisdiction before such courts, and will not contend service must be effectuated through personal service of the Hague Convention process.
C. Specific Terms Dispute Resolution.
52 December 20, 2022
1. Any dispute that is addressed by the provisions set forth in the Injunctive Relief Terms in Exhibit P shall be resolved as provided therein and pursuant to Section VIII.E.3 herein.
2. In the event Allergan believes the 85% threshold established in subsection VIII.B is not being satisfied, any Party may request that Allergan and the Enforcement Committee meet and confer regarding the use of funds under subsection VIII.B.
The completion of such meet-and-confer process is a precondition to further action regarding any such dispute. Further action concerning subsection VIII.B shall: (i) be limited to Allergan seeking to reduce its Annual Payments by no more than 5% of the difference between the actual amount of Opioid Remediation and the 85% threshold established in subsection VIII.B; (ii) only reduce Annual Payments to those Settling States and its Participating Subdivisions that are below the 85% threshold established in subsection VIII.B; and (iii) not reduce Annual Payments restricted to future Opioid Remediation.
D. State-Subdivision Enforcement.
1. A Participating Subdivision shall not have enforcement rights against a Settling State in which it is located with respect to the Agreement or any Consent Judgment except: (1) as provided for in a State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, or Statutory Trust with respect to intrastate allocation; or (2) in the absence of a State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, or Statutory Trust, as to allegations that: (a) the Settling State’s use of Abatement Accounts Fund monies were not used for uses similar to or in the nature of those uses contained in Exhibit E; or (b) a Settling State failed to pay funds directly from the Abatement Accounts Fund to a Participating Subdivision eligible to receive a block grant pursuant to subsection VIII.F.2.b.
2. A Settling State shall have enforcement rights against a Participating Subdivision located in its territory: (1) as provided for in a State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, or Statutory Trust; or (2) in the absence of a State-Subdivision Agreement, Allocation Statute, or Statutory Trust, as to allegations that the uses of Abatement Accounts Fund monies by Participating Subdivisions listed on Exhibit G were not for uses similar to or in the nature of those uses contained in Exhibit E.
3. As between Settling States and Participating Subdivisions, the above rights are contractual in nature and nothing herein is intended to limit, restrict, change, or alter any other existing rights under law.
E. Enforcement Committee Actions to Enforce Agreement.
1. The Parties agree that in the event of any failure by Allergan to make any required payments under this Agreement, the Enforcement Committee, on its own or through its designee such as a Settling State or Participating Subdivision acting by its authorization and on its behalf, shall have the ability and right to file an action or proceeding in any New York state court, or federal court of the United States of 53 December 20, 2022
America, sitting in New York, for or related to the enforcement or collection of such payments.
2. If any National Dispute involving a Settling State, Participating Subdivision, and/or Allergan is pending before a National Arbitration Panel concerning a given year’s payment to all Settling States, any action or proceeding pursuant to this subsection XIV.E shall be stayed as to any disputed amounts only, but may proceed as to any and all undisputed amounts. In the event there is a dispute between the Parties as to the disputed amounts at issue, the Enforcement Committee or any party to that dispute may seek an expedited determination from the National Arbitration Panel for that proceeding as to the disputed and undisputed amounts.
3. The Parties further Agree that in the event of Allergan’s breach of the Parties’ Agreement for Injunctive Relief (Exhibit P attached hereto), the Enforcement Committee, on its own or through a single designee such as a Settling State shall have the ability and right to file a civil action pursuant to Exhibit P, after completing the processes laid out in Exhibit P, in any New York state court, or federal court of the United States of America, sitting in New York, seeking any appropriate relief to enforce compliance with such Agreement for Injunctive Relief.
4. Allergan and other Released Entities consent to the jurisdiction of the New York state court, or federal court of the United States of America, sitting in New York, and any appellate court from any thereof, in which any action or proceeding is initiated pursuant to this subsection XIV.E, and for enforcement or collection of any related judgment entered by such court. Allergan further agrees any service of process or notice required for such action or proceeding, including for any action or proceeding for enforcement or collection of any judgment entered thereon, may be effectuated on Allergan through delivery of all required papers by hand or by a nationally recognized private courier on Allergan’s representatives identified in Section XVI.P herein. For the purposes of this Agreement only, Allergan consents to personal jurisdiction before such courts and will not contend service must be effectuated through personal service or the Hague Convention process.
5. The enforcement rights under this subsection XIV.E are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other enforcement and collection rights of the Parties herein, including but not limited to enforcement rights as to payments as allowed by subsection XV.A.
F. Subdivision Payment Enforcement. A Participating Subdivision shall have the same right as a Settling State pursuant to subsection XIV.G.4.a(iv) to seek resolution of any failure by Allergan to make its required Base Payments and/or Incentive Payments in a Payment Year.
G. Other Dispute Resolution Terms.
1. Except as provided in subsection VIII.C, the parties to a dispute shall promptly meet and confer in good faith to resolve any dispute prior to any filing or 54 December 20, 2022
presentation to the Court or National Arbitration Panel. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute informally, and unless otherwise agreed in writing, they shall follow the remaining provisions of this Section XIV to resolve the dispute.
2. Except as provided in subsections XIV.C and XIV.G.4, disputes not resolved informally shall be resolved in either the Court that entered the relevant Consent Judgment or, if no Consent Judgment was entered, a state or territorial court with jurisdiction located wherever the seat of state government is located. State court proceedings shall be governed by the rules and procedures of the forum. For the avoidance of doubt, disputes to be resolved in state court include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. disputes concerning whether expenditures qualify for Opioid Remediation; b. disputes between a Settling State and Participating Subdivisions located in such Settling State as provided by subsection XIV.D, except to the extent the State-Subdivision Agreement provides for other dispute resolution mechanisms. For the avoidance of doubt, disputes between a Settling State and any Participating Subdivision shall not be considered National Disputes;
c. whether this Agreement and relevant Consent Judgment are binding under state law;
d. the extent of the Attorney General’s or other participating entity’s authority under state law, including the extent of the authority to release Claims; e. whether the requirements of a Bar, a Case-Specific Resolution, StateSpecific Finality, Later Litigating Subdivision, Litigating Subdivision, or a Threshold Motion have been met; and
f. all other disputes not specifically identified in subsections XIV.C and XIV.G.4.
3. Any Party may request that the National Arbitration Panel provide an interpretation of any provision of the settlement that is relevant to the state court determination, and the National Arbitration Panel shall make reasonable best efforts to supply such interpretation within the earlier of thirty (30) days or the time period required by the state court proceedings. Any Party may submit that interpretation to the state court to the extent permitted by, and for such weight provided by, the state court’s rules and procedures. If requested by a Party, the National Arbitration Panel shall request that its interpretation be accepted in the form of an amicus curiae brief, and any attorneys’ fees and costs for preparing any such filing shall be paid for by the requesting Party.
4. National Disputes involving a Settling State, Participating Subdivision, and/or Allergan shall be resolved by a National Arbitration Panel. 55 December 20, 2022
a. “National Disputes” are disputes that are exceptions to subsection XIV.G.2’s presumption of resolution in state courts because they involve issues of interpretation of Agreement terms applicable to all Settling States without reference to a particular State’s law. Disputes between a State and any Participating Subdivisions shall not be considered National Disputes.
National Disputes are limited to the following:
(i) the amount of offset and/or credit attributable to Non-Settling States;
(ii) issues involving the scope and definition of “Product”; (iii) interpretation and application of the terms “Covered Conduct” and “Released Entities”;
(iv) disputes over a given year’s Annual Payment or the payment of the Additional Restitution Amount to all Settling States (for the avoidance of doubt, disputes between a Settling State and Allergan over the amounts owed to only that State shall not be considered National Disputes);
(v) questions regarding the performance and/or removal of the Settlement Fund Administrator;
(vi) disputes involving liability of successor entities; (vii) disputes that require a determination of sufficient Subdivision and Special District participation to qualify for Incentives A, B, C, or D,; (viii) disputes that require interpretation of Agreement terms (i) that concretely affect four (4) or more Settling States; and (ii) do not turn on unique definitions and interpretations under State law; and (ix) any dispute subject to resolution under subsection XIV.G.2 but for which all parties to the dispute agree to arbitration before the National Arbitration Panel under the provisions of this subsection XIV.G.4.
b. The “National Arbitration Panel” shall be comprised of three (3) neutral arbitrators. One (1) arbitrator shall be chosen by Allergan, one (1) arbitrator shall be chosen by the Enforcement Committee with due input from Participating Subdivisions, and the third arbitrator shall be agreed upon by the first two (2) arbitrators. The membership of the National Arbitration Panel is intended to remain constant throughout the term of this Agreement, but in the event that replacements are required, the retiring arbitrator shall be replaced by the party that selected him/her.
56 December 20, 2022
(i) The National Arbitration Panel shall make reasonable best efforts to decide all matters within one hundred eighty (180) days of filing, and in no event shall it take longer than one (1) year. (ii) The National Arbitration Panel shall conduct all proceedings in a reasonably streamlined process consistent with an opportunity for the parties to be heard. Issues shall be resolved without the need for live witnesses where feasible, and with a presumption in favor of remote participation to minimize the burdens on the parties. (iii) To the extent allowed under state law, a Settling State, Participating Subdivision, and (at any party’s request) the National Arbitration Panel may certify to an appropriate state court any question of state law. The National Arbitration Panel shall be bound by a final state court determination of such a certified question. The time period for the arbitration shall be tolled during the course of the certification process.
(iv) The arbitrators will give due deference to any authoritative interpretation of state law, including any declaratory judgment or similar relief obtained by a Settling State, Participating Subdivision, or Allergan on a state law issue.
(v) The decisions of the National Arbitration Panel shall be binding on Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, Allergan, and the Settlement Fund Administrator. In any proceeding before the National Arbitration Panel involving a dispute between a Settling State and Allergan whose resolution could prejudice the rights of a Participating Subdivision(s) or Participating Special District(s) in that Settling State, such Participating Subdivision(s) or Participating Special District(s) shall be allowed to file a statement of view in the proceeding.
c. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to limit or otherwise restrict a State from seeking injunctive or other equitable relief in state court to protect the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens.
d. Each party shall bear its own costs in any arbitration or court proceeding arising under this subsection XIV.G. The costs for the arbitrators on the National Arbitration Panel shall be divided and paid equally by the disputing sides for each individual dispute, e.g., a dispute between Allergan and Settling States/Participating Subdivisions shall be split 50% by Allergan and 50% by the Settling States/Participating Subdivisions that are parties to the dispute; a dispute between a Settling State and a Participating Subdivision shall be split 50% by the Settling State and 50% by any Participating Subdivisions that are party to the dispute. 57 December 20, 2022
5. Prior to initiating an action to enforce pursuant to this subsection XIV.G, the complaining party must:
a. Provide written notice to the Enforcement Committee of its complaint, including the provision of the Consent Judgment and/or Agreement that the practice appears to violate, as well as the basis for its interpretation of the disputed provision. The Enforcement Committee shall establish a reasonable process and timeline for obtaining additional information from the involved parties; provided, however, that the date the Enforcement Committee establishes for obtaining additional information from the parties shall not be more than forty-five (45) days following the notice. The Enforcement Committee may advise the involved parties of its views on the complaint and/or seek to resolve the complaint informally. b. Wait to commence any enforcement action until thirty (30) days after the date that the Enforcement Committee establishes for obtaining additional information from the involved parties.
6. If the parties to a dispute cannot agree on the proper forum for resolution of the dispute under the provisions of subsections XIV.G.2 or XIV.G.4, a committee comprising the Enforcement Committee and sufficient representatives of Allergan such that the members of the Enforcement Committee have a majority of one (1) member will determine the forum where the dispute will be initiated within twentyeight (28) days of receiving notification of the dispute relating to the proper forum.
The forum identified by such committee shall be the sole forum for determining where the dispute shall be heard, and the committee’s identification of such forum shall not be entitled to deference by the forum selected.
H. No Effect. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to limit the Settling State’s Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) or investigative subpoena authority, to the extent such authority exists under applicable state law and the CID or investigative subpoena is issued pursuant to such authority, and Allergan reserves all of its rights in connection with a CID or investigative subpoena issued pursuant to such authority.
XV. Judgment and Settlement Set-Off Related to Teva
A. The Parties recognize that some of the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts are pursuing Claims against Teva Ltd., Teva USA, Cephalon, Divested Actavis Generic Entities, and/or other Divested Entities, and/or each of their respective parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates. If any of them achieves a judgment by verdict, judicial decision, or means other than settlement against any of Teva Ltd., Teva USA, Cephalon, Divested Actavis Generic Entities, and/or other Divested Entities, and/or each of their respective parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates, each plaintiff listed above shall represent and agree that any payment(s) that the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts or their counsel receives from Teva Ltd., Teva USA, Cephalon, Divested Actavis Generic Entities, and/or other Divested Entities, and/or each of their respective parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates 58 December 20, 2022
reflects the amount over and above 56% of the amount they or their counsel received from the Global Settlement Amount due under this Agreement that each and all of them deem to reflect a fair overall settlement value for liability attributable to the generic opioid drugs that are Products distributed and/or sold before August 2, 2016 by Divested Actavis Generic Entities and/or other Divested Entities and/or attributable to the operation of the Divested Actavis Generic Entities and/or other Divested Entities related to those generic opioid drugs that are Products before August 2, 2016.
B. The Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts may reach a settlement agreement with Teva Ltd., Teva USA, Cephalon, Divested Actavis Generic Entities, and/or other Divested Entities, and/or each of their respective parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates that resolves some or all of their respective Claims. In that event, the Releasors represent and agree that any payment(s) that the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts or their counsel receives from Teva Ltd., Teva USA, Cephalon, Divested Actavis Generic Entities, and/or other Divested Entities, and/or each of their respective parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates reflects the amount over and above 56% of the amount they or they counsel received from the Global Settlement Amount due under this Agreement that each and all of them deem to reflect a fair overall settlement value for liability attributable to the generic opioid drugs that are Products distributed and/or sold before August 2, 2016 by Divested Actavis Generic Entities and/or other Divested Entities and/or attributable to the operation of the Divested Actavis Generic Entities and/or other Divested Entities related to those generic opioid drugs that are Products before August 2, 2016. In any such settlement agreement with Teva Ltd., Teva USA, Cephalon, Divested Actavis Generic Entities, and/or other Divested Entities, and/or each of their respective parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates, the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts agree that the agreed settlement amount reflects the value the parties to the agreement deem a fair settlement value over and above the payments made or due to be paid under the Allergan Public Global Opioid Settlement Agreement for generic opioid drugs that are Products distributed and/or sold before August 2, 2016 by Divested Actavis Generic Entities and/or other Divested Entities and/or relate to the operation of Divested Actavis Generic Entities and other Divested Entities related to those generic opioid drugs that are Products before August 2, 2016.
XVI. Miscellaneous
A. No Admission. Allergan does not admit liability or wrongdoing. Neither this Agreement nor the Consent Judgments shall be considered, construed, or represented to be (1) an admission, concession, or evidence of liability or wrongdoing or (2) a waiver or any limitation of any defense otherwise available to Allergan.
B. Population of Subdivisions. The population figures for Subdivisions shall be the published U.S. Census Bureau’s population estimates for July 1, 2019, released May 2020. These population figures shall remain unchanged during the term of this Agreement.
C. Population of Special Districts. For any purpose in this Agreement in which the population of a Special District is used: (a) School Districts’ population will be measured by the 59 December 20, 2022
number of students enrolled who are eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (b) Health Districts’ and Hospital Districts’ population will be measured at 25% of discharges; and (c) all other Special Districts’ (including Fire Districts’ and Library Districts’) population will be measured at 10% of the population served.
D. Population Associated with Sheriffs. For any purpose in this Agreement in which the population associated with a lawsuit by a sheriff is used, the population will be measured at 20% of the capacity of the jail(s) operated by the sheriff.
E. Most-Favored-Nation Provision.
1. If Allergan enters into any settlement agreement with any Non-Settling State after November 23, 2022 that resolves Claims similar in scope to the Claims released by a Settling State under this Agreement on overall payment terms that are more favorable to such Non-Settling State on a net present value basis (calculated with a 7% discount rate) on overall payment terms the Non-Settling State would have received under this Agreement based on the same level of participation, then the Settling States, individually or collectively, may elect to seek review, pursuant to Section XVI.E.3, of the overall payment terms of this Agreement and the NonSettling State agreement so that the Settling State(s) may obtain, with respect to Allergan, overall payment terms at least as favorable as those obtained by such Non-Settling State. “Overall payment terms” refers to consideration of all payment terms of the two agreements, taken together, including, but not limited to the amount of payments, the timing of payments, and conditions or contingencies on payments.
2. For any settlement with a Non-Settling State involving Released Claims, Allergan shall provide the Enforcement Committee with a copy of the settlement agreement or relevant Consent Judgment within thirty (30) calendar days of the consummation of such settlement. The Enforcement Committee will promptly distribute such copy to all Settling States.
3. In the event that one or more Settling State(s) believes that the overall payment terms of an agreement by Allergan with a Non-Settling State are more favorable to the Non-Settling State, when compared based on the totality of the considerations set forth in Section XVI.E.1, the Settling State(s) and Allergan shall engage in the following process:
a. The Settling State(s) shall provide notice, within sixty (60) calendar days of the date on which a settlement agreement or Consent Judgment is provided to the Enforcement Committee, to Allergan of its intent to seek revision of this Agreement to provide payment terms that are, on an overall basis, as favorable as those obtained by the Non-Settling State. Such notice shall be confidential and not disclosed publicly to the extent allowed by law and shall state, in detail, the basis for the Settling State’s belief that it is entitled to a revision of the Agreement.
60 December 20, 2022
b. Allergan shall, within thirty (30) calendar days, provide a response to the Settling State(s), explaining its position, in detail, as to whether the Settling State(s) is entitled to more favorable overall payment terms than those provided for in this Agreement.
c. In the event the Settling State(s) and Allergan do not reach agreement as to the application of Section XVI.E.1, the Settling State(s) may petition the National Arbitration Panel to seek a ruling from the Panel as to the applicability of Section XVI.E.1, provided that the Settling State(s) may seek such review only if at least five (5) Settling States co-sign the petition.
The Panel shall consider submissions and argument by the parties pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section XIV.G.4.
d. The Settling State(s) and Allergan shall be bound by the determination of the National Arbitration Panel.
4. This Section XVI.E does not apply to, and there is no ability of any Settling State to seek or obtain revision of this Agreement based on, any Non-Settling State agreement with Allergan that is entered into: (a) either the earlier of (i) after the close of expert discovery or (ii) after a date ninety (90) calendar days prior to the scheduled start date of a trial between Allergan and the Non-Settling State or any severed or bifurcated portion thereof, provided that, where, in order to complete a settlement, a Non-Settling State and Allergan jointly request an adjournment of the scheduled start date of a trial within ninety (90) days of that date, this exception will apply as if the trial date had not been adjourned; (b) with a Non-Settling State that previously litigated to judgment a case related to opioids against any manufacturer, distributor, or pharmacy; or (c) the earlier of (i) after a Non-Settling State has obtained any court order or judicial determination that grants judgment (in whole or in part) against Allergan in the Non-Settling State’s case, (ii) after a sanctions ruling against Allergan in the Non-Settling State’s case against Allergan; or (iii) after any ruling has issued in the Non-Settling State’s case against any manufacturer, distributor, or pharmacy on the issue of joint and several liability.
