CITY OF OAKLAND
ONE FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA x 6 TH FLOOR x OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 Office of the City Attorney
Ryan Richardson
City Attorney
FAX:
TDD:
(510) 238-3601
(510) 238-6500
(510) 839-6451
October 7, 2025
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Oakland, California
Subject: People of the State of California, et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P ., et al.
Orange County Superior Court No. 30-2014-00725287-CU-BT-CXC
In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation
MDL Master Docket No. 1:17-MD-2804
In re: Purdue Pharma L.P ., et al.
Case No. 19-23649 United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York
City Attorney File No. X04526
President Jenkins and Members of the City Council:
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Charter, the C ity Attorney has prepared and requests your approval of a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to release:
(1) claims against eight opioid ma nufacturers, Alvogen, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals Inc., Apotex Corp., Hikm a Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Indivior Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc., and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (“Manufacturers”), in exchange for full participation in the Nationwide Settlement Agreements and associated California State- Subdivision Agreements Regarding Dist ribution and Use of Settlement Funds (collectively, the “Manufacturer Settlements”); and
(2) claims against Purdue Pharma L.P., its related corporate entities, and potential claims against members of the Sackler family (“Purdue/Sackler Entities”) in exchange for th e City’s consent and full participation in a collection of agreements, including the Governmental Entity & Shareholder Direct Settlement Agreement (“GESA”), the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), the Thirteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorgani zation of Purdue Pharma L.P. and its Affiliated Debtors (the “Plan”), the Governmental Remediation Trust Agreement (“GRTA”), and the California Purdue/Sackler State-Subdivision Agreement (collectively, the “Purdue/Sackler Settlements”).
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
October 7, 2025
Subject: People of the State of California, et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P ., et al.
Orange County Superior Court No. 30-2014-00725287-CU-BT-CXC
3431048v1
The opportunity to fully join these settlements arose due to litigation the City Attorney joined some years ago. In May 2014, the Santa Clara County Couns el’s Office and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office filed the first lawsuit in the nation brought by government entities against major opioid manufacturers for the companies’ roles in creating and perpetuating the opioid crisis. In 2018, Oakland and Los Angeles County, in the name of the People of the State of California, joined that lawsuit. The People v. Purdue Pharma et al. case was filed, litigated, and tried in Orange County Superior Court.
The Manufacturer Settlements being contemplated arose from separate federal litigation by innumerable state and local governments across the country, challenging the conduct of a wide variety of opioid industry actors for the role they played in the opioid crisis. These agreements are with several remaining manufacturer defendants in the consolidated federal litigation. Although Oakland did not sue these Manufacturers, Oakland is nonetheless eligible to fully join the Manufacturer Settlements receiving the same benefits as local governments who did sue, due to the City Attorney’s participation in the state court litigation.
Participation in the Manufacturer Settlements requires that the City of Oakland: (1) release all of its legal claims, including unfiled claims, against the Manufact urers; and (2) agree to the specific terms of the California State Allocation Agreements, which include ordinary provisions related to use, budgeting, and accountability for the settlement funds. This is the same basic framework as the prior nationwide opioid se ttlement and bankruptcy agreements, and accompanying statewide agreements that Council has previously authorized (see Resolution Nos. 88980, 89534, 89609, 90381 C.M.S.).
As for Purdue, in September 2019, Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., and related entities filed for bankruptcy, and the People’s claims against the Purdue defendants were stayed.
In 2021, the bankruptcy court issued an order confirming Purdue’s Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, however the plan was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2024. (See Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. , 603 U.S. 204 (2024).) The Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code did not authorize release and injunction provisions of the Chapter 11 Plan that effectively discharged claims against certain non-debtors, including members of the Sackler family that own Purdue, without the consent of those aff ected. Affected entities have been in mediation since that decision and have reached agreements in principle to resolve the payment obligations of the Sacklers and Purdue.
The proposed Purdue/Sackler Settlement is a collection of agreements – including the Purdue Bankruptcy Plan – that address payment obligations of the Sacklers and Purdue, and the allocation of funds among multiple types of creditors. All of the funds to the City of Oakland will flow through a state-specific agreement, the California State Allocation Agreement, with the same basic framework as the other opioid settlement agreements (see above).
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
October 7, 2025
Subject: People of the State of California, et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P ., et al.
Orange County Superior Court No. 30-2014-00725287-CU-BT-CXC
3431048v1
Participation in the Purdue/Sackler Settlement requires that the City of Oakland: (1) release all of its legal claims, including unfiled claims, against the entities including a dismissal of previously stayed claims in the trial court; and (2) agree to the specific terms of the California State Allocation Agreement, which include ordi nary provisions related to use, budgeting, and accountability for the settlement funds and the same framework as prior nationwide agreements.
The City Council authorized settlement of th is case in Closed Session on Thursday, September 18, 2025 (moved by President Pro-Tem Noel Gallo and seconded by Councilmember Charlene Wang - 7 Ayes, 1 Excused – Councilmember Janani Ramachandran).
Respectfully submitted,
RYAN RICHARDSON
City Attorney
Assigned Attorney:
Malia McPherson
RYRYRYRYRRYRYRYRYRYRYYYRYRYYYRYRYRRYRYYRYYRYRYRRYRYRYRYYRYRYRYRYRYRRRYYRYYRYRYRYRRRYRYYYRYRRRRYYRRRRRRYRYRRYRYRYYYRYRRRRRRYRYYRYRRRRYYRYYRRRRRYYRRRRRRYRRRRRYRRRRRYRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN RICHARDSON