Dear Commons Community,

With more than 2,000 lawsuits alleging the company helped fuel the deadly U.S. opioid epidemic, OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma LP filed for bankruptcy protection last night in White Plains, New York.  Purdue’s board met yesterday to approve the long-expected bankruptcy filing, which the company is pursuing to restructure under terms of a proposal to settle the widespread litigation.  As reported by Reuters:

“Purdue, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in a federal bankruptcy court in White Plains, New York, reached a tentative deal to resolve lawsuits with 24 states and five U.S. territories, as well as lead lawyers for more than 2,000 cities, counties and other plaintiffs, the company said.

Two dozen states remain opposed or uncommitted to the proposed settlement, setting the stage for contentious legal battles over who bears responsibility for a public health crisis that has claimed the lives of nearly 400,000 people between 1999 and 2017, according to the latest U.S. data.

Thousands of cities and counties, along with nearly every state, have sued Purdue and, in some cases, its controlling Sackler family. The lawsuits, seeking billions of dollars in damages, claim the company and family aggressively marketed prescription painkillers while misleading doctors and patients about their addiction and overdose risks.

Purdue and the Sacklers have denied the allegations.

Opposing states, including Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut, want the Sacklers to guarantee more of their own money will go toward a settlement, and have questioned Purdue’s calculations valuing the overall deal at more than $10 billion.

The Sacklers, who would cede control of Purdue in the proposed settlement, have offered $3 billion in cash and an additional $1.5 billion or more through the eventual sale of another company they own, called Mundipharma, according to the company and people familiar with the terms. The Sacklers have declined to revise their offer.

“This is the fork in the road. There are only two ways to go from here,” said Purdue Chairman Steve Miller in an interview with Reuters.

Miller said Purdue plans to argue to opposing states that fighting the proposed settlement will likely result in protracted litigation, increasing legal fees and depleting value that could be steered to U.S. communities reeling from opioid abuse. He described bankruptcy proceedings as the “best hope for finalizing and implementing a global resolution to this litigation.”

In a statement, members of the Sackler family controlling Purdue said they hoped those opposing the current settlement offer would eventually change their minds.

“It is our hope the bankruptcy reorganization process that is now underway will end our ownership of Purdue and ensure its assets are dedicated for the public benefit,” the family said.

The outcome of Purdue’s attempted bankruptcy reorganization and settlement negotiations will help determine how much money U.S. communities receive from the company and the Sacklers to address harm from opioids. A reorganization and settlement would ultimately need to be approved by a U.S. bankruptcy judge.

States suing the Sacklers, including several over the past week, allege the family improperly reaped billions of dollars from opioid sales despite knowledge of their harmful effects. The Sacklers, some of whom previously served on the Purdue’s board and are well-known wealthy philanthropists, have denied the allegations.

Purdue’s proposed settlement envisions it becoming a trust that would contribute to U.S. communities, at little or no cost, tens of millions of doses of drugs the company developed to combat opioid overdoses and addiction, the company said.

Purdue values the drugs at $4.45 billion over a decade, the people familiar with the matter said. Under the proposal’s terms, the restructured Purdue would be permanently bound by so-called injunctive relief, which includes restrictions on the promotion and sale of opioids.

States opposing the settlement offer have vowed to fight attempts by Purdue and the Sacklers to use bankruptcy proceedings to contain the litigation.

On Friday, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she uncovered roughly $1 billion in wire transfers “between the Sacklers, entities they control and different financial institutions, including those that have funneled funds into Swiss bank accounts.”

The information, in records an unnamed financial institution produced in response to a subpoena from James’s office, detailed financial transfers involving former Purdue board member Mortimer D.A. Sackler, according to court documents her office filed.

He allegedly used shell companies “to shift Purdue money through accounts around the world and then conceal it in at least two separate multimillion-dollar real estate investments back here in New York, sanitized (until now) of any readily-detectable connections to the Sackler family,” a lawyer in James’ office said in one of the court filings.

“There is nothing newsworthy about these decade-old transfers, which were perfectly legal and appropriate in every respect,” a spokesman for Mortimer D.A. Sackler said in a statement.

“This is a cynical attempt by a hostile AG’s office to generate defamatory headlines to try to torpedo a mutually beneficial settlement that is supported by so many other states and would result in billions of dollars going to communities and individuals across the country that need help,” the statement added.

Purdue, meanwhile, plans to ask a bankruptcy judge to halt active litigation so it can negotiate a final settlement, the people said. But the company is preparing for states to argue their lawsuits cannot be halted by a Chapter 11 filing because their legal actions were brought to enforce public health and safety laws – exempting them from the usual bankruptcy rules that would stop their complaints.