The National Arbitration Panel shall have no power to review agreements that satisfy any of the conditions described in this paragraph.
5. This Section does not apply to, and there is no ability of any Settling State to seek or obtain revision of this Agreement based on, any agreement between Allergan and (a) federally-recognized tribe(s),(b) Non-Participating Subdivisions or (3) Non-Participating Special Districts. This Section XVI.E will not apply to any agreement entered into more than six (6) months after the Reference Date.
F. Tax Reporting and Cooperation.
1. The Parties agree that, unless otherwise required by law, Allergan’s payment of the Compensatory Restitution Amount (after all applicable offsets) payable by Allergan shall be directed to Opioid Remediation for restitution of Alleged Harms allegedly caused by Allergan. By executing this Agreement (or the Settlement 61 December 20, 2022
Participation Form and thereby becoming a signatory to this Agreement), each Settling State, Participating Subdivision, and Participating Special District certify that: (1) the entity suffered Alleged Harms allegedly caused by Allergan; (2) the Compensatory Restitution Amount to be paid by Allergan to the entity represent an amount that is less than or equal to the actual monetary damage allegedly caused by Allergan; and (3) the entity shall use such payments for the sole purpose of Opioid Remediation.
2. Upon request by Allergan, the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts agree to perform such further acts and to execute and deliver such further documents as may be reasonably necessary for Allergan to establish the statements set forth in subsection VIII.G to the satisfaction of their tax advisors, their independent financial auditors, the Internal Revenue Service, or any other governmental authority, including as contemplated by Treasury Regulations Section 1.162-21(b)(3)(ii) and any subsequently proposed or finalized relevant regulations or administrative guidance.
3. Without limiting the generality of subsection XVI.F, each Settling State, Participating Subdivision, and Participating Special District shall cooperate in good faith with Allergan with respect to any tax claim, dispute, investigation, audit, examination, contest, litigation, or other proceeding relating to this Agreement.
4. The Designated State, on behalf of all Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts, shall designate one of its officers or employees to act as the “appropriate official” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.6050X-1(f)(1)(ii)(B) (the “Appropriate Official”).
5. Neither Allergan nor the Settling States, Participating Subdivisions, and Participating Special Districts make any warranty or representation to any Settling jurisdiction or Releasor as to the tax consequences of the payment of the Compensatory Restitution Amount (or any portion thereof).
G. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, no portion of this Agreement shall provide any rights to, or be enforceable by, any person or entity that is not a Settling State or Released Entity. No Settling State may assign or otherwise convey any right to enforce any provision of this Agreement.
H. Calculation. Any figure or percentage referred to in this Agreement shall be carried to seven decimal places.
I. Construction. None of the Parties and no Participating Subdivision shall be considered to be the drafter of this Agreement or of any of its provisions for the purpose of any statute, case law, or rule of interpretation or construction that would or might cause any provision to be construed against the drafter of this Agreement. The headings of the provisions of this Agreement are not binding and are for reference only and do not limit, expand, or otherwise affect the contents or meaning of this Agreement. 62 December 20, 2022
J. Cooperation. Each Party and each Participating Subdivision agrees to use its best efforts and to cooperate with the other Parties and Participating Subdivisions to cause this Agreement and the Consent Judgments to become effective, to obtain all necessary approvals, consents and authorizations, if any, and to execute all documents and to take such other action as may be appropriate in connection herewith. Consistent with the foregoing, each Party and each Participating Subdivision agrees that it will not directly or indirectly assist or encourage any challenge to this Agreement or any Consent Judgment by any other person, and will support the integrity and enforcement of the terms of this Agreement and the Consent Judgments.
K. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, its exhibits and any other attachments, including the attorneys’ fees and cost agreement in Exhibit R, embodies the entire agreement and understanding between and among the Parties and Participating Subdivisions relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes (1) all prior agreements and understandings relating to such subject matter, whether written or oral and (2) all purportedly contemporaneous oral agreements and understandings relating to such subject matter.
L. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and by different signatories on separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall together be one and the same Agreement. One or more counterparts of this Agreement may be delivered by facsimile or electronic transmission with the intent that it or they shall constitute an original counterpart hereof. One or more counterparts of this Agreement may be signed by electronic signature.
M. Good Faith and Voluntary Entry. Each Party warrants and represents that it negotiated the terms of this Agreement in good faith. Each of the Parties and signatories to this Agreement warrants and represents that it freely and voluntarily entered into this Agreement without any degree of duress or compulsion. The Parties state that no promise of any kind or nature whatsoever (other than the written terms of this Agreement) was made to them to induce them to enter into this Agreement.
N. No Prevailing Party. The Parties each agree that they are not the prevailing party in this action, for purposes of any Claim for fees, costs, or expenses as prevailing parties arising under common law or under the terms of any statute, because the Parties have reached a good faith settlement. The Parties each further waive any right to challenge or contest the validity of this Agreement on any ground, including, without limitation, that any term is unconstitutional or is preempted by, or in conflict with, any current or future law.
O. Non-Admissibility. The settlement negotiations resulting in this Agreement have been undertaken by the Parties and by certain representatives of the Participating Subdivisions in good faith and for settlement purposes only, and no evidence of negotiations or discussions underlying this Agreement shall be offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding for any purpose. This Agreement shall not be offered or received in evidence in any action or proceeding for any purpose other than in an action or proceeding arising under or relating to this Agreement or in any litigation or arbitration concerning Allergan’s right to coverage under an insurance contract. 63 December 20, 2022
P. Notices. All notices or other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing (including but not limited to electronic communications) and shall be given to the recipients indicated below:
1. For the Attorney(s) General:
Josh Stein, Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
Attn: Daniel Mosteller
PO Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
[email protected]
Tom Miller, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of Iowa
Attn: Nathan Blake
1305 E. Walnut St.
Des Moines, IA 50319
Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General
Office of the Tennessee Attorney General
Attn: Michael Leftwich
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN, 37202-0207
2. For the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee:
Paul F. Farrell
Farrell Law
P.O. Box 1180
Huntington, WV 25714-1180
Jayne Conroy
Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016-7416
[email protected]
Joseph F. Rice
Motley Rice LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
[email protected]
Peter Mougey
64 December 20, 2022
Levin Papantonio Rafferty
316 South Baylen St.
Pensacola, FL 32502
[email protected]
Paul J. Geller
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
[email protected]
Steven Skikos
Skikos, Crawford, Skikos & Joseph, LLC
One Sansom Street, Suite 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
[email protected]
3. For Allergan:
Office of General Counsel
One North Waukegan Road
North Chicago, IL 60064
Copy to Allergan’s attorneys at:
James F. Hurst, P.C.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
[email protected]
Any Party or the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee may change or add the contact information of the persons designated to receive notice on its behalf by notice given (effective upon the giving of such notice) as provided in this subsection.
Q. No Waiver. The waiver of any rights conferred hereunder shall be effective only if made by written instrument executed by the waiving Party or Parties. The waiver by any Party of any breach of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be or construed as a waiver of any other breach, whether prior, subsequent, or contemporaneous, nor shall such waiver be deemed to be or construed as a waiver by any other Party.
R. Preservation of Privilege. Nothing contained in this Agreement or any Consent Judgment, and no act required to be performed pursuant to this Agreement or any Consent Judgment, is intended to constitute, cause, or effect any waiver (in whole or in part) of any attorneyclient privilege, work product protection, or common interest/joint defense privilege, and each Party agrees that it shall not make or cause to be made in any forum any assertion to the contrary.
S. Successors
65 December 20, 2022
1. The Agreement shall be binding upon, and insure to the benefit of, Allergan and its respective successors and assigns.
2. Prior to Allergan’s last Payment Date, Allergan shall not sell the majority of its voting stock or substantially all its assets without obtaining the acquiror’s agreement that it will constitute a successor with respect to Allergan’s obligations under this Agreement.
3. Prior to Allergan’s last Payment Date, Allergan shall not in one (1) transaction, or a series of related transactions, sell, or transfer assets (other than sales or transfers of inventories, or sales or transfers to an entity owed directly or indirectly by Allergan) having a fair market value equal to twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the consolidated assets of Allergan where the sale or transfer transaction is announced after the Reference Date, is not for fair consideration, and would foreseeably and unreasonably jeopardize Allergan’s ability to make the payments under this Agreement that are due on or before the third Payment Date following the close of a sale or transfer transaction. The above restriction shall not apply if Allergan obtains the acquiror’s agreement that it will be either a guarantor of or successor to the percentage of Allergan’s remaining Payment Obligations under this Agreement equal to the percentage of Allergan’s consolidated assets being sold or transferred in such transaction. Percentages under this section shall be determined in accordance with the United States generally accepted accounting principles and as of the date of Allergan’s most recent publicly filed consolidated balance sheet prior to the date of entry into the sale or transfer agreement at issue.
This Section XVI.S.3 shall be enforceable solely by the Enforcement Committee, and any objection under this Section X.VI.S.3 not raised within twenty (20) calendar days from the date that Allergan transmits notice of the transaction to the Enforcement Committee is waived. Any dispute under this Section XVI.S.3 shall be a National Dispute as described in Section XIV.G and must be raised exclusively with the National Arbitration Panel as described therein within twenty (20) calendar days of the announcement, and the sole remedy shall be an order enjoining the transaction.
T. Modification, Amendment, Alteration. After the Reference Date, any modification, amendment, or alteration of this Agreement by the Parties shall be binding only if evidenced in writing signed by Allergan along with the signatures of at least thirty-seven (37) of those then-serving Attorneys General of the Settling States along with a representation from each Attorney General that either: (1) the advisory committee or similar entity established or recognized by that Settling State (either pursuant to subsection VIII.F.2, by a State-Subdivision Agreement, or by statute) voted in favor of the modification, amendment, or alteration of this Agreement including at least one Participating Subdivision-appointed member; or (2) in States without any advisory committee, that 50.1% of the Participating Subdivisions by population expressed approval of the modification, amendment, or alteration of this Agreement in writing. Provided, however, in the event the modification, amendment, or alteration relates to injunctive relief, interstate allocation between the Settling States, intrastate allocation in a particular Settling State, or fees or costs of Settling States and Participating Subdivisions, then every Settling 66 December 20, 2022
State and each Participating Subdivision affected by that modification, amendment, or alteration must assent in writing. Provided further that, in the event the modification, amendment, or alteration relates to injunctive relief, then such amendment, modification, or alteration of injunctive relief against Allergan will not be effective unless and until any Consent Judgment is modified by a court of competent jurisdiction, except as otherwise provided by the Injunctive Terms.
U. Termination.
1. Unless otherwise agreed to by Allergan and the Settling State in question, this Agreement and all of its terms (except subsection XVI.O and any other nonadmissibility provisions, which shall continue in full force and effect) shall be canceled and terminated with respect to the Settling State, and the Agreement and all orders issued by the courts in the Settling State pursuant to the Agreement shall become null and void and of no effect if one or more of the following conditions applies:
a. A Consent Judgment approving this Agreement without modification of any of the Agreement’s terms has not been entered as to the Settling State by a court of competent jurisdiction on or before one hundred eighty (180) days after the Effective Date; or
b. This Agreement or the Consent Judgment as to that Settling State has been disapproved by a court of competent jurisdiction to which it was presented for approval and/or entry (or, in the event of an appeal from or review of a decision of such a court to approve this Agreement and the Consent Judgment, by the court hearing such appeal or conducting such review), and the time to appeal from such disapproval has expired, or, in the event of an appeal from such disapproval, the appeal has been dismissed or the disapproval has been affirmed by the court of last resort to which such appeal has been taken and such dismissal or disapproval has become no longer subject to further appeal (including, without limitation, review by the United States Supreme Court).
2. If this Agreement is terminated with respect to a Settling State and its Participating Subdivisions for whatever reason pursuant to subsection XVI.U.1, then:
a. An applicable statute of limitation or any similar time requirement (excluding any statute of repose) shall be tolled from the date the Settling State signed this Agreement until the later of the time permitted by applicable law or for one year from the date of such termination, with the effect that Allergan and the Settling State in question shall be in the same position with respect to the statute of limitation as they were at the time the Settling State filed its action; and
b. Allergan and the Settling State and its Participating Subdivisions in question shall jointly move the relevant court of competent jurisdiction for an order 67 December 20, 2022
reinstating the actions and Claims dismissed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement governing dismissal, with the effect that Allergan and the Settling State and its Participating Subdivisions in question shall be in the same position with respect to those actions and Claims as they were at the time the action or Claim was stayed or dismissed.
3. Unless Allergan and the Enforcement Committee agree otherwise, this Agreement, with the exception of the Injunctive Relief Terms that have their own provisions on duration, shall terminate as to all Parties as of Annual Payment 6, provided that Allergan has performed its payment obligations under the Agreement as of that date. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, all releases under this Agreement will remain effective despite any termination under this paragraph.
V. Waiver. Allergan, for good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is acknowledged, hereby (a) waives, foregoes and relinquishes all rights to utilize and/or seek relief under any of the following laws of the State of Texas for the restructuring of its debts or liabilities related to Released Claims or Claims that would have been Released Claims if they had been brought by a Releasor against a Released Entity before the Effective Date, or this Agreement: Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 10.003 (Contents of Plan of Merger: More Than One Successor) or any other statute of Subchapter A of Chapter 10 of Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code to the extent such statute relates to multi-successor or divisive mergers (and/or any other similar laws or statutes in any other state or territory); Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code §§ 11.01–
11.414 (Winding Up and Termination of Domestic Entity); or Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§
23.01–23.33 (Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors) (collectively, the “Texas Statutes”), and (b) agrees, warrants and represents that it will not file, request or petition for relief under the Texas Statutes related to its debts or liabilities related to Released Claims or Claims that would have been Released Claims if they had been brought by a Releasor against a Released Entity before the Effective Date, or this Agreement, in each case until such time as all of Allergan’s payment obligations incurred hereunder are satisfied in full. The foregoing waiver and relinquishment includes, without limitation, until such time as all of Allergan’s payment obligations hereunder are satisfied in full, Allergan’s rights to execute a divisional merger or equivalent transaction or restructuring related to its debts or liabilities related to Released Claims or Claims that would have been Released Claims if they had been brought by a Releasor against a Released Entity before the Effective Date, or this Agreement that in each case has the intent or foreseeable effect of (i) separating material assets from material liabilities and (ii) assigning or allocating all or a substantial portion of those liabilities to any subsidiary or affiliate that files for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, or pursuant to which such subsidiary or affiliate that files for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code would be assuming or retaining all or a substantial portion of those liabilities.
W. Governing Law. Except (1) as otherwise provided in the Agreement or (2) as necessary, in the sole judgment of the National Arbitration Panel, to promote uniformity of interpretation for matters within the scope of the National Arbitration Panel’s authority, this Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the respective laws of the Settling State, without regard to the conflict of law rules of such Settling State, that is seeking to enforce the Agreement against Allergan or against which Allergan is seeking enforcement. 68 December 20, 2022
Notwithstanding any other provision in this subsection on governing law, any disputes relating to the Settlement Fund Escrow shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the law of the state where the escrow agent has its primary place of business.
i
ALLERGAN PUBLIC GLOBAL OPIOID SETTLEMENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A Alleged Harms..................................................................................................... A-1 EXHIBIT B Enforcement Committee Organizational Bylaws............................................. B-1 EXHIBIT C Litigating Subdivisions and Special Districts List ........................................... C-1 EXHIBIT D [Intentionally Omitted]....................................................................................... D-1 EXHIBIT E List of Opioid Remediation Uses ....................................................................... E-1 EXHIBIT F-1 List of States and Pre-Credit Overall Allocation Percentages......................F-1 EXHIBIT F-2 List of Eligible Settling States and Overall Allocation Percentages.............F-3 EXHIBIT G Subdivisions and Special Districts Eligible to Receive Direct Allocations from the Subdivision Fund and Subdivision Fund Allocation Percentages................................................................................................................................G-1 EXHIBIT H [Intentionally Omitted] ......................................................................................H-1 EXHIBIT I Subdivisions with a Population Greater than 10,000......................................... I-1 EXHIBIT J-1 AbbVie Entities.................................................................................................. J-1 EXHIBIT J-2 Allergan Entities................................................................................................ J-2 EXHIBIT J-3 Divested Entities................................................................................................ J-3 EXHIBIT K Subdivision and Special District Settlement Participation Form ..................K-1 EXHIBIT L Settlement Fund Administrator......................................................................... L-1 EXHIBIT M-1 Payment Schedule.......................................................................................... M-1 EXHIBIT M-2 Payment Schedule for Fee Funds, Cost Funds, and Additional Restitution................................................................................................................................. M-2 EXHIBIT N Additional Restitution Amount Allocation....................................................... N-1 EXHIBIT O Adoption of a State-Subdivision Agreement....................................................O-1 EXHIBIT P Injunctive Relief ...................................................................................................P-1 EXHIBIT Q [Intentionally Omitted] ......................................................................................Q-1 ii
EXHIBIT R Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses...................................... R-1 EXHIBIT S Agreement on the State Outside Counsel Fee Fund for Manufacturer Settlements..................................................................................................................................S-1 EXHIBIT T Agreement on the State Cost Fund Administration ........................................ T-1 A-1
EXHIBIT A
Alleged Harms
The following export reports that were filed in connection with the case captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, No. 1:17-md-02804 (N.D. Ohio):
1. Expert report of Professor David Cutler, dated March 25, 2019.
2. Expert report of Dr. Jeffrey B. Liebman, dated March 25, 2019.
3. Expert report of Professor Thomas McGuire regarding damages to Bellwethers, dated March 25, 2019.
4. Report of Professor Thomas McGuire regarding public nuisance, dated March 25, 2019.
B-1
EXHIBIT B
Enforcement Committee Organizational Bylaws
ARTICLE I
These bylaws constitute the code of rules adopted by the Settling States and Participating Subdivisions for the creation of an Enforcement Committee (the “Committee”) to exist and operate during the term of the Agreement in connection with Allergan and shall control the regulation and management of the Committee’s affairs.
ARTICLE II
Purpose
The Committee is organized for the sole purpose of evaluating and taking such action as deemed reasonable, necessary, and appropriate by the members of the Committee on the matters delegated to the Committee under that certain Settlement Agreement between the Settling States and Allergan, dated November ___, 2022.
ARTICLE III
Members of the Committee
(1) Number of Members
The Committee will consist of thirteen (13) members (the “Members”). Upon majority resolution of the Committee, the number of Members may be increased or decreased from time to time, but in no event shall a decrease have the effect of decreasing the total number of Members to less than seven Members.
(2) Initial Members
The Committee initially will consist of eight (8) Settling State Members and five (5) Participating Subdivision Members; two (2) of the Participating Subdivisions shall be counties and two (2)shall be municipalities, and the fifth Participating Subdivision member may be either a county or a municipality. The initial Settling State Members are representatives from: California, Illinois, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia. The initial Participating Subdivision Members are: [•]. Until the date fifteen (15) months from the Effective Date contained in the Settlement Agreement, the Participating Subdivisions may designate their outside counsel to serve as their representative. After the date fifteen (15) months from the Effective Date, an employee or official of the Participating Subdivision must be the designated as the representative of the Participating Subdivision.
(3) Term of Members
B-2
The term of office for Members of the Committee will be until the end of the term of the Settlement Agreement, six (6) years, unless and until a Member withdraws or resigns from the Committee.
(4) Resignation
Any Member may resign at any time by delivering written notice to the Chairperson of the Committee. Such resignation shall take effect upon receipt or, if later, at the time specified in the notice.
(5) Removal
(a) Any Member may be removed without cause, at any time, by a majority of the entire Committee, at a Regular or Special Meeting called for that purpose. Any Member under consideration of removal must first be notified about the consideration by written notice at least five days prior to the meeting at which the vote takes place. (b) In the event that any Member is not a Settling State or a Participating Subdivision or the Member subsequently becomes a Later Litigating Subdivision, the Member shall be removed immediately without notice or vote of the Committee. (6) Vacancies
In the event of a vacancy, the Members of the same type (Settling State or Participating Subdivision) shall select another Settling State or Participating Subdivision to fill that Member’s position.
(7) Compensation
Members shall not receive any salaries or other compensation for their services, but, by resolution of the Committee, may be reimbursed for any actual expenses incurred in the performance of their duties for the Committee, as long as a majority of disinterested Members approve the reimbursement. Any reimbursement shall be sought from the Settlement Fund Administrator.
ARTICLE IV
Conflicts of Interest and Code of Ethics
If a Member, agent, or employee of the Committee has a conflict of interest, he or she may not participate in a vote, discussion, or decision about the matter. Each Member shall follow any applicable state or local law with respect to conflicts, gifts, and ethics.
ARTICLE V
Committee Meetings
(1) Place of Meetings
B-3
Meetings of the Committee will be held at any place that the Chairperson may designate, including by telephonic or electronic means.
(2) Regular Meetings
Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held as deemed necessary by the Chairperson or any three members.
(3) Notice of Meetings
Written notice of the date, time, place and subject of each meeting must be provided to the Members at least 72 hours before the scheduled time of the meeting, except when there is an emergency or urgent public necessity.
(4) Quorum
A majority of the incumbent Members (not counting vacancies) shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of convening a meeting or conducting business. (5) Voting and Proxy
When it is necessary to vote on any matter before the Committee, Members may vote by electronic means as provided in these Bylaws. Proxy voting is permitted. In order for a matter to pass, the matter must have a majority vote of Members present and must have at least one vote from a Settling State Member and a Participating Subdivision Member. In the event that there is a Quorum, but no Settling State or Participating Subdivision Member is present, then a matter may pass with a simple majority vote. (6) Minutes
The Committee shall prepare and keep minutes. The minutes must state the subject of each deliberation and indicate each vote, order, decision, or other action taken.
ARTICLE VI
Officers
(1) Roster of Officers
The Committee shall have a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson, and a Secretary. The Committee may have at its discretion, such other officers as may be appointed by the Members of the Committee. One person may hold two or more offices, except those serving as Chairperson.
(2) Election and Removal of Officers
B-4
All officers shall serve two-year terms. The election shall be conducted at the first meeting of the fiscal year. Officers shall remain in office until their successors have been selected.
Officers may serve consecutive terms without limit. The election of officers shall be by majority vote of the Members of the Committee attending the meeting. (3) Vacancies
If a vacancy occurs during the term of office for any elected officer, the Members of the Committee shall elect a new officer to fill the remainder of the term as soon as practical, by majority vote of Members present.
(4) Chairperson
The Chairperson will supervise and control the affairs of the Committee and shall exercise such supervisory powers as may be given him/her by the Members of the Committee. The Chairperson will perform all duties incident to such office and such other duties as may be provided in these bylaws or as may be prescribed from time to time by the Committee. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings and shall exercise parliamentary control in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order.
(5) Vice Chairperson
The Vice Chairperson shall act in place of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson’s absence, inability, or refusal to act, and shall exercise and discharge such other duties as may be required by the Committee. The Vice Chairperson shall serve as the parliamentarian and interpret any ambiguities of the bylaws. (6) Secretary
The Secretary will keep and maintain all records related to the Committee and take minutes of all meetings.
(7) Records
All elected officers and committee chairpersons shall relinquish their records to the Chairperson immediately upon the completion of their term of office or completion of a project.
(8) Resignation
An officer may resign the office while not resigning membership from the Committee, by submitting a letter to the Chairperson. Vacancies occurring in any office shall be appointed for the remainder of the term.
ARTICLE VII
Duties
B-5
(1) Prior to the Reference Date
The Committee shall be responsible for any additional negotiations with Allergan, including, but not limited to, negotiating extensions of any periods created by the Settlement Agreement.
(2) After the Effective Date
The Committee shall establish procedures for the receipt of notices that a dispute exists concerning the Agreement and review of such disputes, pursuant to Section XIV of the Agreement. Members may engage with Allergan, Settling States, and Participating Subdivisions attempting to resolve any dispute without further action by the Committee.
The Committee may request additional information from Allergan, Settling States, and Participating Subdivisions to the extent the Committee believes such information is necessary to understand, resolve, or provide advice related to a dispute. The Committee shall endeavor to provide advice relative to the dispute no later than 60 days after receipt of notice.
ARTICLE VIII
Rules of Procedure
The proceedings and business of the Committee shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order unless otherwise waived by the Committee.
ARTICLE IX
Operations
(1) Records
The Committee will keep correct and complete records and will also keep minutes of the proceedings of the Committee meetings and Committees. The Committee will keep such records at its principal place of business at a place designated by the Chairperson.
All elected officers and committee chairpersons shall relinquish their records to the Chairperson, immediately upon the completion of their term of office. (2) Inspection of Books and Records
The minutes of a meeting are public records and shall be available for public inspection and copying on request to the Committee’s Chairperson or the Chairperson’s designee. (3) Amendments
The bylaws may be amended at any time by a vote of a majority of Members present and must have at least one vote from a Settling State Member and a Participating Subdivision B-6
Member. In the event that there is a Quorum, but no Settling State or Participating Subdivision Member is present, then a matter may pass with a simple majority vote.
C-1
EXHIBIT C
Litigating Subdivisions and Special Districts List1
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL
Attentus Moulton,
LLC d/b/a Lawrence
Medical Center
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
Bibb County
Healthcare
Authority d/b/a Bibb
Medical Center
Fort Payne Hospital Corporation; The
Bibb County Healthcare Authority; The
Dale County Health Care Authority;
Greene County Hospital Board; Jackson
Hospital & Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County
Alabama Community Hospitals, Inc.;
Mizell Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The
Tombigbee Health Care Authority;
Geneva County Health Care Authority;
Community Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga
Health Care Authority; Russellville
Hospital, Inc.; Lakeland Community
Hospital, Inc.; Monroe County
Healthcare Authority; Infirmary Health
Hospitals, Inc.; The DCH Health Care
Authority; The Healthcare Authority For
Baptist Health, An Affiliate Of UAB
Health System; Medical West Hospital
Authority, An Affiliate Of UAB Health
System; Evergreen Medical Center, LLC;
Gilliard Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
CV-2021-
900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
1 This list is subject to amendment in the event it proves to be incomplete and other entities that satisfy the definition for “Litigating Subdivision” or “Litigating Special District” are subsequently identified.
C-2
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
AL City of Abbeville City of Abbeville, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45437 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Alabaster
City of Alabaster, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:22-op-45013 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Albertville
Marshall County; the Cities of Albertville,
Arab, Boaz and Guntersville; and the
Towns of Douglas and Grant, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45230 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Alexander City of Alexander City, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45827 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Arab
Marshall County; the Cities of Albertville,
Arab, Boaz and Guntersville; and the
Towns of Douglas and Grant, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45230 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Argo City of Argo v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45744 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Ashland City of Ashland, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46102 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Ashville
City of Leesburg, City of Jacksonville,
City of Rainbow City, City of Ashville,
City of Springville, City of Moody, City of
Ragland and City of Thomasville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45261 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Athens City of Athens, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-45953 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Attalla
City of Fultondale, City of Graysville,
City of Centre, Town of Cedar Bluff, City
of Dadeville, Town of Camp Hill, Town of
Oakman, City of Attalla and Town of
Gilbertown, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45265 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Auburn City of Auburn, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45282 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Bay Minette
City of Bay Minette, Alabama; Town of
Loxley, Alabama; and Town of
Summerdale, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:22-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Bessemer
The City of Bessemer, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:22-op-45014 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Birmingham City of Birmingham v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:17-op-45008 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Boaz
Marshall County; the Cities of Albertville,
Arab, Boaz and Guntersville; and the
Towns of Douglas and Grant, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45230 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-3
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL City of Brent City of Brent, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45910 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Brewton
City of Brewton, Alabama, and City of
Semmes, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45113 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Bridgeport
Jackson County, City of Bridgeport, City
of Henagar, City of New Hope, City of
Scottsboro, Town of Geraldine and Town
of Woodville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45634 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Brundidge City of Brundidge, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46128 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Calera
City of Calera, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:21-op-45070 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Carbon Hill
The City of Nauvoo, The City of Cordova,
The City of Carbon Hill, The City of
Sipsey, The City of Parrish and The City
of Oakman, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45737 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Center Point City of Center Point, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46103 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Centre
City of Fultondale, City of Graysville,
City of Centre, Town of Cedar Bluff, City
of Dadeville, Town of Camp Hill, Town of
Oakman, City of Attalla and Town of
Gilbertown, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45265 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Centreville City of Centreville, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46120 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Chickasaw City of Chickasaw, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45115 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Childersburg
City of Childersburg, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:22-op-45020 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Clanton
City of Clanton, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al. / The City of Clanton, Alabama; The
City of Columbiana, Alabama; The City of
Helena, Alabama; The City of Pelham,
Alabama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-46084 /
1:22-op-45016
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Columbiana
The City of Clanton, Alabama; The City
of Columbiana, Alabama; The City of
Helena, Alabama; The City of Pelham,
Alabama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:22-op-45016 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Cordova
The City of Nauvoo, The City of Cordova,
The City of Carbon Hill, The City of
Sipsey, The City of Parrish and The City
of Oakman, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45737 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-4
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL City of Cullman
City of Cullman, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45248 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Dadeville
City of Dadeville, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. / City of Fultondale,
City of Graysville, City of Centre, Town of
Cedar Bluff, City of Dadeville, Town of
Camp Hill, Town of Oakman, City of
Attalla and Town of Gilbertown, Alabama
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:19-op-45779 /
1:20-op-45265
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Daleville City of Daleville, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45778 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Daphne City of Daphne, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45227 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Decatur
City of Decatur, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45201 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Demopolis
City of Demopolis, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45183 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Dora
The Counties of Marion, Pickens and
Walker, Alabama and the Cities of Dora,
Jasper, and Sumiton, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45171 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Dothan City of Dothan, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45886 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of East
Brewton
City of East Brewton, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. 1:22-op-45005 N.D. Ohio (Federal) Al City of Enterprise
City of Enterprise, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45213 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Eufaula City of Eufaula v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46132 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Evergreen City of Evergreen, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45422 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Fairfield City of Fairfield, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45089 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Fairhope City of Fairhope, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:22-op-45002 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Fayette
Fayette County, City of Fayette, Town of
Berry and Rodney Ingle, in his capacity
as Sheriff of Fayette County, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45211 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Florence The City of Florence v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45073 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Foley City of Foley, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45287 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Fort Payne
City of Fort Payne, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45079 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Fultondale
City of Fultondale, City of Graysville,
City of Centre, Town of Cedar Bluff, City
of Dadeville, Town of Camp Hill, Town of
1:20-op-45265 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-5
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Oakman, City of Attalla and Town of
Gilbertown, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
AL City of Gadsden
City of Gadsden, Etowah County, and
Todd Entrekin, Sheriff of Etowah County,
Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:17-op-45101 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Geneva City of Geneva, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45986 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Georgiana City of Georgiana, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45436 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Graysville
City of Fultondale, City of Graysville,
City of Centre, Town of Cedar Bluff, City
of Dadeville, Town of Camp Hill, Town of
Oakman, City of Attalla and Town of
Gilbertown, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45265 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Greensboro City of Greensboro, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45421 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Greenville City of Greenville, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45023 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Guin
City of Guin, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45457 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Gulf Shores
The City of Gulf Shores, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:22-op-45019 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Guntersville
Marshall County; the Cities of Albertville,
Arab, Boaz and Guntersville; and the
Towns of Douglas and Grant, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45230 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Haleyville City of Haleyville, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46118 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Hamilton
City of Hamilton, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45564 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Hartselle
City of Hartselle, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45736 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Headland City of Headland, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46131 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Helena
The City of Clanton, Alabama; The City
of Columbiana, Alabama; The City of
Helena, Alabama; The City of Pelham,
Alabama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:22-op-45016 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Henagar
Jackson County, City of Bridgeport, City
of Henagar, City of New Hope, City of
Scottsboro, Town of Geraldine and Town
of Woodville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45634 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Homewood City of Homewood, Alabama v. McKesson Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45973 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
C-6
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL City of Hoover City of Hoover, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45746 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Hueytown
Jefferson County, Jefferson County Board
of Health, City of Pleasant Grove, City of
Hueytown and City of Mountain Brook
and Mike Hale, in his capacity as Sheriff
of Jefferson County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45558 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Huntsville City of Huntsville, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-45947 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Irondale
City of Irondale, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:22-op-45012 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Jacksonville
City of Leesburg, City of Jacksonville,
City of Rainbow City, City of Ashville,
City of Springville, City of Moody, City of
Ragland and City of Thomasville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45261 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Jasper
The Counties of Marion, Pickens and
Walker, Alabama and the Cities of Dora,
Jasper, Sumiton, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45171 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Killen The City of Killen, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45218 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Lanett City of Lanett, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46130 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Leeds City of Leeds, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45088 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Leesburg
City of Leesburg, City of Jacksonville,
City of Rainbow City, City of Ashville,
City of Springville, City of Moody, City of
Ragland and City of Thomasville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45261 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Level Plains City of Level Plains, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45100 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Lincoln City of Lincoln, Alabama v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45786 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Linden City of Linden v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45118 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Louisville The City of Louisville, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46058 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Luverne City of Luverne, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45109 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Madison The City of Madison, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45198 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Marion
City of Marion, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45217 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Midfield City of Midfield, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45416 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Millbrook
City of Millbrook, Alabama and City of
Wetumpka, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45135 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-7
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL City of Mobile
City of Mobile, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45076 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Monroeville
Monroe County, Alabama; The City of
Monroeville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:20-op-45273 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Montgomery City of Montgomery, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45494 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Moody
City of Leesburg, City of Jacksonville,
City of Rainbow City, City of Ashville,
City of Springville, City of Moody, City of
Ragland and City of Thomasville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45261 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Moulton
City of Moulton, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45202 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Mountain
Brook
Jefferson County, Jefferson County Board
of Health, City of Pleasant Grove, City of
Hueytown and City of Mountain Brook
and Mike Hale, in his capacity as Sheriff
of Jefferson County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45558 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Muscle
Shoals
The City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:20-op-45268 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Nauvoo
The City of Nauvoo, The City of Cordova,
The City of Carbon Hill, The City of
Sipsey, The City of Parrish and The City
of Oakman, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45737 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of New Hope
Jackson County, City of Bridgeport, City
of Henagar, City of New Hope, City of
Scottsboro, Town of Geraldine and Town
of Woodville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45634 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Northport
City of Northport, City of Robertsdale and
Town of Brookwood, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45272 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Oakman
The City of Nauvoo, The City of Cordova,
The City of Carbon Hill, The City of
Sipsey, The City of Parrish and The City
of Oakman, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45737 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Oneonta The City of Oneonta, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45210 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Opelika
City of Opelika, City of Spanish Fort, City
of Centreville, City of Slocomb and Town
of West Blocton v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45208 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-8
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL City of Opp
City of Opp, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45011 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Orange
Beach
City of Orange Beach, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45784 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Oxford City of Oxford, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45774 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Ozark
City of Ozark, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45214 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Parrish
The City of Nauvoo, The City of Cordova,
The City of Carbon Hill, The City of
Sipsey, The City of Parrish and The City
of Oakman, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45737 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Pelham
The City of Clanton, Alabama; The City
of Columbiana, Alabama; The City of
Helena, Alabama; The City of Pelham,
Alabama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:22-op-45016 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Pell City City of Pell City, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45091 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Phenix
Phenix City, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45179 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Piedmont City of Piedmont v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 21-op-45049 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Pleasant
Grove
Jefferson County, Jefferson County Board
of Health, City of Pleasant Grove, City of
Hueytown and City of Mountain Brook
and Mike Hale, in his capacity as Sheriff
of Jefferson County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45558 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Prattville City of Prattville, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45783 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Prichard City of Prichard, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45690 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Ragland
City of Leesburg, City of Jacksonville,
City of Rainbow City, City of Ashville,
City of Springville, City of Moody, City of
Ragland and City of Thomasville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45261 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Rainbow
City
City of Leesburg, City of Jacksonville,
City of Rainbow City, City of Ashville,
City of Springville, City of Moody, City of
Ragland and City of Thomasville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45261 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Rainsville
City of Rainsville and Town of
Hammondville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45135 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Red Bay City of Red Bay, City of Russellville, City of Sheffield and Town of Leighton, 1:19-op-45136 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-9
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Alabama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
AL City of Roanoke City of Roanoke, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 22-op-45011 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Robertsdale
City of Northport, City of Robertsdale and
Town of Brookwood, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45272 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Russellville
City of Red Bay, City of Russellville, City
of Sheffield and Town of Leighton,
Alabama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:19-op-45136 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Saraland City of Saraland, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 22-op-45017 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Satsuma City of Satsuma, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45116 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Scottsboro
Jackson County, City of Bridgeport, City
of Henagar, City of New Hope, City of
Scottsboro, Town of Geraldine and Town
of Woodville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45634 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Selma
City of Selma, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45198 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Semmes
City of Brewton, Alabama, and City of
Semmes, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45113 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Sheffield
City of Red Bay, City of Russellville, City
of Sheffield and Town of Leighton,
Alabama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:19-op-45136 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Sipsey
The City of Nauvoo, The City of Cordova,
The City of Carbon Hill, The City of
Sipsey, The City of Parrish and The City
of Oakman, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45737 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Slocomb
City of Opelika, City of Spanish Fort, City
of Centreville, City of Slocomb and Town
of West Blocton v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45208 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Spanish Fort
City of Opelika, City of Spanish Fort, City
of Centreville, City of Slocomb and Town
of West Blocton v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45208 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Springville
City of Leesburg, City of Jacksonville,
City of Rainbow City, City of Ashville,
City of Springville, City of Moody, City of
Ragland and City of Thomasville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45261 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Sumiton
The Counties of Marion, Pickens and
Walker, Alabama and the Cities of Dora,
Jasper, Sumiton, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45171 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-10
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL City of Sylacauga City of Sylacauga, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45900 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Talladega Talladega County and City of Talladega, Alabama v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45190 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Thomasville
City of Leesburg, City of Jacksonville,
City of Rainbow City, City of Ashville,
City of Springville, City of Moody, City of
Ragland and City of Thomasville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45261 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Troy
City of Troy, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45947 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Trussville The City of Trussville, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45192 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Tuscaloosa
City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45553 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Tuscumbia
The Town of Cherokee and the City of
Tuscumbia, Alabama, and the Counties of
Colbert and Franklin, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45005 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Tuskegee City of Tuskegee, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45544 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Union
Springs
City of Union Springs, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45204 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Uniontown City of Uniontown, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45117 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL City of Vernon
Lamar County, Alabama, City of Vernon,
Alabama and Hal Allred, in his capacity
as Sheriff of Lamar County, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45210 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Vestavia
Hills
City of Vestavia Hills, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45141 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Weaver City of Weaver, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45565 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL City of Wetumpka
City of Millbrook, Alabama and City of
Wetumpka, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45135 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL City of Winfield The City of Winfield, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45738 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Autauga Autauga County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45086 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Babour Babour County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al 1:18-op-45244 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Baldwin
Baldwin County, Alabama, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45152 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Bibb
Bibb County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45413 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-11
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL County of Blount Blount County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45415 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Bullock
Bullock County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45246 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Butler Butler County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45441 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Calhoun Calhoun County, Alabama v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45191 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Chambers Chambers County, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45408 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Cherokee
Cherokee County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45207 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Chilton
Chilton County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45735 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Choctaw Choctaw County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45770 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Clarke
Clarke County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45247 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Clay Clay County, Alabama v. Cardinal
Health, Inc., et al.