Another thorny legal question involves the Sacklers and under what circumstances Purdue could use bankruptcy law in an attempt to also halt lawsuits against them.

Those legal skirmishes could take some time to develop, as Purdue initially must seek court approval to continue paying employees and address routine operating expenses.”

Purdue and the Sackler family are disgraces and should be held accountable for the misery they caused by unleashing opioids on the public.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The three GOP primary challengers to President Donald Trump have penned a blistering op-ed  in The Washington Post that takes aim at Trump and the Republican parties in states that have nixed their nominating contests for the 2020 election.

“What does this say about the Republican Party?” asked former Reps. Mark Sanford (S.C.) and Joe Walsh (Ill.) and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld in their joint piece that was published on Friday.

 “If a party stands for nothing but reelection, it indeed stands for nothing,” they claimed. “Our next nominee must compete in the marketplace of ideas, values and leadership. Each of us believes we can best lead the party. So does the incumbent. Let us each take our case to the public.”

The GOP parties of Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina have all canceled their contests, citing financial reasons. It means their delegates will pledge to Trump.

The trio claimed it would be “a critical mistake” to allow Democrats to dominate the political conversation during the primary and caucus season.

“The saying ‘may the best man win’ is a quintessential value that the Republican Party must honor if we are to command the respect of the American people,” they wrote. “Cowards run from fights. Warriors stand and fight for what they believe. The United States respects warriors. Only the weak fear competition.” 

But Trump is a bully and all bullies are cowards!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

New York Times’ columnist, Maureen Dowd today raises the question as to whether Donald Trump has changed the political game forever, and if so, are the Democrats doomed in 2020.  She bases her concerns on the Democrat Presidential debate last Thursday where no candidate really won or jumped out of the pack although many observers felt that Elizabeth Warren distanced herself from the others.  Here is an excerpt from Dowd’s column.

“Donald Trump has fundamentally altered the way we experience politics. 

We’ve been trying to figure out for three years if he is a mad aberration, doomed to fade, or if he is rewiring the game in some permanent way.

Watching that depressing debate, one must conclude that the rewiring is well underway.

Trump is one of the phoniest people ever to walk the earth. Maybe that’s why he was uniquely suited to tear through the phony conventions and bloated world of consultants that made up politics as usual.

There were a lot of good politicians on the debate stage in Houston. But the night rang hollow as they clung to the old conventions — the overcoached performances, the canned lines, the pandering, the well-worn childhood anecdotes meant to project “relatability.”

Tactics superseded passion and vision. Everyone seemed one tick off. Unlike with Barack Obama in 2008, none made you feel like you wanted to pump your fist in the air and march into the future behind them.

“Being a good politician doesn’t matter anymore,” lamented one freaked-out congressional Democrat afterward. “It’s like being a great used car salesman. We need a Holden Caulfield to call out all the phonies.”

It’s a paradox wrapped in an oxymoron about a moron: Trump’s faux-thenticity somehow makes the Democratic candidates seem more packaged, more stuck in politician-speak.”

Dowd has a point but I think that the problem with the debate on Thursday was that there were too many candidates.  It was difficult for a candidate to jump to the head of the pack. As I said earlier, many felt that Warren was a few steps ahead of the others.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

In a court filing yesterday, the New York State attorney general’s office says that it has found new account transfers by members of the Sackler family that owns Purdue Pharma, the maker of opioids. The Attorney General said that it had tracked about $1 billion in wire transfers by the Sackler family, including through Swiss bank accounts, suggesting that the family tried to shield wealth as it faced a raft of litigation over its role in the opioid crisis.   As reported by the New York Times.

“Earlier this week, thousands of municipal governments and nearly two dozen states tentatively reached a settlement with the Sackler family and the company it owns, Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin. It was unclear if the new disclosure would change the thinking of any of the parties that agreed to the settlement.

The attorneys general of a majority of states, including New York and Massachusetts, have already balked at the proposed deal, contending that the Sackler family has siphoned off company profits that should be used to pay for the billions of dollars in damage caused by opioids.

The wire transfers are part of a lawsuit against Purdue and individual Sacklers in New York. Letitia James, now the state’s attorney general, had issued subpoenas last month to 33 financial institutions and investment advisers with ties to the Sacklers in an effort to trace the full measure of the family’s wealth.

 “While the Sacklers continue to lowball victims and skirt a responsible settlement, we refuse to allow the family to misuse the courts in an effort to shield their financial misconduct,” Ms. James said in a statement. “Records from one financial institution alone have shown approximately $1 billion in wire transfers between the Sacklers, entities they control, and different financial institutions, including those that have funneled funds into Swiss bank accounts,” she added.