1:18-op-45248 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Cleburne Cleburne County, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45566 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Coffee
Coffee County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45182 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Colbert
The Town of Cherokee and the City of
Tuscumbia, Alabama, and the Counties of
Colbert and Franklin, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45005 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Conecuh
Conecuh County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45957 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Coosa Coosa County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45995 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of
Covington
Covington County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45751 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Crenshaw Crenshaw County, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45983 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Cullman
Cullman County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45227 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Dale Dale County, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45561 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Dallas
Dallas County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al
1:18-op-45667 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of DeKalb
Dekalb County and the Town of Powell,
Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45209 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-12
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL County of Elmore
Elmore County, Alabama, and Randolph
County, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:22-op-45003 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Escambia Escambia County, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45112 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL County of Etowah
City of Gadsden, Etowah County, and
Todd Entrekin, Sheriff of Etowah County,
Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:17-op-45101 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Fayette
Fayette County, City of Fayette, Town of
Berry and Rodney Ingle, in his capacity
as Sheriff of Fayette County, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45211 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Franklin
The Town of Cherokee and the City of
Tuscumbia, Alabama, and the Counties of
Colbert and Franklin, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45005 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Geneva Geneva County, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45105 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL County of Greene
Greene County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45209 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Hale Hale County, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45420 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Henry Henry County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45543 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Houston Houston County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45019 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Jackson
Jackson County, City of Bridgeport, City
of Henagar, City of New Hope, City of
Scottsboro, Town of Geraldine and Town
of Woodville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45634 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Jefferson
Jefferson County, Jefferson County Board
of Health, City of Pleasant Grove, City of
Hueytown and City of Mountain Brook
and Mike Hale, in his capacity as Sheriff
of Jefferson County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45558 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Lamar
Lamar County, Alabama, City of Vernon,
Alabama and Hal Allred, in his capacity
as Sheriff of Lamar County, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45210 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of
Lauderdale
Lauderdale County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45845 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Lawrence
Lawrence County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45228 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of
Limestone
Limestone County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al 1:18-op-45328 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Lowndes
Lowndes County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45203 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-13
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL County of Macon Macon County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45982 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Madison
Madison County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45006 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Marengo
Marengo County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45188 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Marion
The Counties of Marion, Pickens and
Walker, Alabama and the Cities of Dora,
Jasper, Sumiton, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45171 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Marshall
Marshall County; the Cities of Albertville,
Arab, Boaz and Guntersville; and the
Towns of Douglas and Grant, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45230 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Mobile
Mobile County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45186 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Monroe
Monroe County, Alabama; The City of
Monroeville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:20-op-45273 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of
Montgomery
Montgomery County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45445 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Morgan
Morgan County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45200 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Perry Perry County, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45158 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL County of Pickens
The Counties of Marion, Pickens and
Walker, Alabama and the Cities of Dora,
Jasper, Sumiton, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45171 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Pike
Pike County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45803 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Randolph
Elmore County, Alabama, and Randolph
County, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:22-op-45003 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Russell Russell County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45826 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Shelby Shelby County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45414 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of St. Clair St. Clair County, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45614 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL County of Sumter
Sumter County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45194 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Talladega Talladega County and City of Talladega, Alabama v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45190 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-14
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL County of
Tallapoosa
Tallapoosa County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et
al.
1:17-op-45097 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of
Tuscaloosa
Tuscaloosa County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45196 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Walker
The Counties of Marion, Pickens and
Walker, Alabama and the Cities of Dora,
Jasper, Sumiton, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45171 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of
Washington
Washington County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45180 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL County of Wilcox
Wilcox County, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45181 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Cullman Regional
Medical Center, Inc.
The Health Care Authority of Cullman
County; Cullman Regional Medical
Center, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46059 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
Dale County Health
Care Authority d/b/a
Dale Medical Center
Fort Payne Hospital Corporation; The
Bibb County Healthcare Authority; The
Dale County Health Care Authority;
Greene County Hospital Board; Jackson
Hospital & Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County
Alabama Community Hospitals, Inc.;
Mizell Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The
Tombigbee Health Care Authority;
Geneva County Health Care Authority;
Community Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga
Health Care Authority; Russellville
Hospital, Inc.; Lakeland Community
Hospital, Inc.; Monroe County
Healthcare Authority; Infirmary Health
Hospitals, Inc.; The DCH Health Care
Authority; The Healthcare Authority For
Baptist Health, An Affiliate Of UAB
Health System; Medical West Hospital
Authority, An Affiliate Of UAB Health
System; Evergreen Medical Center, LLC;
Gilliard Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
CV-2021-
900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
AL DCH Health Care
Authority
The DCH Health Care Authority, The
Healthcare Authority for Baptist Health,
an affiliate of UAB Health System,
CV-2019-
000007 / CV2021-900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
C-15
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Medical West Hospital Authority, an
affiliate of Uab Health System, Evergreen
Medical Center, LLC, Gilliard Health
Services, Inc., Crest Wood Healthcare,
L.P., Triad of Alabama, LLC, QHG of
Enterprise, Inc., Affinity Hospital, LLC,
Gadsden Regional Medical Center, LLC,
Foley Hospital Corporation, The Health
Care Authority Of Clarke County,
Alabama, BBH PBMC, LLC, BBH,
WBMC, LLC, BBH SB MC, LLC, BBH
CBMC, LLC, BBH BMC, LLC v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. / Fort Payne Hospital
Corporation; The Bibb County
Healthcare Authority; The Dale County
Health Care Authority; Greene County
Hospital Board; Jackson Hospital &
Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County Alabama
Community Hospitals, Inc.; Mizell
Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The Tombigbee
Health Care Authority; Geneva County
Health Care Authority; Community
Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga Health
Care Authority; Russellville Hospital,
Inc.; Lakeland Community Hospital, Inc.;
Monroe County Healthcare Authority;
Infirmary Health Hospitals, Inc.; The
DCH Health Care Authority; The
Healthcare Authority For Baptist Health,
An Affiliate Of UAB Health System;
Medical West Hospital Authority, An
Affiliate Of UAB Health System;
Evergreen Medical Center, LLC; Gilliard
Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
County
(State)
AL
Geneva County
Health Care
Authority d/b/a
Wiregrass Medical
Center
Fort Payne Hospital Corporation; The
Bibb County Healthcare Authority; The
Dale County Health Care Authority;
Greene County Hospital Board; Jackson
Hospital & Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County
Alabama Community Hospitals, Inc.;
Mizell Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The
Tombigbee Health Care Authority;
Geneva County Health Care Authority;
Community Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga
Health Care Authority; Russellville
CV-2021-
900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
C-16
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Hospital, Inc.; Lakeland Community
Hospital, Inc.; Monroe County
Healthcare Authority; Infirmary Health
Hospitals, Inc.; The DCH Health Care
Authority; The Healthcare Authority For
Baptist Health, An Affiliate Of UAB
Health System; Medical West Hospital
Authority, An Affiliate Of UAB Health
System; Evergreen Medical Center, LLC;
Gilliard Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
AL Greene County
Hospital Board
Fort Payne Hospital Corporation; The
Bibb County Healthcare Authority; The
Dale County Health Care Authority;
Greene County Hospital Board; Jackson
Hospital & Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County
Alabama Community Hospitals, Inc.;
Mizell Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The
Tombigbee Health Care Authority;
Geneva County Health Care Authority;
Community Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga
Health Care Authority; Russellville
Hospital, Inc.; Lakeland Community
Hospital, Inc.; Monroe County
Healthcare Authority; Infirmary Health
Hospitals, Inc.; The DCH Health Care
Authority; The Healthcare Authority For
Baptist Health, An Affiliate Of UAB
Health System; Medical West Hospital
Authority, An Affiliate Of UAB Health
System; Evergreen Medical Center, LLC;
Gilliard Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
CV-2021-
900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
AL
Healthcare
Authority for
Baptist Health
The DCH Health Care Authority, The
Healthcare Authority for Baptist Health,
an affiliate of UAB Health System,
Medical West Hospital Authority, an
affiliate of Uab Health System, Evergreen
CV-2019-
000007 / CV2021-900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
C-17
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Medical Center, LLC, Gilliard Health
Services, Inc., Crest Wood Healthcare,
L.P., Triad of Alabama, LLC, QHG of
Enterprise, Inc., Affinity Hospital, LLC,
Gadsden Regional Medical Center, LLC,
Foley Hospital Corporation, The Health
Care Authority Of Clarke County,
Alabama, BBH PBMC, LLC, BBH,
WBMC, LLC, BBH SB MC, LLC, BBH
CBMC, LLC, BBH BMC, LLC v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. / Fort Payne Hospital
Corporation; The Bibb County
Healthcare Authority; The Dale County
Health Care Authority; Greene County
Hospital Board; Jackson Hospital &
Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County Alabama
Community Hospitals, Inc.; Mizell
Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The Tombigbee
Health Care Authority; Geneva County
Health Care Authority; Community
Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga Health
Care Authority; Russellville Hospital,
Inc.; Lakeland Community Hospital, Inc.;
Monroe County Healthcare Authority;
Infirmary Health Hospitals, Inc.; The
DCH Health Care Authority; The
Healthcare Authority For Baptist Health,
An Affiliate Of UAB Health System;
Medical West Hospital Authority, An
Affiliate Of UAB Health System;
Evergreen Medical Center, LLC; Gilliard
Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
AL
HH Health SystemAthens Limestone,
LLC d/b/a Athens
Limestone Hospital
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-18
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
AL
HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC d/b/a
Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Decatur
and Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
HH Health SystemShoals, LLC d/b/a
Helen Keller
Hospital and Red
Bay Hospital
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Jefferson County
Board of Health
Jefferson County, Jefferson County Board
of Health, City of Pleasant Grove, City of
Hueytown and City of Mountain Brook
and Mike Hale, in his capacity as Sheriff
of Jefferson County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45558 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-19
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL Medical West
Hospital Authority
The DCH Health Care Authority, The
Healthcare Authority for Baptist Health,
an affiliate of UAB Health System,
Medical West Hospital Authority, an
affiliate of Uab Health System, Evergreen
Medical Center, LLC, Gilliard Health
Services, Inc., Crest Wood Healthcare,
L.P., Triad of Alabama, LLC, QHG of
Enterprise, Inc., Affinity Hospital, LLC,
Gadsden Regional Medical Center, LLC,
Foley Hospital Corporation, The Health
Care Authority Of Clarke County,
Alabama, BBH PBMC, LLC, BBH,
WBMC, LLC, BBH SB MC, LLC, BBH
CBMC, LLC, BBH BMC, LLC v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. / Fort Payne Hospital
Corporation; The Bibb County
Healthcare Authority; The Dale County
Health Care Authority; Greene County
Hospital Board; Jackson Hospital &
Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County Alabama
Community Hospitals, Inc.; Mizell
Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The Tombigbee
Health Care Authority; Geneva County
Health Care Authority; Community
Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga Health
Care Authority; Russellville Hospital,
Inc.; Lakeland Community Hospital, Inc.;
Monroe County Healthcare Authority;
Infirmary Health Hospitals, Inc.; The
DCH Health Care Authority; The
Healthcare Authority For Baptist Health,
An Affiliate Of UAB Health System;
Medical West Hospital Authority, An
Affiliate Of UAB Health System;
Evergreen Medical Center, LLC; Gilliard
Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
CV-2019-
000007 / CV2021-900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
AL Mobile County
Board of Health
Mobile County Board of Health and
Family Oriented Primary Health Care
Clinic v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al
02-CV-2019-
902806
AL - Circuit
Court of
Mobile
County
(State)
AL
Monroe County
Healthcare
Authority
Fort Payne Hospital Corporation; The
Bibb County Healthcare Authority; The
Dale County Health Care Authority;
CV-2021-
900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
C-20
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Greene County Hospital Board; Jackson
Hospital & Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County
Alabama Community Hospitals, Inc.;
Mizell Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The
Tombigbee Health Care Authority;
Geneva County Health Care Authority;
Community Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga
Health Care Authority; Russellville
Hospital, Inc.; Lakeland Community
Hospital, Inc.; Monroe County
Healthcare Authority; Infirmary Health
Hospitals, Inc.; The DCH Health Care
Authority; The Healthcare Authority For
Baptist Health, An Affiliate Of UAB
Health System; Medical West Hospital
Authority, An Affiliate Of UAB Health
System; Evergreen Medical Center, LLC;
Gilliard Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
County
(State)
AL
Sheriff of Etowah
County (Sheriff
Todd Entrekin)
City of Gadsden, Etowah County, and
Todd Entrekin, Sheriff of Etowah County,
Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:17-op-45101 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
Sheriff of Fayette
County (Sheriff
Rodney Ingle)
Fayette County, City of Fayette, Town of
Berry and Rodney Ingle, in his capacity
as Sheriff of Fayette County, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45211 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
Sheriff of Jefferson
County (Sheriff
Mike Hale)
Jefferson County, Jefferson County Board
of Health, City of Pleasant Grove, City of
Hueytown and City of Mountain Brook
and Mike Hale, in his capacity as Sheriff
of Jefferson County, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45558 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
Sheriff of Lamar
County (Sheriff Hal
Allred)
Lamar County, Alabama, City of Vernon,
Alabama and Hal Allred, in his capacity
as Sheriff of Lamar County, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45210 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
Sylacauga Health
Care Authority d/b/a
Coosa Valley
Medical Center
Fort Payne Hospital Corporation; The
Bibb County Healthcare Authority; The
Dale County Health Care Authority;
Greene County Hospital Board; Jackson
Hospital & Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County
Alabama Community Hospitals, Inc.;
Mizell Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The
Tombigbee Health Care Authority;
Geneva County Health Care Authority;
Community Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga
CV-2021-
900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
C-21
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Health Care Authority; Russellville
Hospital, Inc.; Lakeland Community
Hospital, Inc.; Monroe County
Healthcare Authority; Infirmary Health
Hospitals, Inc.; The DCH Health Care
Authority; The Healthcare Authority For
Baptist Health, An Affiliate Of UAB
Health System; Medical West Hospital
Authority, An Affiliate Of UAB Health
System; Evergreen Medical Center, LLC;
Gilliard Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
AL
The Health Care
Authority of Clarke
County
The DCH Health Care Authority, The
Healthcare Authority for Baptist Health,
an affiliate of UAB Health System,
Medical West Hospital Authority, an
affiliate of Uab Health System, Evergreen
Medical Center, LLC, Gilliard Health
Services, Inc., Crest Wood Healthcare,
L.P., Triad of Alabama, LLC, QHG of
Enterprise, Inc., Affinity Hospital, LLC,
Gadsden Regional Medical Center, LLC,
Foley Hospital Corporation, The Health
Care Authority Of Clarke County,
Alabama, BBH PBMC, LLC, BBH,
WBMC, LLC, BBH SB MC, LLC, BBH
CBMC, LLC, BBH BMC, LLC v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. / Fort Payne Hospital
Corporation; The Bibb County
Healthcare Authority; The Dale County
Health Care Authority; Greene County
Hospital Board; Jackson Hospital &
Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County Alabama
Community Hospitals, Inc.; Mizell
Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The Tombigbee
Health Care Authority; Geneva County
Health Care Authority; Community
Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga Health
Care Authority; Russellville Hospital,
Inc.; Lakeland Community Hospital, Inc.;
Monroe County Healthcare Authority;
Infirmary Health Hospitals, Inc.; The
DCH Health Care Authority; The
Healthcare Authority For Baptist Health,
An Affiliate Of UAB Health System;
Medical West Hospital Authority, An
CV-2019-
000007 / CV2021-900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
C-22
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Affiliate Of UAB Health System;
Evergreen Medical Center, LLC; Gilliard
Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
AL
The Health Care
Authority of
Cullman County
The Health Care Authority of Cullman
County; Cullman Regional Medical
Center, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46059 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
The Health Care
Authority of
Morgan County -
City of Decatur
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
The Health Care
Authority of the
City of Huntsville
d/b/a HH Health
System
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-23
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
AL
The Health Care
Authority of the
City of Huntsville
d/b/a Huntsville
Hospital
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
The Health Care
Authority of the
City of Huntsville
d/b/a Huntsville
Hospital for Women
and Children
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
The Health Care
Authority of the
City of Huntsville
d/b/a Madison
Hospital
The Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A HH Health System; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Madison Hospital; The
Health Care Authority of the City of
Huntsville D/B/A Huntsville Hospital for
Women and Children; HH Health SystemMorgan, LLC D/B/A Decatur Morgan Hospital - Decatur And Decatur Morgan
Hospital - Parkway; The Health Care
1:19-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-24
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Authority Of Morgan County - City Of
Decatur; HH Health System-Shoals, LLC
D/B/A Helen Keller Hospital and Red Bay
Hospital; HH Health System-Athens
Limestone, LLC D/B/A Athens Limestone
Hospital; Attentus Moulton, LLC D/B/A
Lawrence Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
AL
The Jackson County
Health Care
Authority
The Jackson County Health Care
Authority v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45134 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL
The Marshall
County Health Care
Authority d/b/a
Marshall Medical
Center North d/b/a
Marshall Medical
Center South
The Marshall County Health Care
Authority, a Public Corporation d/b/a
Marshall Medical Center North d/b/a
Marshall Medical Center South v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al
1:18-op-45538 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL
Tombigbee Health
Care Authority d/b/a
Brian W. Whitfield
Memorial Hospital
Fort Payne Hospital Corporation; The
Bibb County Healthcare Authority; The
Dale County Health Care Authority;
Greene County Hospital Board; Jackson
Hospital & Clinic, Inc.; Escambia County
Alabama Community Hospitals, Inc.;
Mizell Memorial Hospital, Inc.; The
Tombigbee Health Care Authority;
Geneva County Health Care Authority;
Community Hospital, Inc.; The Sylacauga
Health Care Authority; Russellville
Hospital, Inc.; Lakeland Community
Hospital, Inc.; Monroe County
Healthcare Authority; Infirmary Health
Hospitals, Inc.; The DCH Health Care
Authority; The Healthcare Authority For
Baptist Health, An Affiliate Of UAB
Health System; Medical West Hospital
Authority, An Affiliate Of UAB Health
System; Evergreen Medical Center, LLC;
Gilliard Health Services, Inc.; Crestwood
Healthcare, L.P.; Triad Of Alabama,
LLC; QHG Of Enterprise, Inc.; Affinity
Hospital, LLC; Gadsden Regional
Medical Center, LLC; Foley Hospital
Corporation; The Health Care Authority
Of Clarke County, Alabama; BBH PBMC,
LLC; BBH, WBMC, LLC; BBH SBMC,
LLC; BBH CBMC, LLC; and BBH BMC,
LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
CV-2021-
900016
AL - Circuit
Court of
Conecuh
County
(State)
AL Town of Berry
Fayette County, City of Fayette, Town of
Berry and Rodney Ingle, in his capacity
as Sheriff of Fayette County, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45211 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-25
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL Town of
Brookwood
City of Northport, City of Robertsdale and
Town of Brookwood, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45272 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Butler Town of Butler, Alabama v. McKesson
Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45216 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL Town of Camp Hill
City of Fultondale, City of Graysville,
City of Centre, Town of Cedar Bluff, City
of Dadeville, Town of Camp Hill, Town of
Oakman, City of Attalla and Town of
Gilbertown, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45265 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Cedar
Bluff
City of Fultondale, City of Graysville,
City of Centre, Town of Cedar Bluff, City
of Dadeville, Town of Camp Hill, Town of
Oakman, City of Attalla and Town of
Gilbertown, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45265 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Cherokee
The Town of Cherokee and the City of
Tuscumbia, Alabama, and the Counties of
Colbert and Franklin, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45005 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Cleveland
Town of Cleveland, Town of Gurley and
Town of Priceville, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45217 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Dauphin
Island
Town of Dauphin Island, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45119 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL Town of Double
Springs
Town of Double Springs, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45739 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Douglas
Marshall County; the Cities of Albertville,
Arab, Boaz and Guntersville; and the
Towns of Douglas and Grant, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45230 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Faunsdale Town of Faunsdale, Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45122 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL Town of Fort
Deposit
Town of Fort Deposit, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45427 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL Town of Geraldine
Jackson County, City of Bridgeport, City
of Henagar, City of New Hope, City of
Scottsboro, Town of Geraldine and Town
of Woodville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45634 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Gilbertown
City of Fultondale, City of Graysville,
City of Centre, Town of Cedar Bluff, City
of Dadeville, Town of Camp Hill, Town of
Oakman, City of Attalla and Town of
Gilbertown, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45265 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Grant
Marshall County; the Cities of Albertville,
Arab, Boaz and Guntersville; and the
Towns of Douglas and Grant, Alabama v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45230 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-26
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AL Town of Gurley
Town of Cleveland, Town of Gurley and
Town of Priceville, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45217 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of
Hammondville
City of Rainsville and Town of
Hammondville, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45135 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Leighton
City of Red Bay, City of Russellville, City
of Sheffield and Town of Leighton,
Alabama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:19-op-45136 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Locust
Fork
Town of Locust Fork v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45777 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL Town of Loxley
City of Bay Minette, Alabama; Town of
Loxley, Alabama; and Town of
Summerdale, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:22-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of McKenzie Town of McKenzie, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45435 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL Town of Munford Town of Munford, Alabama v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45785 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL Town of Oakman
City of Fultondale, City of Graysville,
City of Centre, Town of Cedar Bluff, City
of Dadeville, Town of Camp Hill, Town of
Oakman, City of Attalla and Town of
Gilbertown, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45265 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Powell
Dekalb County and the Town of Powell,
Alabama v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45209 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Priceville
Town of Cleveland, Town of Gurley and
Town of Priceville, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45217 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Rockford Town of Rockford, Alabama v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45915 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL Town of
Summerdale
City of Bay Minette, Alabama; Town of
Loxley, Alabama; and Town of
Summerdale, Alabama v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:22-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Sweet
Water
Town of Sweet Water, Alabama v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45120 N.D. Ohio (Federal) AL Town of Vance Town of Vance, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45909 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AL Town of West
Blocton
City of Opelika, City of Spanish Fort, City
of Centreville, City of Slocomb and Town
of West Blocton v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45208 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AL Town of Woodville
Jackson County, City of Bridgeport, City
of Henagar, City of New Hope, City of
Scottsboro, Town of Geraldine and Town
of Woodville, Alabama v.
1:18-op-45634 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-27
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
AL Town of Yellow
Bluff
Town of Yellow Bluff, Alabama v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45423 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ City of Bullhead Bullhead City, Arizona v. Actavis, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45085 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ City of Glendale City of Glendale, Arizona v. Actavis, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45086 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ City of Kingman City of Kingman v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46057 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ City of Phoenix City of Phoenix, Arizona v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45510 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ City of Prescott The City of Prescott, Arizona v. Actavis, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45090 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ City of Surprise City of Surprise, Arizona v. Actavis, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45091 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ City of Tucson City of Tucson v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45267 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ County of Apache County of Apache, Arizona v. Actavis, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45084 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ County of Cochise Cochise County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45855 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ County of La Paz County of La Paz, Arizona v. Actavis, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45087 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ County of Maricopa Maricopa County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45020 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ County of Mohave Mohave County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45117 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ County of Navajo Navajo County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45217
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
AZ County of Pima Pima County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45268 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ County of Pinal Pinal County, Arizona v. Actavis, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45088 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
AZ County of Yuma Yuma County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45575 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA
City and County of
San Francisco (City
Attorney Dennis J.
Herrera)
The City and County of San Francisco,
California and the People of the State of
California, acting by and through San
Francisco City Attorney Dennis J.
Herrera v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
3:18-cv-07591
N.D.
California
(Federal)
CA
City of Anaheim
(City Attorney
Robert Fabela)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-28
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
CA City of Chico
City of Chico, California; The People of
the State of California, acting by and
through the City of Chico, Plaintiffs v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:20-op-45189 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA City of Chula Vista City of Chula Vista, California v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45750 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA City of Clearlake
City of Clearlake, California; The People
of the State of California, acting by and
through the City of Clearlake v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45251 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of Costa Mesa
(City Attorney
Kimberly Hall
Barlow)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of Dublin (City
Attorney John
Bakker)
City of Dublin, City of Murrieta and The
People of the State of California, by and
through Dublin City Attorney John
Bakker and Murrieta City Attorney Leslie
Devaney v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45255 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of El Monte
(City Attorney Rick
Olivarez)
City of El Monte and the People of the
State of California, by and through El
Monte City Attorney Rick Olivarcz v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al
JCCP 5029
MDL -
Prescription
Opioid Cases
(CA - County
of Los
Angeles)
(State MDL)
CA
City of Encinitas
(City Attorney
Leslie Devaney)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-29
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
CA
City of Eureka (City
Attorney Robert
Norris Black)
City of Eureka, the People of the State of
California, acting by and through Interim
Eureka City Attorney, Robert Norris
Black v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46092 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of Fullerton
(City Attorney
Richard D. Jones)
City of Fullerton, City of Westminster and
the People of the State of California, by
and through Fullerton and Westminster
City Attorney Richard D. Jones v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA City of Huntington
Beach
City of Huntington Beach, California v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45588 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA
City of Irvine (City
Attorney Jeffrey
Melching)
City of Irvine and the People of the State
of California, by and through Irvine City
Attorney Jeffrey Melching v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45734 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of La Habra
(City Attorney
Richard D. Jones)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of La Mesa
(City Attorney
Glenn Sabine)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-30
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
CA City of Laguna
Beach
City of Laguna Beach, California v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45447 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA City of Lakeport
City of Lakeport, California; The People
of the State of California, acting by and
through the City of Lakeport v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45242 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles, California v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45601 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA
City of Murrieta
(City Attorney
Leslie Devaney)
City of Dublin, City of Murrieta and The
People of the State of California, by and
through Dublin City Attorney John
Bakker and Murrieta City Attorney Leslie
Devaney v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45255 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of Oakland
(City Attorney
Barbara J. Parker)
The People of the State of California,
acting by and through Santa Clara
County Counsel James R. Williams,
Orange County District Attorney Tony
Rackauckas, Los Angeles County Counsel
Mary C. Wickham, and Oakland City
Attorney Barbara J. Parker v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
30-2014-
00725287-CUBT-CXC
CA - County
of Orange
(State)
CA
City of Oxnard
(City Attorney
Stephen Fischer)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-31
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
CA
City of Placentia
(City Attorney
Christian
Bettenhausen)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of Sacramento
(City Attorney
Susana Alcala
Wood)
The City of Sacramento and The People of
the State of California, acting by and
through the City of Sacramento City
Attorney Susana Alcala Wood v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45290 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of San
Clemente (City
Attorney Scott C.
Smith)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of San Diego
(City Attorney Mara
W. Elliot)
The City of San Diego and the People of
the State of California, by and through
Mara W. Elliot, City Attorney of San
Diego v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45192 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA City of San Jose City of San Jose, California, The People of the State of California, acting by and 1:19-op-45768 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-32
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
through the City of San Jose v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
CA
City of Santa Ana
(City Attorney
Sonia R. Carvalho)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
City of Westminster
(City Attorney
Richard D. Jones)
City of Fullerton, City of Westminster and
the People of the State of California, by
and through Fullerton and Westminster
City Attorney Richard D. Jones v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45143 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
County of Alameda
(County Counsel
Donna Ziegler)
County of Alameda; City of Costa Mesa;
City of Anaheim; City of Santa Ana; City
of San Clemente; City of Encinitas; City
of La Habra; City of La Mesa; City of
Oxnard; City of Placentia; and The
People of The State of California, by and
through Alameda County Counsel Donna
Ziegler, Costa Mesa City Attorney
Kimberly Hall Barlow, and Anaheim City
Attorney Robert Fabela, Santa Ana City
Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, San
Clemente City Attorney Scott C. Smith,
Encinitas City Attorney Leslie Devaney,
La Habra City Attorney Richard D. Jones,
La Mesa City Attorney Glenn Sabine,
Oxnard City Attorney Stephen Fischer,
Placentia City Attorney Christian
Bettenhausen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:20-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Amador
County of Amador; The People of the
State of California, acting by and through
the County of Amador v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46075 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Butte
County of Butte; The People of the State
of California, acting by and through the
County of Butte v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45627 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-33
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
CA County of Calaveras
County of Calaveras; The People of the
State of California, acting by and through
the County of Calaveras v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45645 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Contra
Costa
County of Contra Costa; The People of
the State of California, acting by and
through the County of Contra Costa v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45656 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Del Norte
County of Del Norte; The People of the
State of California, acting by and through
the County of Del Norte v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45655 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of El
Dorado
County of El Dorado; The People of the
State of California, acting by and through
the County of El Dorado v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45629 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Fresno County of Fresno v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45644 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Glenn
County of Glenn; The People of the State
of California, acting by and through the
County of Glenn v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45639 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Humboldt Humboldt County, California v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45942 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA County of Imperial
County of Imperial; The People of the
State of California, acting by and through
the County of Imperial v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45631 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Inyo County of Inyo v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45646 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA
County of Kern
(County Attorney
Margo Raison)
County of Kern and the People of the
State of California, by and through Kern
County Attorney Margo Raison v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
JCCP 5029
MDL -
Prescription
Opioid Cases
(CA - County
of Los
Angeles)
(State MDL)
CA County of Lassen County of Lassen v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45609 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA
County of Los
Angeles (County
Counsel Mary C.
Wickham)
The People of the State of California,
acting by and through Santa Clara
County Counsel James R. Williams,
Orange County District Attorney Tony
Rackauckas, Los Angeles County Counsel
Mary C. Wickham, and Oakland City
Attorney Barbara J. Parker v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
30-2014-
00725287-CUBT-CXC
CA - County
of Orange
(State)
C-34
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
CA County of Madera County of Madera v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45647 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Marin County of Marin v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45657 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA County of Mariposa
County of Mariposa v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45618 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of
Mendocino
County of Mendocino v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45654 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Merced County of Merced v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45643 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Modoc County of Modoc v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45641 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Mono County of Mono v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45626 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Monterey
County of Monterey v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45615 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Napa County of Napa, California v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45750 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA County of Nevada County of Nevada v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45628 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA
County of Orange
(District Attorney
Tony Rackauckas)
The People of the State of California,
acting by and through Santa Clara
County Counsel James R. Williams,
Orange County District Attorney Tony
Rackauckas, Los Angeles County Counsel
Mary C. Wickham, and Oakland City
Attorney Barbara J. Parker v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
30-2014-
00725287-CUBT-CXC
CA - County
of Orange
(State)
CA County of Placer County of Placer v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45642 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Plumas County of Plumas v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45649 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Riverside
County of Riverside v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45878 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of
Sacramento
County of Sacramento v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45608 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of San
Benito
County of San Benito v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45653 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of San
Bernardino
County of San Bernardino v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46032 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA County of San
Diego
County of San Diego v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45613 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of San Luis
Obispo
County of San Luis Obispo, California v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46290 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-35
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
CA County of San
Mateo
County of San Mateo, California v.
McKesson Corporation, et al. / County of
San Mateo v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46319 /
1:19-op-45126
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Santa
Barbara
County of Santa Barbara, the People of
the State of California v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45128 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
County of Santa
Clara (County
Counsel James R.
Williams)
The People of the State of California,
acting by and through Santa Clara
County Counsel James R. Williams,
Orange County District Attorney Tony
Rackauckas, Los Angeles County Counsel
Mary C. Wickham, and Oakland City
Attorney Barbara J. Parker v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
30-2014-
00725287-CUBT-CXC
CA - County
of Orange
(State)
CA County of Santa
Cruz
County of Santa Cruz, California v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45679 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Shasta County of Shasta v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45651 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Siskiyou County of Siskiyou v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45630 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Sonoma County of Sonoma, California v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45849 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA County of Sutter County of Sutter v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45640 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Tehama County of Tehama v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45680 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Trinity County of Trinity v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45650 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA County of Tulare County of Tulare, California v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45997 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA County of
Tuolumne
County of Tuolumne v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45619 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Ventura County of Ventura v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45747 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CA
County of Yolo
(County Counsel
Philip Pogledich)
County of Yolo; The People of the State of
California, acting by and through the
Yolo County Counsel v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45351 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA County of Yuba County of Yuba v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45648 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA Downey Unified
School District
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-36
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
CA Elk Grove Unified
School District
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA Health Plan of San
Joaquin
Health Plan of San Joaquin v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46093 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA Kern High School
District
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
C-37
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA Lassen County
Office of Education
Susanville Elementary School District and
Lassen County Office of Education v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al.
1:22-op-45031 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA
Local Initiative
Health Authority for
Los Angeles County
o/a L.A. Care
Health Plan
Local Initiative Health Authority for Los
Angeles County, a California local public
agency operating as L.A. Care Health
Plan v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45212 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CA Pleasant Valley
School District
Pleasant Valley School District v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45120 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA
San Leandro
Unified School
District
San Leandro Unified School District v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al. 1:21-op-45114 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CA
Susanville
Elementary School
District
Susanville Elementary School District and
Lassen County Office of Education v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al.
1:22-op-45031 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO City and County of
Broomfield
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-38
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
CO City and County of
Denver
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO City of Alamosa
Conejos County; Las Animas County;
Chaffee County; Otero County; Alamosa
County; and The City of Alamosa v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45740 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO City of Aurora
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO City of Black Hawk
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-39
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
CO City of Brighton City of Brighton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45298 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CO City of Commerce
City
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO City of Federal
Heights
City of Federal Heights v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45573 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CO City of Greeley City of Greeley v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45977 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CO City of Lakewood
The City of Lakewood, and the City of
Wheat Ridge v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:18-op-45800 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO City of Northglenn
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO City of Sheridan City of Sheridan v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45572 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CO City of Thornton City of Thornton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45034 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
C-40
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
CO City of Westminster
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO City of Wheat Ridge
The City of Lakewood, and the City of
Wheat Ridge v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:18-op-45800 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO
County of Adams
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO County of Alamosa
Conejos County; Las Animas County;
Chaffee County; Otero County; Alamosa
County; and The City of Alamosa v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45740 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO
County of Arapahoe
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-41
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
CO
County of Boulder
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO County of Chaffee
Conejos County; Las Animas County;
Chaffee County; Otero County; Alamosa
County; and The City of Alamosa v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45740 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO County of Conejos
Conejos County; Las Animas County;
Chaffee County; Otero County; Alamosa
County; and The City of Alamosa v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45740 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO
County of Fremont
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO County of Huerfano County of Huerfano v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45168 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CO
County of Jefferson
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Jefferson v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45035 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-42
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
CO
County of Larimer
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO County of Las
Animas
Conejos County; Las Animas County;
Chaffee County; Otero County; Alamosa
County; and The City of Alamosa v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45740 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO
County of Mesa
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
the County of Mesa v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45923 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO County of Otero
Conejos County; Las Animas County;
Chaffee County; Otero County; Alamosa
County; and The City of Alamosa v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45740 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO County of Pueblo Pueblo County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45801 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CO
County of Teller
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO Mesa County Valley
School District 51
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
C-43
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CO Town of Hudson
The Board of County Commissioners of
The County of Adams, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Arapahoe, City of Aurora, City of Black
Hawk, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of Boulder,
City and County of Broomfield, City of
Commerce City, City and County of
Denver, The Board of County
Commissioners of The County of
Fremont, Town of Hudson, The Board of
County Commissioners of The County of
Larimer, City of Northglenn, The Board
of County Commissioners of The County
of Teller, City of Westminster, and TriCounty Health Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45036 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
CT City of Ansonia
The City of Ansonia, The City of Danbury,
The City of Derby and The City of
Norwalk v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
X07 HHD CV
17 6086134 S
(consolidated)
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(CT -
Superior
Court,
Judicial
District of
Hartford)
(State MDL)
CT City of Danbury
The City of Ansonia, The City of Danbury,
The City of Derby and The City of
Norwalk v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
X07 HHD CV
17 6086134 S
(consolidated)
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(CT -
C-44
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Superior
Court,
Judicial
District of
Hartford)
(State MDL)
CT City of Derby
The City of Ansonia, The City of Danbury,
The City of Derby and The City of
Norwalk v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
X07 HHD CV
17 6086134 S
(consolidated)
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(CT -
Superior
Court,
Judicial
District of
Hartford)
(State MDL)
CT City of Middletown City of Middletown v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45651 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CT City of New London City of New London v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
X07 HHD CV
17 6086134 S
(consolidated)
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(CT -
Superior
Court,
Judicial
District of
Hartford)
(State MDL)
CT City of Norwalk
The City of Ansonia, The City of Danbury,
The City of Derby and The City of
Norwalk v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
X07 HHD CV
17 6086134 S
(consolidated)
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(CT -
Superior
Court,
Judicial
District of
Hartford)
(State MDL)
CT City of Norwich City of Norwich v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45840 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CT Town of Enfield Town of Enfield v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45581 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CT Town of Monroe The Town of Monroe, Connecticut v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45441 N.D. Ohio (Federal) CT Town of
Wallingford
Town of Wallingford v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al
X07 HHD CV
17 6086134 S
(consolidated)
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(CT -
Superior
Court,
Judicial
District of
C-45
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Hartford)
(State MDL)
CT Town of
Wethersfield
Town of Wethersfield v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45663 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
CT Town of Windham Town of Windham v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45103 N.D. Ohio (Federal) DE City of Dover City of Dover, City of Seaford and Kent County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. K19C-06-022
DE - Superior
Court of the
State of
Delaware
(State)
DE City of Seaford City of Dover, City of Seaford and Kent County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. K19C-06-022
DE - Superior
Court of the
State of
Delaware
(State)
DE County of Kent City of Dover, City of Seaford and Kent County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. K19C-06-022
DE - Superior
Court of the
State of
Delaware
(State)
DE County of Sussex Sussex County, Delaware v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45723 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
FL Halifax Hospital
Medical Center
Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc.,
North Broward Hospital District, Halifax
Hospital Medical Center, Bayfront HMA
Medical Center, LLC, CGH Hospital,
Ltd., Citrus HMA, LLC, Central Florida
Health, Crestview Hospital Corporation,
Delray Medical Center, Inc., Flagler
Hospital, Inc., Good Samaritan Medical
Center, Inc., Haines City HMA, LLC,
Hernando HMA, LLC, Hialeah Hospital,
Inc., HMA Santa Rosa Medical Center,
LLC, Key West HMA, LLC, Lake Shore
HMA, LLC, Lake Wales Hospital
Corporation, Larkin Community Hospital
Palm Springs Campus, LLC, Larkin
Community Hospital, Inc., Larkin
Community Hospital Behavioral Service,
Inc., Leesburg Regional Medical Center,
Inc., Lifemark Hospitals Of Florida, Inc.,
Live Oak HMA, LLC, Naples HMA, LLC,
North Shore Medical Center, Inc.,
Osceolasc LLC, Palm Beach Gardens
Community Hospital, Inc., Port Charlotte
HMA, LLC, Punta Gorda HMA, LLC, St.