Forbes has estimated that the family fortune is worth $13 billion, a figure the family has not disputed, but many state attorneys general believe that the family has far more hidden away, as a safeguard against the cascade of litigation.

In addition to the thousands of lawsuits in state and federal court aimed at Purdue itself, some 26 states have named the Sacklers individually, with more, most recently North Carolina, having announced they are about to pursue family members as well.”

This family is a disgrace for the pain and hardship it has brought on the American people and should be criminally liable.

Tony

                                                                                        Click to Enlarge

Dear Commons Community,

New York Times columnists rated the Democratic candidates during their debate on Thursday on a one-to-ten basis. Elizabeth Warren received the highest rating at 7.5 with most of the others in the middle of the pack.  Comments by each columnist for each candidate can be found here.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

After being sentenced to 14 days in prison yesterday, in addition to a $30,000 fine and 250 hours of community service in connection to the college admissions scandal, Felicity Huffman released a statement to the media.

“I broke the law. I have admitted that and I pleaded guilty to this crime. There are no excuses or justifications for my actions. Period,” Huffman said in a statement. “I would like to apologize again to my daughter, my husband, my family and the educational community for my actions. And I especially want to apologize to the students who work hard every day to get into college, and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices supporting their children.”

“I can promise you that in the months and years to come that I will try and live a more honest life, serve as a better role model for my daughters and family and continue to contribute my time and energies wherever I am needed,” Huffman continued. “My hope now is that my family, my friends and my community will forgive me for my actions.”

Huffman appeared in a Boston federal court on Friday alongside her husband, William H. Macy, and about 12 other close friends and family members.

She was also remorseful for her actions in the courtroom.

“I am sorry to you,” she said to the judge. “I am deeply ashamed of what I have done. At the end of the day, I had a choice to make. I could have said ‘no.'”

The former “Desperate Housewives” star must report to prison by October 25. It has not been announced where she’ll serve her sentence, though her attorney said in court that he has issued a request for Huffman to serve her time at a facility near her home in California.

She is to be commended for taking responsibility for her actions.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Last night, ten hopefuls were chosen to participate in the Democratic Presidential Debate at Texas Southern University and hosted by ABC News in partnership with Univision.  Here are some takeaways.

Joe Biden was the focus of attack from the other candidates

Biden had moments when he appeared to stumble in the previous two debates and Thursday night was no different. He had an odd interjection when discussing health care with Sanders, stating “This is America” when the socialist senator from Vermont cited the United States’ high health care costs compared to Canada. He said the Obama administration never held immigrant children behind fences nor separated families, both statements that are untrue. Julián Castro needled Biden repeatedly, charging the former vice president “wants to take credit for Obama’s work but doesn’t want to answer questions.” Biden misspoke in saying nonviolent crimes shouldn’t result in jail time, which an aide corrected during the debate to say he meant nonviolent drug crimes.

Near the end of the debate, Biden answered a question about the legacy of slavery and segregation with a rambling discourse that touched on mortgage policies, teacher salaries, parental responsibility and circled around to Venezuela.

Elizabeth Warren is on message

Warren turned in another brisk performance on the debate stage. Warren was seldom challenged and she deflected the charge that her health-insurance plan would require a middle-class tax increase by criticizing insurance industry profits. Warren also continued her practice of tying policy discussions to her personal history, bringing up her time as a public school teacher when education policy was the topic. In a night that turned contentious at times, she avoided directly criticizing her fellow candidates at length.  

Education

Democratic presidential contender Andrew Yang said he supports a mix of options, including charter schools, in trying to fix the nation’s education system.

The former tech entrepreneur said at Thursday night’s debate that he is “pro-good school.” Yang also said that his proposed “Freedom Dividend” would help lower-income families support their children’s educational needs while alleviating teachers already overburdened because many are going beyond classroom instruction, compensating for support some students aren’t getting at home.

Several candidates, including Pete Buttigieg (BOO’-tuh-juhj), Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, advocated for raising teacher salaries — something Cory Booker noted that “we actually did it” as mayor of Newark, New Jersey.

Both Warren and Bernie Sanders promoted student debt cancellation plans. Harris, a graduate of a historically black university or college, noted her proposal to put $2 billion toward the institutions’ teacher training programs, drawing applause from the audience at Texas Southern University, a Houston HBCU.

Beto O’Rourke strong on gun control

Following the mass shooting in El Paso last month, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke returned to his hometown to offer support to victims, and rebooted his struggling presidential campaign with a focus on gun control. And it paid off at the debate in Houston, where O’Rourke delivered a solid performance amid praise from his rivals for his handling of the attack.