Mary's Medical Center, Inc., Starke HMA,
LLC, The Villages Tri-County Medical
Center, Inc., and Venice HMA, LLC v.
Richard Sackler, et al.
CACE-19-
018882
FL - 17th
Judicial
Circuit Court
of Broward
County
(State)
C-46
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
FL
Lee Memorial
Health System d/b/a
Lee Health
Lee Memorial Health System v. Actavis
LLC, et al. 1:21-op-45092 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
FL North Broward
Hospital District
Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc.,
North Broward Hospital District, Halifax
Hospital Medical Center, Bayfront HMA
Medical Center, LLC, CGH Hospital,
Ltd., Citrus HMA, LLC, Central Florida
Health, Crestview Hospital Corporation,
Delray Medical Center, Inc., Flagler
Hospital, Inc., Good Samaritan Medical
Center, Inc., Haines City HMA, LLC,
Hernando HMA, LLC, Hialeah Hospital,
Inc., HMA Santa Rosa Medical Center,
LLC, Key West HMA, LLC, Lake Shore
HMA, LLC, Lake Wales Hospital
Corporation, Larkin Community Hospital
Palm Springs Campus, LLC, Larkin
Community Hospital, Inc., Larkin
Community Hospital Behavioral Service,
Inc., Leesburg Regional Medical Center,
Inc., Lifemark Hospitals Of Florida, Inc.,
Live Oak HMA, LLC, Naples HMA, LLC,
North Shore Medical Center, Inc.,
Osceolasc LLC, Palm Beach Gardens
Community Hospital, Inc., Port Charlotte
HMA, LLC, Punta Gorda HMA, LLC, St.
Mary's Medical Center, Inc., Starke HMA,
LLC, The Villages Tri-County Medical
Center, Inc., and Venice HMA, LLC v.
Richard Sackler, et al.
CACE-19-
018882
FL - 17th
Judicial
Circuit Court
of Broward
County
(State)
FL Putnam County
School Board
Putnam County School Board v.
Cephalon, Inc., et al. 1:22-op-45025 N.D. Ohio (Federal) FL
Sarasota County
Public Hospital
District d/b/a
Memorial
Healthcare System,
Inc.
Sarasota County Public Hospital District
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46136 N.D. Ohio (Federal) FL School Board of
Miami-Dade
The School Board of Miami-Dade v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45913 N.D. Ohio (Federal) FL
South Florida
Behavioral Health
Network
South Florida Behavioral Health Network
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46070 N.D. Ohio (Federal) GA Bibb County School
District
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
C-47
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA Chatham County
Hospital Authority
Chatham County Hospital Authority,
Georgia v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:19-op-45725 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Adel City of Adel, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45318 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA City of Albany The City of Albany v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46337 N.D. Ohio (Federal) GA City of Alma
City of Alma, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45620 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Arlington
The City of Blakely; the City of Arlington;
the City of Damascus v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45129 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Atlanta The City of Atlanta v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46308 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA City of Augusta Augusta, Georgia v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45233 N.D. Ohio (Federal) GA City of Bainbridge
The City of Bainbridge, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45383 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Blackshear City of Blackshear v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45802 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA City of Blakely
The City of Blakely; the City of Arlington;
the City of Damascus v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45129 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Brunswick
City of Brunswick, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45270 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Cartersville
City of Rome, Floyd County, Chattooga
County, Whitefield County and City of
Cartersville v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45282 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-48
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
GA City of Columbus
Columbus, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45567 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Damascus
The City of Blakely; the City of Arlington;
the City of Damascus v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45129 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Dawson
City of Dawson, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45619 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA City of Demorest
City of Demorest, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46113 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Doraville The City of Doraville, Georgia v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46056 N.D. Ohio (Federal) GA City of Dunwoody The City of Dunwoody, Georgia v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46054 N.D. Ohio (Federal) GA City of Fitzgerald
The City of Fitzgerald, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45603 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Gainesville
The City of Gainesville, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45486 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Lakeland City of Lakeland, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45618 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA City of
Milledgeville
The City of Milledgeville, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45495 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Nashville City of Nashville, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45617 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA City of Pooler
City of Pooler, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al
1:18-op-45391 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Richmond
Hill
City of Richmond Hill, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45305 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Rome
City of Rome, Floyd County, Chattooga
County, Whitefield County and City of
Cartersville v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45282 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Sandy
Springs
The City of Sandy Springs, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45516 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Savannah
The Mayor and Alderman of the City of
Savannah v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45550 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Springfield City of Springfield, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45199 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA City of Tifton
The City of Tifton, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45454 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA City of Warwick City of Warwick, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45621 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
C-49
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
GA City of Woodbury
The City of Woodbury v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45575 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA Clinch County
Hospital Authority
Clinch County Hospital Authority v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45453 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Appling Appling County, Georgia v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45081 N.D. Ohio (Federal) GA
County of AthensClarke (Unified
Government)
The Unified Government of Athens-Clarke
County, Georgia v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45218
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Atkinson Atkinson County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45118 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Bacon
Bacon County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46105 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Banks
Banks County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45378 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Bartow
Bartow County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45045 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Ben Hill
Ben Hill County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45505 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Berrien Berrien County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45834 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Brantley
Brantley County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45714 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Brooks Brooks County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45981 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Bulloch
Bulloch County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45394 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Burke Burke County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45207 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Butts
Butts County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45490 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Camden
Camden County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45717 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Candler
Candler County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45165 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Carroll Carroll County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46269 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Catoosa Catoosa County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45497 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Charlton
Charlton County v. Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45713 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-50
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
GA County of Chatham
Chatham County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45267 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of
Chattooga
City of Rome, Floyd County, Chattooga
County, Whitefield County and City of
Cartersville v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45282 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Cherokee Cherokee County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45174 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Clay Clay County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45194 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Clayton Clayton County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46298 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Clinch Clinch County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45197 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Cobb Cobb County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45817 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Columbia
Columbia County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45607 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Cook
Cook County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45284 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Crisp
Crisp County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45238 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Dade Dade County, Georgia v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46099 N.D. Ohio (Federal) GA County of Dawson Dawson County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 19-op-45210 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Decatur
Decatur County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45334 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of DeKalb DeKalb County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45503 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Dooly
Dooly County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45712 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of
Dougherty
Dougherty County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45491 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Early Early County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45180 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Echols Echols County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-46204 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of
Effingham
Effingham County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45178 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Elbert
Elbert County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45381 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Emanuel Emanuel County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45209 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Evans Evans County, Georgia v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45080 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-51
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
GA County of Fannin County of Fannin v. Rite Aid of Georgia, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-45269 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Fayette Fayette County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45293 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Floyd
City of Rome, Floyd County, Chattooga
County, Whitefield County and City of
Cartersville v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45282 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Forsyth Forsyth County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45420 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Fulton County of Fulton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-45374 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Glascock Glascock County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45175 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Glynn Glynn County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-46115 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Grady Grady County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-46338 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Greene Greene County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 19-op-45203 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Gwinnett Gwinnett County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-45758 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of
Habersham
Habersham County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45559 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Hall
Hall County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45286 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Hancock
Hancock County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45535 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Heard Heard County v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45130 N.D. Ohio (Federal) GA County of Henry Henry County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-46310 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Houston Houston County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-45946 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Irwin
Irwin County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45283 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Jackson
Jackson County , Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45581 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Jasper
Jasper County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45504 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Jeff
Davis
Jeff Davis County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45237 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Jefferson Jefferson County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45201 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Johnson
Johnson County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45716 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-52
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
GA County of Jones
Jones County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45424 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Lanier Lanier County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-46066 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Laurens
Laurens County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45945 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Lee
Lee County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-46171 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Liberty Liberty County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45200 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Lincoln
Lincoln County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45508 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Long Long County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45196 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Lowndes Lowndes County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-45835 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Lumpkin Lumpkin County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45211 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Macon
The County of Macon, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45577 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Madison
Madison County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45296 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of McDuffie
McDuffie County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45509 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of McIntosh McIntosh County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45173 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of
Meriwether
Meriwether County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45305 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Monroe
Monroe County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45672 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of
Montgomery
Montgomery County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45292 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Newton
Newton County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45578 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Oconee
Oconee County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45219 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of
Oglethorpe
Oglethorpe County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45262 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Peach
The County of Peach, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45579 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-53
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
GA County of Pierce
Pierce County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46107 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Pike
Pike County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45179 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Polk
Polk County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45046 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Pulaski Pulaski County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al 1:19-op-45176 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Rabun Rabun County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45177 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Randolph Randolph County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45202 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Rockdale Rockdale County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46296 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Schley
The County of Schley, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45580 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Screven Screven County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45198 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Seminole Seminole County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45181 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Spalding Spalding County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45208 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Stephens Stephens County, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45195 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Sumter
Sumter County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45250 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Taliaferro
Taliaferro County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45562 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Tattnall
Tattnall County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45574 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Toombs
Toombs County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45576 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Towns Towns County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45172 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Troup
Troup County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45715 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Twiggs
Twiggs County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45379 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Union
Union County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46284 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-54
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
GA County of Walton
Walton County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45297 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Warren
Warren County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45425 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of
Washington
Washington County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45563 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Wayne Wayne County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45204 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of
Whitefield
City of Rome, Floyd County, Chattooga
County, Whitefield County and City of
Cartersville v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45282 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Wilcox The County of Wilcox, Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45506 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of Wilkes Wilkes County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45171 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
GA County of
Wilkinson
Wilkinson County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45671 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA County of Worth
Worth County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45602 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Dodge County
Hospital Authority
d/b/a Dodge County
Hospital
Dodge County Hospital Authority d/b/a
Dodge County Hospital v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45830 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA Habersham County
Medical Center
Habersham County Medical Center v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-46114 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Hospital Authority
of Bainbridge and
Decatur County
Hospital Authority of Bainbridge and
Decatur County, Georgia v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45382 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Hospital Authority
of Baxley County
and Appling County
d/b/a Appling
Health Care System
Hospital Authority of Baxley and Appling
County v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-46157 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Hospital Authority
of Bleckley County
d/b/a Bleckley
Memorial Hospital
Hospital Authority of Bleckley County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46170 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Macon-Bibb County
(Unified
Government)
The Unified Government of Macon-Bibb
County, Georgia v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45407 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Appling
County (Sheriff
Mark Melton)
Mark Melton in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Appling County, Georgia v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45307 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA Sheriff of Baldwin
County (Sheriff
William C. Massee, Jr. in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Baldwin County,
Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45361 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-55
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
William C. Massee,
Jr.)
GA
Sheriff of Bibb
County (Sheriff
David J. Davis)
David J. Davis, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Bibb County, Georgia v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45360 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Coffee
County (Sheriff
Doyle T. Wooten)
Doyle T. Wooten, in his official capacity
as the Sheriff of Coffee County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45145 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Crawford
County (Sheriff
Lewis S. Walker)
Lewis S. Walker, in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Crawford County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
19-op-45146 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Crisp
County (Sheriff
H.W. "Billy"
Hancock)
H.W. "Billy" Hancock, in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Crisp County,
Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45562 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Glynn
County (Sheriff E.
Neal Jump)
E. Neal Jump, in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Glynn County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
19-op-45155 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Harris
County (Sheriff
Mike Jolley)
Mike Jolley, in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Harris County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45147 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Houston
County (Sheriff
Cullen Talton)
Cullen Talton in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Houston County, Georgia v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45308 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Jeff Davis
County (Sheriff
Preston Bohannon)
Preston Bohannon, in his official capacity
as the Sheriff of Jeff Davis County v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45161 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Jones
County (Sheriff
R.N. "Butch"
Reece)
R.N. "Butch" Reece, in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Jones County v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45162 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Laurens
County (Sheriff
Larry H. Dean)
Larry H. Dean, in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Laurens County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45163 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of
Meriwether County
(Sheriff Chuck
Smith)
Chuck Smith in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Meriwether County, Georgia v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45306 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Murray
County (Sheriff
Gary Langford)
Gary Langford, in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Murray County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45164 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Oconee
County (Sheriff
Scott R. Berry)
Scott R. Berry, in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Oconee County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45165 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Peach
County (Sheriff
Terry Deese)
Terry Deese in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Peach County, Georgia v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45314 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Pierce
County (Sheriff
Ramsey Bennett)
Ramsey Bennett, in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Pierce County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45166 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Screven
County (Sheriff
Mike Kile)
Mike Kile, in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Screven County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45167 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-56
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
GA
Sheriff of Telfair
County (Sheriff
Chris Steverson)
Chris Steverson in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Telfair County, Georgia v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45313 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Tift
County (Sheriff
Gene Scarbrough)
Gene Scarbrough, in his official capacity
as the Sheriff of Tift County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45168 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Ware
County (Sheriff
Randy F. Royal)
Randy F. Royal, in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Ware County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45169 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
Sheriff of Wayne
County (Sheriff
John G. Carter)
John G. Carter, in his official capacity as
the Sheriff of Wayne County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45170 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA The Candler County
Hospital Authority
The Candler County Hospital Authority v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45167 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
The Hospital
Authority of
Valdosta County
and Lowndes
County d/b/a South
Georgia Medical
Center
The Hospital Authority of Valdosta and
Lowndes County, Georgia d/b/a South
Georgia Medical Center v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45133 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
GA
The Hospital
Authority of Wayne
County
The Hospital Authority of Wayne County,
Georgia v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45278 N.D. Ohio (Federal) HI County of Hawai'i County of Hawai'i v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:20-op-45014 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
HI County of Kaua'i County of Kaua'i v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45862 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IA County of Adair
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Adams
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-57
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of
Allamakee
Allamakee County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45983 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IA County of
Appanoose
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Audubon
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Benton
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-58
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Black
Hawk
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Bremer
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Buchanan
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Buena
Vista
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-59
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Calhoun
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Carroll
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Cedar
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-60
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Cerro
Gordo
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Cherokee
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of
Chickasaw
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Clay
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Clayton
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-61
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Clinton
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Dallas
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Delaware
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-62
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Des
Moines
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Emmet
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Fayette
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Fremont
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Hamilton
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-63
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Hancock
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Hardin
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Harrison
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Henry
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-64
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
IA County of Howard
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Humboldt
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Ida
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Jasper
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Johnson
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-65
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Jones
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Keokuk
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Lee
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Lyon
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Madison
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-66
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
IA County of Mahaska
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Marion
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Mills
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Mitchell
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-67
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Monroe
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of
Montgomery
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of
Muscatine
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of O'Brien
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-68
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Osceola
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Plymouth
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of
Pocahontas
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Polk Polk County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45116 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IA County of
Pottawattamie
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-69
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of
Poweshiek
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Sac
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Scott
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-70
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Shelby
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Sioux
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Tama
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Taylor
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-71
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
IA County of Union
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Webster
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of
Winnebago
Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County,
Cherokee County, Chickasaw County,
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of
Winneshiek
Adair County, Adams County, Audubon
County, Benton County, Bremer County,
Buchanan County, Buena Vista County,
Calhoun County, Carroll County, Cedar
County, Clay County, Clayton County,
Clinton County, Dallas County, Delaware
County, Fayette County, Hamilton
County, Hardin County, Humboldt
County, Johnson County, Lee County,
Mahaska County, Marion County,
Mitchell County, Monroe County,
Montgomery County, O’Brien County,
Plymouth County, Pottawattamie County,
Sac County, Scott County, Shelby County,
Sioux County, Taylor County, and
Winneshiek County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45122 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Worth
Black Hawk County, Des Moines County,
Harrison County, Howard County, Jasper
County, Lyon County, Mills County, Tama
County, Union County, and Worth County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45303 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IA County of Wright Appanoose County, Cerro Gordo County, Cherokee County, Chickasaw County, 1:21-op-45051 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-72
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Emmet County, Fremont County,
Hancock County, Henry County, Ida
County, Jones County, Keokuk County,
Madison County, Muscatine County,
Osceola County, Pocahontas County,
Poweshiek County, Webster County,
Winnebago County, and Wright County v.
Allergan plc, et al.
ID City of Boise City of Boise v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46289 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID City of Cubbuck City of Cubbuck v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45729 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID City of Pocatello City of Pocatello v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45578 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID City of Preston City of Preston v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45067 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID City of Twin Falls City of Twin Falls v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45743 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID County of Ada Ada County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45775 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID County of Adams
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Bannock Bannock County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45359 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID County of Bingham Bingham County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45758 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID County of Blaine
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Boise
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of
Bonneville
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Camas Camas County, Idaho v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45407 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID County of Canyon Canyon County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46277 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
C-73
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
ID County of Caribou
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Cassia
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Elmore
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Gooding Gooding County, Idaho v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45404 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
ID County of Latah
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Minidoka
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Owyhee
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Payette
Adams County, Blaine County, Boise
County, Bonneville County, Caribou
County, Cassia County, Elmore County,
Latah County, Minidoka County, Owyhee
County and Payette County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46062 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ID County of Twin
Falls
Twin Falls County, Idaho v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45828 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IL
Board of Education
of East Aurora,
School District 131
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-74
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
IL
Board of Education
of Joliet Township
High School,
District 204
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-75
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
IL
Board of Education
of Thornton
Fractional Township
High Schools,
District 215
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-76
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
IL
Board of Education
of Thornton
Township High
Schools, District
205
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-77
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
IL City of Berwyn
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL City of Chicago City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:14-cv-04361 N.D. Illinois (Federal)
IL City of Chicago
Heights
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL City of Granite City
City of Granite City, IL v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
2018-L-010351
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation (IL
- Circuit
Court of
Cook
County)
(State MDL)
IL City of Harrisburg City of Harrisburg, Illinois v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45594 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IL City of Harvey
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL City of Herrin City of Herrin, Illinois, a home rule unit v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45192 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IL City of Kankakee
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-78
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
IL City of Marion City of Marion, Illinois v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45215 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IL City of Metropolis
City of Metropolis, Illinois v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45537 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL City of Northlake
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL City of Pekin
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL City of Peoria
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL City of Princeton City of Princeton, Illinois v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45599 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IL City of Rockford City of Rockford v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45309 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IL City of Streator
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL City of West
Frankfort
City of West Frankfort, Illinois v. Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., et al. 1:20-op-45191 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IL County of
Alexander
The People of the State of Illinois, the
People of Alexander County, and County
of Alexander v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:17-op-45050 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Bond The People of the State of Illinois, The People of Bond County, and County of 1:18-op-45004 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-79
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Bond v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
IL County of Calhoun
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Calhoun County, and County of
Calhoun v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46294 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Christian
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Christian County, and County
of Christian v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
17-op-45078 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Coles
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Coles County, and County of
Coles v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45138 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Edwards
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Edwards County, and The
County of Edwards v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
18-op-45049 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of
Effingham
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Effingham County, and The
County of Effingham v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45499 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Franklin
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Franklin County, and County of
Franklin v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45194 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Gallatin
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Gallatin County, and County of
Gallatin v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
17-op-45152 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Hamilton
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Hamilton County, and County
of Hamilton v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:17-op-45157 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Hardin
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Hardin County, and County of
Hardin v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45003 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Jasper
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Jasper County, and The County
of Jasper v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45026 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Jefferson
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Jefferson County, and The
County of Jefferson v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45539 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Jersey
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Jersey County, and Jersey
County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
2018-L-003908
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation (IL
- Circuit
Court of
Cook
C-80
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
County)
(State MDL)
IL County of Johnson
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Johnson County and County of
Johnson v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46148 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of LaSalle
The People of the State of Illinois and
LaSalle County, Illinois v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
2019-L-008722
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation (IL
- Circuit
Court of
Cook
County)
(State MDL)
IL County of Lawrence
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Lawrence County, and The
County of Lawrence v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45518 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Lee
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Lee County, and The County of
Lee v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45606 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of
Livingston
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Livingston County, and The
County of Livingston v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45527 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Marion
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Marion County, and The
County of Marion v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45532 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Massac
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Massac County, and The
County of Massac v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45519 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of McLean
The People of the State of Illinois and
McLean County, Illinois v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
2019-L-013365
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation (IL
- Circuit
Court of
Cook
County)
(State MDL)
IL County of Pulaski
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Pulaski County, and County of
Pulaski v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:17-op-45158 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Saline
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Saline County, and The County
of Saline v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45528 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of
Sangamon
The People of the State Of Illinois, The
People of Sangamon County, and County 1:20-op-45154 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-81
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
of Sangamon v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., et al.