O’Rourke was asked if he would stand by his call for a mandatory government buyback program for assault rifles.

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” the former Texas congressman shouted to cheers from the audience. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

Buttigieg recalls coming out

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay presidential candidate in U.S. history, Buttigieg spoke about coming out for the first time on a national stage.

Buttigieg began his answer by saying that as a military officer serving under the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy and as an elected official in Indiana when Mike Pence was governor, he wondered whether openly acknowledging his sexuality would “be the ultimate career-ending professional setback.”

“I came back from the deployment and realized that you only get to live one life,” Buttigieg recalled. “And I was not interested in not knowing what it was like to be in love any longer, so I just came out.”

Buttigieg came out during his reelection campaign for mayor in 2015. He was reelected with 80 percent of the vote.

“When I trusted voters to judge me based on the job I did for them, they decided to trust me,” he said. “What I learned is that trust can be reciprocated. And part of how you can win and deserve to win is to know what’s worth more to you than winning. And I think that’s what we need in the presidency right now.”’

While it was a first for Buttigieg on the debate stage, the 37-year-old has talked about being gay on the campaign trail, often appearing at rallies with his husband, Chasten Buttigieg (the couple married in 2018).

Good debate!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

David Axelrod, the senior strategist for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, has an op-ed today with advice for the Democratic presidential nominee, whoever it turns out to be, that they should use Trump’s “own contortions and carrying-on against him” during the campaign next year.  Here is an excerpt:

“The person most capable of defeating Donald Trump is Donald Trump. If Democrats are smart, they will let him do the job.

President Trump thrives on outrage and resentment. He seethes with it, stirs it in others and mines it for his own political profit. His political project relies on driving Americans to their cultural and ideological corners. He is Pavlov. We are the dogs.

Mr. Trump’s serial assaults on the decency and the decorum upon which civil society depends are enraging — and meant to be. It is only natural to respond to his every provocation with righteous indignation.

My advice to the Democratic nominee next year is: Donʼt play.

Wrestling is Mr. Trump’s preferred form of combat. But beating him will require jiu-jitsu, a different style of battle typically defined as the art of manipulating an opponent’s force against himself rather than confronting it with one’s own force.

Mr. Trump was elected to shake things up and challenge the political establishment. And to many of his core supporters, his incendiary dog whistles, bullhorn attacks and nonstop flouting of “political correctness” remain energizing symbols of authenticity.

But polling and focus groups reflect a growing unease among a small but potentially decisive group of voters who sided with Mr. Trump in 2016 but are increasingly turned off by the unremitting nastiness, the gratuitous squabbles and the endless chaos he sows.

Plenty of attention has been paid to the historic shift in suburban areas Mr. Trump narrowly carried in 2016 but that broke decisively with his party last fall. That revolt was led by college-educated white women, who overwhelmingly turned against Republican candidates.

But what should be of even greater concern to Mr. Trump is the potential erosion among the non-college-educated white women he is counting on as a core constituency. Those women gave Mr. Trump a 27-point margin over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Yet in a recent Fox News poll, Mr. Trump was beating former Vice President Joe Biden by just four points in that group.

If I were sitting in the Trump war room, this number, more than any other, would alarm me. He won the presidency by the slimmest of margins in three battleground states. With little place to grow, even a small erosion of support among these women could prove fatal to Mr. Trump’s chances. While they are inclined to many of his positions, the thing that is driving these voters away is Mr. Trump himself…

…To win, the Democrats will have turn Mr. Trump’s negative energy against him without embodying it themselves.”

Sage advice from someone who has been there!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, two-time Republican presidential candidate, and an analyst for CNN has a warning for President Donald Trump.   “I love 90 percent of what the president does,” he said. “I like about 20 percent of what he says. If you look at what he says, he’s got to work on that in order to calm down the opposition.” 

Santorum has been an unabashed Trump supporter for the past two years and frequently is the “opposition” on CNN panels that are dominated by anti-Trumpers.  However, speaking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper last night, Santorum said that while Trump is celebrating this week’s Republican victories in North Carolina, there was a more ominous long-term trend appearing in the polls. Trump has low favorability ratings and is trailing most of his potential 2020 Democratic rivals, meaning he has quite a hill to climb if he hopes to win reelection next year.

“The president’s numbers are not good numbers,” Santorum said. “The races in 2018 were not good races for the president and he’s gotta be concerned.” 

Santorum added that in the end, Trump’s own mouth could be what seals his fate.

Santorum’s comments represent another small crack in Trump support going into 2020.

Tony