IL County of Schuyler
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Schuyler County, and The
County of Schuyler v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46147 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Shelby
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of Shelby County, and The County
of Shelby v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45007 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Union
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Union County, and Union
County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45286 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of Wabash
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Wabash County, and County of
Wabash v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:17-op-45103 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of
Washington
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Washington County, and
Washington County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45151 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of White
The People of The State of Illinois, The
People of White County, and The County
of White v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45024 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL County of
Winnebago
The People of the State of Illinois, The
People of Winnebago County, and the
County of Winnebago v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45310 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Illinois Public Risk
Fund
Illinois Public Risk Fund v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 2019 CH 05847
IL - Circuit
Court of
Cook County
(State)
IL Orland Fire
Protection District
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL
The Board of
Education of the
City of Chicago,
School District No.
299
The Board of Education of the City of
Chicago, School District No. 299
(“Chicago Public Schools”) v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46042 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Addison
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-82
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
IL Village of Bellwood
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of
Bensenville
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Berkeley
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of
Bolingbrook
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of
Broadview
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Chicago
Ridge
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-83
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
IL Village of Dolton
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Forest
Park
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Franklin
Park
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Harwood
Heights
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Hillside
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Hoffman
Estates
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-84
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
IL Village of La
Grange Park
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Maywood
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of McCook
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Melrose
Park
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of
Merrionette Park
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of North
Riverside
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of 1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-85
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
IL Village of Oak
Lawn
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Oak Park
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Orland
Park
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Posen
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of River
Forest
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of River
Grove
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of 1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-86
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
IL Village of Riverside
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Schiller
Park
Village of Addison, Village of Bensenville,
Village of Bolingbrook, Village of Forest
Park, Village of Franklin Park, Village of
Harwood Heights, City of Kankakee,
Village of La Grange Park, Village of
McCook, Village of Oak Park, Village of
Riverside, Village of Schiller Park, City of
Streator v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Stone
Park
City of Harvey, Village of Broadview,
Village of Chicago Ridge, Village of
Dolton, Village of Hoffman Estates,
Village of Maywood, Village of
Merrionette Park, Village of North
Riverside, Village of Orland Park, City of
Peoria, Village of Posen, Village of River
Grove, Village of Stone Park, and Orland
Fire Protection District v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46335 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL Village of Tinley
Park
Village of Melrose Park, Village of
Bellwood, Village of Berkeley, City of
Berwyn, City of Chicago Heights, Village
of Hillside, City of Northlake, Village of
Oak Lawn, City of Pekin, Village of River
Forest, And Village of Tinley Park v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46312 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IL
Waukegan
Community Unit
School District
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-87
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
IN City of Alexandria
City of Alexandria, City of Elwood and
Madison County v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.
1:18-op-45151 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Beech Grove
City of Beech Grove, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46103 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Bloomington City of Bloomington and Monroe County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45235 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN City of Connersville City of Connersville and Fayette County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45159 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN City of Elwood
City of Alexandria, City of Elwood and
Madison County v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.
1:18-op-45151 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Evansville
City of Evansville, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45591 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Fishers
City of Fishers, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45845 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Fort Wayne City of Fort Wayne, Indiana v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45123 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of Franklin
City of Franklin, Town of Pendleton and
City of Richmond v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.
1:18-op-46182 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Gary City of Gary, Indiana v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45929 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of Greenwood
City of Greenwood, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45109 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Hammond City of Hammond v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:17-op-45082 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of Hartford
Hartford City, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45854 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-88
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
IN City of Indianapolis City of Indianapolis and Marion County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:17-op-45091 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN City of Jasper
City of Jasper, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-46027 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of
Jeffersonville
City of Jeffersonville, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45961 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Kokomo
City of Kokomo, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45127 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Lafayette City of Lafayette v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:17-op-45081 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of Lawrence
City of Lawrence, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45805 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Logansport City of Logansport v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 18-op-45692 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of Martinsville
City of Martinsville, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
18-op-45346 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Mishawaka
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Montpelier
City of Montpelier, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45806 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-89
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
IN City of Muncie City of Muncie, Indiana v. Cardinal
Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45126 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of New Albany
City of New Albany, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46333 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of New Castle City of New Castle v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45016 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of Noblesville
City of Noblesville, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45124 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Peru
City of Peru, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45794 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Portland City of Portland and Jay County v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46140 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN City of Richmond
City of Franklin, Town of Pendleton and
City of Richmond v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.
1:18-op-46182 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Seymour
City of Seymour, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45673 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Shelbyville
City of Shelbyville, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45960 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of South Bend
City of South Bend, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45400 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN City of Terre Haute City of Terre Haute, Indiana v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45129 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of West
LaFayette
City of West LaFayette v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45300 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN City of Westfield
City of Westfield, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46056 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN
County of Allen
(Board of
Commissioners)
The Board of Commissioners of the
County of Allen v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:18-op-45121 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN County of Benton Benton County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46201 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Blackford
Blackford County, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46336 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN County of Delaware Delaware County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45963 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Fayette City of Connersville and Fayette County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45159 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN
County of Franklin
(Board of
Commissioners)
The Board of Commissioners of the
County of Franklin v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45827 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN County of Harrison Harrison County, Indiana v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45130 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
C-90
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
IN County of Howard
Howard County, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45172 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN County of Jackson
Jackson County, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45439 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN County of Jay City of Portland and Jay County v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46140 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN County of Jennings Jennings County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45131 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Lake Lake County, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45156 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of LaPorte LaPorte County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45280 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Lawrence Lawrence County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46188 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Madison
City of Alexandria, City of Elwood and
Madison County v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.
1:18-op-45151 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN County of Marion City of Indianapolis and Marion County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:17-op-45091 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN County of Marshall Marshall County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45157 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Monroe City of Bloomington and Monroe County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45235 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN County of Morgan Morgan County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45828 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Orange Orange County, Indiana v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45356 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Porter Porter County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45074 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Pulaski Pulaski County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46110 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Ripley Ripley County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46155 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of St. Joseph St. Joseph County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45500 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Starke
Starke County, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46358 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN County of
Tippecanoe
Tippecanoe County, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45796 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN County of
Vanderburgh
Vanderburgh County v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45498 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN County of Vigo
Vigo County, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45128 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Fort Wayne
Community Schools
Texarkana Independent School Dist.,
Irving Independent School District,
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
1:21-op-45080 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-91
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School Dist., Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, City of Mt. Washington, KY, PennHarris-Madison School Corp., and Fort Wayne Community Schools v. AbbVie
Inc., et al.
IN
Penn-HarrisMadison School
Corporation
Texarkana Independent School Dist.,
Irving Independent School District,
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School Dist., Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, City of Mt. Washington, KY, PennHarris-Madison School Corp., and Fort Wayne Community Schools v. AbbVie
Inc., et al.
1:21-op-45080 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN School City of
Mishawaka
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-92
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
IN Scott County (Board
of Commissioners)
Scott County, Indiana, by and through its
Board of Commissioners v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:17-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Smith-Green
Community Schools
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN
South Bend
Community School
Corporation
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-93
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
IN Town of Atlanta Town of Atlanta, Indiana v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. 1:18-op-45125 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
IN Town of
Brownstown
Town of Brownstown, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45666 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Town of Chandler
Town of Chandler, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45440 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Town of Danville Town of Danville v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45215 N.D. Ohio (Federal) IN Town of Huntington
Town of Huntington, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46357 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Town of
Mooresville
Town of Mooresville, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45016 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Town of Pendleton
City of Franklin, Town of Pendleton and
City of Richmond v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.
1:18-op-46182 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Town of Plainfield
Town of Plainfield, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45017 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Town of Sheridan
The Town of Sheridan v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45055 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Town of Upland
Town of Upland, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46356 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
IN Town of Zionsville
Town of Zionsville, Indiana v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45846 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS City of Kansas
Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kansas v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45015 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS City of Overland
Park
City of Overland Park, Kansas v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46287 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS County of Bourbon
Bourbon County, Kansas v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45781 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-94
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KS
County of Cherokee
(Board of
Commissioners)
Board of Commissioners of Cherokee
County, Kansas v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45452 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS
County of Cowley
(Board of County
Commissioners)
Board of County Commissioners of the
Cowley County, Kansas v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45898 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS
County of Crawford
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
the County of Crawford v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46108 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS
County of Ford
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
the County of Ford, State of Kansas v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45263 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS County of Harvery County of Harvery v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45848 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KS County of Johnson Johnson County, Kansas v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45443 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KS County of
Montgomery
Montgomery County, Kansas v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45780 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS
County of Neosho
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
the County of Neosho v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46125 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS
County of Pratt
(Board of
Commissioners)
Board of Commissioners of Pratt County,
Kansas v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45451 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS County of Reno County of Reno v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45718 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KS
County of Sedgwick
(Board of County
Commissioners)
Board of County Commissioners of
Sedgwick County, Kansas v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45025 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS
County of Shawnee
(Board of County
Commissioners)
The Board of County Commissioners of
the County of Shawnee, State of Kansas v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45226 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS County of
Wyandotte
Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kansas v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45015 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KS
Leavenworth
County (Board of
Commissioners)
Board of Commissioners of Leavenworth
County, Kansas v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al.
1:19-op-45602 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
Board of Education
of Breathitt County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-95
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Bullitt County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-96
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Estill County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-97
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Fayette County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-98
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Harrison County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
Board of Education
of Hart County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-99
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Jefferson County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-100
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Johnson County
Public School
District
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-101
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of LaRue County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-102
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Lawrence County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
Board of Education
of Martin County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-103
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Menifee County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-104
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Owsley County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-105
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY
Board of Education
of Wolfe County
Public Schools
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-106
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
KY City of Bellefonte
City of Russell, Kentucky; City of Jenkins,
Kentucky; City of Pineville, Kentucky;
City of Worthington, Kentucky; City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky; City of Greenup,
Kentucky; City of South Shore, Kentucky;
City of Bellefonte, Kentucky v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al.
1:21-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Benham City of Benham v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45105 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Buckhorn City of Buckhorn v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45111 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of
Campbellsville
City of Campbellsville v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46057 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY City of Columbia City of Columbia v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46129 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY City of Covington City of Covington, Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45967 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Florence City of Florence v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45084 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Grayson City of Grayson v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45085 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Greenup
City of Russell, Kentucky; City of Jenkins,
Kentucky; City of Pineville, Kentucky;
City of Worthington, Kentucky; City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky; City of Greenup,
Kentucky; City of South Shore, Kentucky;
City of Bellefonte, Kentucky v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al.
1:21-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Harlan City of Harlan v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45106 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Henderson City of Henderson, Kentucky, on behalf of Themselves v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:20-op-45062 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY City of Hillview
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
C-107
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Hyden City of Hyden v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45101 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Inez The City of Inez v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45499 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Jamestown
The Fiscal Court Of Russell County,
Kentucky and City of Jamestown v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46096 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Jenkins
City of Russell, Kentucky; City of Jenkins,
Kentucky; City of Pineville, Kentucky;
City of Worthington, Kentucky; City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky; City of Greenup,
Kentucky; City of South Shore, Kentucky;
City of Bellefonte, Kentucky v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al.
1:21-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of London City of London v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45103 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Loyall City of Loyall v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45107 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Lynch City of Lynch v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45102 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Manchester City of Manchester v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45138 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Morehead City of Morehead v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45104 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Morganfield City of Morganfield, Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45167 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY City of Mt.
Washington
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
C-108
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Murray
The Fiscal Court of Calloway County
Kentucky and City of Murray v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45038 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Owensboro City of Owensboro v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:21-op-45076 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Paducah
The City of Paducah, Kentucky, a Home
Rule Class City in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45592 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Paintsville The City of Paintsville v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45559 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Pineville
City of Russell, Kentucky; City of Jenkins,
Kentucky; City of Pineville, Kentucky;
City of Worthington, Kentucky; City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky; City of Greenup,
Kentucky; City of South Shore, Kentucky;
City of Bellefonte, Kentucky v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al.
1:21-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Pippa Passes City of Pippa Passes v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45137 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Prestonburg
The City of Prestonburg v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45294 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Russell
City of Russell, Kentucky; City of Jenkins,
Kentucky; City of Pineville, Kentucky;
City of Worthington, Kentucky; City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky; City of Greenup,
Kentucky; City of South Shore, Kentucky;
City of Bellefonte, Kentucky v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al.
1:21-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Russell
Springs
City of Russell Springs v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45125 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-109
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KY City of
Shepherdsville
Socorro Independent School District,
Downey Unified School District, Kern
High School District, Waukegan
Community Unit School District, Bibb
County School District, South Bend
Community School Corp., Mesa County
Valley School District 51, Elk Grove
Unified School District, Smith-Green
Community Schools, School City of
Mishawaka, City of Mishawaka, IN, City
of Hillview, KY, City of Shepherdsville,
KY, and City of Mt. Washington, KY v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. / Texarkana
Independent School Dist., Irving
Independent School District, Socorro
Independent School District, Downey
Unified School District, Kern High School
District, Waukegan Community Unit
School District, Bibb County School
District, South Bend Community School
Corp., Mesa County Valley School
District 51, Elk Grove Unified School
Dist., Smith-Green Community Schools,
School City of Mishawaka, City of
Mishawaka, IN, City of Hillview, KY, City
of Shepherdsville, KY, City of Mt.
Washington, KY, Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corp., and Fort Wayne
Community Schools v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
2020-70878 /
2018-63587
(master) / 1:21-
op-45080
MDL - In re
Texas Opioid
Litigation
(TX - 152nd
Judicial
District of
Harris
County)
(State MDL)
/ N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of South Shore
City of Russell, Kentucky; City of Jenkins,
Kentucky; City of Pineville, Kentucky;
City of Worthington, Kentucky; City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky; City of Greenup,
Kentucky; City of South Shore, Kentucky;
City of Bellefonte, Kentucky v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al.
1:21-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Vanceburg
City of Russell, Kentucky; City of Jenkins,
Kentucky; City of Pineville, Kentucky;
City of Worthington, Kentucky; City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky; City of Greenup,
Kentucky; City of South Shore, Kentucky;
City of Bellefonte, Kentucky v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al.
1:21-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Warfield The City of Warfield v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45787 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of West Liberty
The City of West Liberty v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45329 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY City of Whitesburg City of Whitesburg v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45218 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY City of Winchester City of Winchester v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46348 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
C-110
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KY City of Worthington
City of Russell, Kentucky; City of Jenkins,
Kentucky; City of Pineville, Kentucky;
City of Worthington, Kentucky; City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky; City of Greenup,
Kentucky; City of South Shore, Kentucky;
City of Bellefonte, Kentucky v. Abbott
Laboratories, et al.
1:21-op-45094 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Adair
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Adair County, on
behalf of Adair County, Kentucky v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45059 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Allen
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Allen County, on
behalf of Allen County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45008 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Anderson
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Anderson County, on
behalf of Anderson County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45006 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Ballard
The County of Ballard, Kentucky v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45593 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Bath
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Bath County, on
behalf of Bath Count, Kentucky v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45012 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Bell
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Bell County, on
behalf of Bell County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45026 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Boone
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Boone County, on
behalf of Boone County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45020 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Bourbon
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Bourbon County,
Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45533 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY County of Boyd
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Boyd County, on
behalf of Boyd County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45084 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Boyle
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Boyle County, on
behalf of Boyle County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45018 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Bracken
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Bracken County, on
behalf of Bracken County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45395 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Breathitt
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Breathitt County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46082 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
County of
Breckinridge (Fiscal
Court)
Breckinridge County Fiscal Court, on
behalf of Breckinridge County v.
AmerisourceBergen, et al. / Hardin
County Fiscal Court, on behalf of Hardin
1:18-op-46273 /
1:20-op-45063
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-111
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
County; Breckinridge County Fiscal
Court, on behalf of Breckinridge County;
Green County Fiscal Court, on behalf of
Green County; Meade County Fiscal
Court, on behalf of Meade County; Ohio
County Fiscal Court, on behalf of Ohio
County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
KY County of Bullitt
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Bullitt County, on
behalf of Bullitt County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45009 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Caldwell
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Caldwell County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46001 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Calloway
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Calloway County
Kentucky and City of Murray v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45038 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Campbell
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Campbell County, on
behalf of Campbell County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45022 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Carlisle
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Carlisle County, on
behalf of Carlisle County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45016 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Carter
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Carter County, on
behalf of Carter County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45392 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Casey
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court Of Casey County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-45887 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Christian
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Christian County, on
behalf of Christian County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45070 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Clark
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Clark County, on
behalf of Clark County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45172 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Clay
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Clay County, on
behalf of Clay County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45031 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Clinton
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Clinton County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-45901 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
County of
Cumberland (Fiscal
Court)
The Fiscal Court of Cumberland County,
on behalf of Cumberland County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45012 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-112
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KY County of Daviess
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Daviess County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46171 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
County of
Edmonson (Fiscal
Court)
The Fiscal Court of Edmonson County, on
behalf of Edmonson County v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45084 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Elliott
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Elliott County, on
behalf of Elliott County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45393 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Estill
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Estill County, on
behalf of Estill County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46126 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Fleming
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Fleming County, on
behalf of Fleming County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45019 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Floyd The County of Floyd v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45369 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY County of Franklin
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Franklin County, on
behalf of Franklin County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45007 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Fulton
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Fulton County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45045 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Gallatin
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court Of Gallatin County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-45891 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Garrard
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Garrard County, on
behalf of Garrard County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45023 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Grant
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Grant County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-45961 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Green
(Fiscal Court)
Green County Fiscal Court, on Behalf of
Green County, v. AmerisourceBergen, et
al. / Hardin County Fiscal Court, on
behalf of Hardin County; Breckinridge
County Fiscal Court, on behalf of
Breckinridge County; Green County
Fiscal Court, on behalf of Green County;
Meade County Fiscal Court, on behalf of
Meade County; Ohio County Fiscal
Court, on behalf of Ohio County v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46272 /
1:20-op-45063
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Greenup
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Greenup County, on
behalf of Greenup County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45088 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-113
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KY County of Hancock
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Hancock County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46027 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Harlan
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Harlan County, on
behalf of Harlan County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45027 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Harrison
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Harrison County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46030 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Hart
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Hart County,
Kentucky v. McKesson Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45994 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY
County of
Henderson (Fiscal
Court)
The Fiscal Court of Henderson County,
on behalf of Henderson County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45069 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Henry
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Henry County, on
behalf of Henry County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45010 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Hickman
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Hickman County,
Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:20-op-45254 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY County of Hopkins
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Hopkins County, on
behalf of Hopkins County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45010 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Jessamine
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Jessamine County, on
behalf of Jessamine County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45090 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Kenton
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Kenton County, on
behalf of Kenton County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et
al.
1:17-op-45089 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Knott The County of Knott v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45370 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY County of Knox
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Knox County, on
behalf of Knox County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45028 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of LaRue
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of LaRue County,
Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45950 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY County of Laurel
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Laurel County, on
behalf of Laurel County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45105 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Lawrence
Lawrence County, Kentucky v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-46184 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Lee
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Lee County, Kentucky
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46100 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY County of Leslie
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Leslie County, on
behalf of Leslie County, v. 1:17-op-45029 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-114
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
KY County of Letcher
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Letcher County, on
behalf of Letcher County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46124 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Lewis
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Lewis County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-45889 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Lincoln
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Lincoln County, on
behalf of Lincoln County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45024 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Logan
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Logan County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-45951 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Madison
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Madison County, on
behalf of Madison County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45011 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Marshall
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Marshall County, on
behalf of Marshall County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45071 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Martin
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Martin County, on
behalf of Martin County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45388 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Mason
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Mason County,
Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al 1:19-op-45868 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY County of
McCracken
The County of McCracken, Kentucky v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45611 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of McLean
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of McLean County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45200 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Meade
(Fiscal Court)
Meade County Fiscal Court, on behalf of
Meade County v. AmerisourceBergen, et
al. / Hardin County Fiscal Court, on
behalf of Hardin County; Breckinridge
County Fiscal Court, on behalf of
Breckinridge County; Green County
Fiscal Court, on behalf of Green County;
Meade County Fiscal Court, on behalf of
Meade County; Ohio County Fiscal
Court, on behalf of Ohio County v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:18-op-46275 /
1:20-op-45063
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Mercer
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Mercer County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-45952 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Monroe
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Monroe County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45016 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-115
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KY
County of
Montgomery (Fiscal
Court)
The Fiscal Court of Montgomery County,
on behalf of Montgomery County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46144 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Morgan
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Morgan County, on
behalf of Morgan County v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al.
1:19-op-45571 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
County of
Muhlenberg (Fiscal
Court)
The Fiscal Court of Muhlenberg County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46053 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Nicholas
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Nicholas County, on
behalf of Nicholas County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45025 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Ohio
(Fiscal Court)
Hardin County Fiscal Court, on behalf of
Hardin County; Breckinridge County
Fiscal Court, on behalf of Breckinridge
County; Green County Fiscal Court, on
behalf of Green County; Meade County
Fiscal Court, on behalf of Meade County;
Ohio County Fiscal Court, on behalf of
Ohio County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al.
1:20-op-45063 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Oldham
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Oldham County, on
behalf of Oldham County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45067 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Owen
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Owen County,
Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45534 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY County of Owsley
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Owsley County on
behalf of Owsley County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Company, et al.
1:18-op-46235 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Pendleton
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Pendleton County, on
behalf of Pendleton County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45021 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Perry
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Perry County, on
behalf of Perry County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45110 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Pike County of Pike v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45368 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY County of Powell
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Powell County, on
behalf of Powell County v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46145 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Pulaski
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Pulaski County, on
behalf of Pulaski County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45109 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Rowan
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Rowan County, on
behalf of Rowan County, v. 1:18-op-45018 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-116
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
KY County of Russell
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Russell County,
Kentucky and City of Jamestown v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46096 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Scott
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Scott County, on
behalf of Scott County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45173 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Shelby
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Shelby County, on
behalf of Shelby County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45009 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Spencer
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Spencer County, on
behalf of Spencer County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al. / The Fiscal Court of Spencer County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:17-op-45014 /
1:19-op-46029
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Taylor
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Taylor County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46007 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Todd
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Todd County,
Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45949 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY County of Union
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Union County, on
behalf of Union County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45015 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Warren Warren County v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45075 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
KY County of Wayne
(Fiscal Court)
Wayne County Fiscal Court v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45389 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Webster
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Webster County,
Kentucky v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., et al.
1:19-op-46098 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Whitley
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Whitley County, on
behalf of Whitley County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45030 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY County of Wolfe
(Fiscal Court)
The Fiscal Court of Wolfe County,
Kentucky v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46099 N.D. Ohio (Federal) KY
County of
Woodford (Fiscal
Court)
The Fiscal Court of Woodford County, on
behalf of Woodford County, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:17-op-45174 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
Estill County
Emergency Medical
Services
Estill County Emergency Medical
Services v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-46237 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
Kentucky River
District Health
Department
Kentucky River District Health
Department v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45050 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-117
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
KY
Lexington-Fayette
Urban County
Government
Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Government v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:17-op-45092 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
Louisville/Jefferson
County Metro
Government
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro
Government v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:17-op-45013 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
KY
Taylor County
Hospital District
Health Facilities
Corporation
Bowling Green-Warren County
Community Hospital Corporation; The
Medical Center at Clinton County, Inc.;
The Medical Center at Franklin, Inc.;
ARH Tug Valley Health Services, Inc.
f/k/a Highlands Hospital Corporation;
Baptist Healthcare System, Inc.; Baptist
Health Madisonville, Inc.; Grayson
County Hospital Foundation, Inc.; The
Harrison Memorial Hospital, Inc.;
Pikeville Medical Center, Inc.; Saint
Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc.; St. Claire
Medical Center, Inc.; and Taylor County
Hospital District Health Facilities
Corporation v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
1:20-op-45060 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA City of Amesbury City of Amesbury v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45678 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Beverly City of Beverly v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45219 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Brockton City of Brockton v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46089 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Cambridge City of Cambridge v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-2854-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA City of Chelsea City of Chelsea v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45693 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Chicopee City of Chicopee v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1621-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA City of Easthampton
City of Easthampton v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45336 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA City of Everett City of Everett v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45596 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-118
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MA City of Fall River City of Fall River v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-46285 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA City of Fitchburg The City of Fitchburg v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45030 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA City of Framingham City of Framingham v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1487-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA City of Gloucester City of Gloucester v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1351-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA
City of Greenfield
a/k/a Town of
Greenfield
City of Greenfield, aka Town of
Greenfield v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-45017 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA City of Haverhill City of Haverhill v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1311-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA City of Holyoke City of Holyoke v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45694 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Leominster City of Leominster v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45710 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Lowell City of Lowell v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45514 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Lynn City of Lynn v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45789 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA City of Malden City of Malden v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45487 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Medford The City of Medford v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45110 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA City of Melrose
City of Melrose, Massachusetts v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45951 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA City of Methuen City of Methuen, v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45106 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-119
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MA City of New
Bedford
City of New Bedford, Massachusetts v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45569 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA City of
Newburyport
City of Newburyport v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45837 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA City of North
Adams
City of North Adams v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45702 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA City of
Northampton
City of Northampton v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45337 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA City of Peabody City of Peabody v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45860 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Pittsfield City of Pittsfield v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45335 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Quincy The City of Quincy v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45008 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA City of Revere City of Revere, v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45155 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Salem City of Salem v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1355-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA City of Somerville City of Somerville v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45319 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA City of Springfield City of Springfield v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1733-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA City of Woburn City of Woburn, v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45103 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA City of Worcester City of Worcester v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al 19-543-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA Town of Acushnet Town of Acushnet v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45676 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-120
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MA Town of Agawam Town of Agawam v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45792 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Andover Town of Andover v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45996 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA Town of Aquinnah Town of Aquinnah v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46091 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Athol Town of Athol v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45058 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Auburn Town of Auburn v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45688 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Ayer
Town of Ayer, Massachusetts v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45570 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Barnstable
Town of Barnstable v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45862 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of
Belchertown
Town of Belchertown v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45905 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Billerica Town of Billerica v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45560 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Braintree Town of Braintree v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45673 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA Town of Brewster Town of Brewster v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45556 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of
Bridgewater
Town of Bridgewater v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45754 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Brookline Town of Brookline v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45062 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Canton Town of Canton v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1615-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA Town of Carver Town of Carver v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45691 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Charlton Town of Charlton v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45689 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of
Chelmsford
Town of Chelmsford v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45952 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Clarksburg
Town of Clarksburg v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45882 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Clinton Town of Clinton, Massachusetts v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46072 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Danvers Town of Danvers v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45760 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-121
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MA Town of Dedham Town of Dedham v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45039 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Dennis Town of Dennis v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45124 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Douglas Town of Douglas v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45706 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Dudley Town of Dudley v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45707 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of East
Bridgewater
Town of East Bridgewater v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45721 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Eastham Town of Eastham v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45864 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Easton Town of Easton, Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45920 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA Town of Fairhaven Town of Fairhaven v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45060 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Falmouth Town of Falmouth v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46095 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Freetown Town of Freetown v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45705 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of
Georgetown
Town of Georgetown v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45879 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Grafton Town of Grafton v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45753 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Hanson Town of Hanson v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45704 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Holliston
Town of Holliston, Massachusetts v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45874 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Hopedale Town of Hopedale v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45708 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Hull Town of Hull, Massachusetts v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:19-op-46172 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Kingston Town of Kingston v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46090 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Lakeville Town of Lakeville v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45743 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Leicester Town of Leicester v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45709 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Leverett Town of Leverett v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45836 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of
Longmeadow
Town of Longmeadow v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46097 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Ludlow Town of Ludlow v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45906 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Lunenberg
Town of Lunenberg, Massachusetts v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46156 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Lynnfield Town of Lynnfield v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1330-BLS2 MDL - In re Opioid
C-122
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA Town of
Marblehead
Town of Marblehead v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45791 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Marshfield
Town of Marshfield v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45752 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Mashpee Town of Mashpee v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45755 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of
Mattapoisett
Town of Mattapoisett v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45890 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of
Middleborough
Town of Middleborough v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46200 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Milford Town of Milford v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45783 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Millbury Town of Millbury v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46123 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Millis Town of Millis, Massachusetts v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. 1:20-op-45275 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Nantucket Town of Nantucket v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45703 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Natick Town of Natick v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-2002-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA Town of North
Andover
Town of North Andover v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46159 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of North
Attleborough
Town of North Attleborough v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45744 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of North
Reading
Town of North Reading v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45856 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of
Northbridge
Town of Northbridge v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45711 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Norton Town of Norton v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45787 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-123
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MA Town of Norwell Town of Norwell v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45815 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Norwood Town of Norwood v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45061 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Orange Town of Orange v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45070 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Oxford Town of Oxford, Massachusetts v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45568 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA Town of Palmer Town of Palmer v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45812 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Pembroke Town of Pembroke v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45823 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Plainville Town of Plainville v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45808 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Plymouth Town of Plymouth v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45675 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of
Provincetown
Town of Provincetown v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45125 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Randolph Town of Randolph v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 19-2573-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA Town of Rehoboth Town of Rehoboth v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45059 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Rockland Town of Rockland v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45824 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Salisbury Town of Salisbury v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45595 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Sandwich Town of Sandwich v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45891 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Scituate Town of Scituate v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45063 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Seekonk Town of Seekonk v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45881 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Sheffield Town of Sheffield v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46001 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Shirley Town of Shirley v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45880 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Somerset Town of Somerset v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45769 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of South
Hadley
Town of South Hadley v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46000 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of
Southbridge
Town of Southbridge v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45686 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-124
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MA Town of Spencer Town of Spencer v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45809 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Stoneham Town of Stoneham v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46164 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Stoughton Town of Stoughton v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45023 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Sturbridge Town of Sturbridge v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45990 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Sudbury Town of Sudbury v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45877 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Sutton Town of Sutton v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45810 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of
Swampscott
Town of Swampscott v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45911 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Templeton Town of Templeton v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45784 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Tewksbury Town of Tewksbury v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:19-op-45077 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Truro Town of Truro v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45816 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of
Tyngsborough
Town of Tyngsborough v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45770 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Upton Town of Upton v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46160 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Wakefield Town of Wakefield v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 19-1499-BLS2
MDL - In re
Opioid
Litigation
(MA -
Superior
Court,
County of
Suffolk)
(State MDL)
MA Town of Walpole Town of Walpole v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46093 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Ware Town of Ware v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45907 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Warren Town of Warren v. AmerisourceBergen
Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45811 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Watertown
Town of Watertown v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45674 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Wellfleet
Town of Wellfleet, Massachusetts v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:19-op-45556 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of West
Boylston
Town of West Boylston v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45858 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of West
Bridgewater
Town of West Bridgewater v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46102 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-125
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MA Town of West
Springfield
Town of West Springfield v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45813 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of West
Tisbury
Town of West Tisbury v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45790 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of
Westborough
Town of Westborough v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45859 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Westford Town of Westford v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-46007 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MA Town of Weymouth Town of Weymouth v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45672 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MA Town of
Williamsburg
Town of Williamsburg v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45883 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of
Wilmington
Town of Wilmington v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46158 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of
Winchendon
Town of Winchendon v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45687 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MA Town of Winthrop Town of Winthrop v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45814 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MD
Baltimore City
Board of School
Commissioners
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-126
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
MD City of Aberdeen City of Aberdeen, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45772 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Bel Air City of Bel Air, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45669 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Berlin City of Berlin, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45676 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Bowie
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD City of Cambridge City of Cambridge, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45611 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Charlestown City of Charlestown, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45677 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Cumberland
City of Cumberland, Maryland v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45624 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD City of Frederick
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD City of Frostburg City of Frostburg v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et al. 1:18-op-45617 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MD City of Grantsville City of Grantsville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45668 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Hagerstown
City of Hagerstown, Maryland v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45622 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD City of Havre De
Grace
City of Havre De Grace v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45678 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Laurel City of Laurel, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45714 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
C-127
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MD City of Mountain
Lake Park
City of Mountain Lake Park, Maryland v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45666 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MD City of North East City of North East, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45670 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Oakland City of Oakland, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45916 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Perryville City of Perryville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45679 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD City of Seat
Pleasant
The City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45288 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MD City of Vienna City of Vienna, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45680 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD County of Allegany
Allegany County, Maryland v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45652 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD County of Anne
Arundel
Anne Arundel County, Maryland v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
C-02-CV-18-
000021
MD - Circuit
Court for
Anne
Arundel
(State)
MD County of Baltimore Baltimore County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45554 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD
County of Calvert
(County
Commissioners)
County Commissioners of Calvert v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45609 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MD County of Caroline
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD
County of Carroll
(County
Commissioners)
The County Commissioner of Carroll
County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:20-op-45052 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MD County of Cecil
Cecil County, Maryland, v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-45100 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD
County of Charles
(County
Commissioners)
County Commissioners of Charles County
v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45094 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MD County of
Dorchester
Dorchester County, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45610 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD County of Frederick
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD County of Garrett
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-128
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
MD County of Harford
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD County of Howard Howard County, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-46169 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD County of
Montgomery
Montgomery County, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45212 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD County of Prince
George's
Prince George's County Maryland v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:18-op-45501 N.D. Ohio (Federal) MD County of Somerset County of Somerset, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45911 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD
County of St.
Mary's (County
Commissioners)
Commissioners of St. Mary's County,
Maryland v. AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation, et al.
1:18-op-46334 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD County of Talbot
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD
County of
Washington (Board
of County
Commissioners)
Board of County Commissioners of
Washington County, Maryland v.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, et
al.
1:18-op-46060 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD County of
Wicomico
County of Wicomico, Maryland v. Purdue
Pharma L.P., et al. 1:19-op-45681 N.D. Ohio (Federal)
MD
Mayor and City
Council of
Baltimore
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. 24C18000515
MD - Circuit
Court for
Baltimore
City (State)
MD
Mayor and Common
Council of
Westminster
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD Mayor and Council
of Rockville
Harford County, Caroline County,
Garrett County, Frederick County, Talbot
County, City of Frederick, The Mayor and
Common Council of Westminster, City of
Bowie and the Mayor and Council of
Rockville, Maryland v. Purdue Pharma
L.P., et al.
1:18-op-45853 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-129
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
MD Town of Cottage
City
Towns of Cottage City, Forest Heights,
North Brentwood and Upper Marlboro v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45235 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD Town of Forest
Heights
Towns of Cottage City, Forest Heights,
North Brentwood and Upper Marlboro v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45235 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD Town of North
Brentwood
Towns of Cottage City, Forest Heights,
North Brentwood and Upper Marlboro v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45235 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
MD Town of Upper
Marlboro
Towns of Cottage City, Forest Heights,
North Brentwood and Upper Marlboro v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45235 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ME
Board of Education
of Bangor School
Department
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-130
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Cape Elizabeth
School Department
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ME
Board of Education
of Ellsworth School
Department
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-131
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 10
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-132
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 13
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
1:20-op-45281
N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-133
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 25
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-134
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 26
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 29
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-135
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 34
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-136
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 40
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-137
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 50
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-138
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 57
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-139
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 60
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 71
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-140
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine Regional
School Unit 9
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-141
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine School
Administrative
District 11
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-142
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine School
Administrative
District 15
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-143
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine School
Administrative
District 28 Five
Town Central
School District
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ME
Board of Education
of Maine School
Administrative
District 35
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-144
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine School
Administrative
District 44
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-145
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine School
Administrative
District 53
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-146
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine School
Administrative
District 55
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
C-147
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
ME
Board of Education
of Maine School
Administrative
District 6
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio
(Federal)
ME Board of Education
of Maine School
Board of Education of Thornton Township
High Schools, District 205, 1 Rochester 1:20-op-45281 N.D. Ohio (Federal) C-148
State Subdivision/Special
District Case Caption Case No. Jurisdiction
Administrative
District 61
Public School District, Minnetonka Public
School District, Mason County Public
Schools, Baltimore City Public Schools,
East Aurora Public Schools, District 131,
Thornton Fractional High Schools,
District 215, Joliet Public Schools,
District 86, Fayette County Public
Schools, Larue County Public Schools,
Bullitt County Public Schools, Breathitt
County Public Schools, Estill County
Public Schools, Harrison County Public
Schools, Hart County Public Schools,
Jefferson County Public Schools, Johnson
County Public Schools, Lawrence County
Public Schools, Martin County Public
Schools, Menifee County Public Schools,
Owsley County Public Schools, Wolfe
County Public Schools, Bangor School
Department, Cape Elizabeth School
District, Maine Regional School Unit
(“RSU”) 10, Maine RSU 13, Maine RSU
25, Maine RSU 26, Maine RSU 29, Maine
RSU 34, Maine RSU 40, Maine RSU 50,
Maine RSU 57, Maine RSU 60, Maine
RSU 71, Maine RSU 9, Maine School
Administrative District (“SAD”) 11,
Maine Sad 15, Maine Sad 28/Five Town
Central School District, Maine Sad 35,
Maine Sad 44, Maine Sad 53, Maine Sad
55, Maine Sad 6, Maine Sad 61, Maine
Sad 72, Portland School District,
Scarborough School District, South
Portland School District, St. George
Municipal School District, Waterville
School District, Ellsworth School
Department; Goshen School District,
Kearsarge RSU School Administrative
Unit 65, Lebanon School District,
Pittsfield School District, Tamworth
School District, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.