Judge to approve $78M McKinsey opioid settlement

Update: 

• A federal judge in California OK’d a $78 million settlement resolving claims McKinsey & Co. deceptively advertised its opioid prescription drugs. 
• The judge ruled the settlement agreement was fair and reasonable.
• The settlement benefits a class of approximately 42,000 third-party payors who argued the alleged deceptive advertising caused them to pay for addictive opioids rather than safer, nonaddictive and cheaper alternatives. 
• The proposed settlement class includes those who either paid for or were reimbursed for prescription opioid medication sold and distributed by Purdue Pharma LP, Johnson & Johnson, Endo, Cephalon Inc. or Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals between June 1, 2009, and Oct. 31, 2023

(June 8, 2021)

A volley of lawsuits brought against a management consulting firm for its role in marketing OxyContin amid the opioid crisis will get their own multidistrict litigation in a California federal court.

On Monday, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that lawsuits about McKinsey & Co.’s role in the opioid crisis — consulting for OxyContin seller Purdue Pharma LP and other drugmakers — would not be added to the existing opioid multidistrict litigation in Ohio. 

It said, even though there were factual overlaps between the McKinsey cases and the cases against drug manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies, the management consultant could be prejudiced by joining the 3.5-year-old litigation at such a late stage.

“Adding a relatively unique defendant such as McKinsey to an already exceedingly complex and contentious MDL may hinder the [existing MDL] judge’s ability to efficiently manage the range of cases now before him,” the panel said.

Instead, the 34 pending lawsuits from cities, counties, tribes and individuals against McKinsey would be heard by Judge Charles R. Breyer, the panel ruled. 

It said Breyer’s previous experience presiding over the “bellwether remand action” City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al. gave him “granular insight into the federal opioid litigation that few other judges have obtained.”

The centralization of all of the actions against McKinsey in the Northern District of California would best promote the “just and efficient conduct” of the litigation, the panel ruled. 

It said the multiple actions involve common factual issues arising from nearly identical questions about McKinsey’s role in providing advice to certain opioid manufacturers, most notably Purdue. 

The claims against McKinsey accuse it of public nuisance, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment and violation of consumer protection statutes, the panel’s order says.

McKinsey provided its services in the form of sales and marketing strategies aimed at increasing sales of prescription opioid drugs. It has already struck more than $573 million in settlements over the claims.

The deal was reached in February with attorneys general in 47 states, five territories and the District of Columbia after legal filings revealed McKinsey was promoting and pushing prescriptions to opioid painkillers. 

In addition to paying out a total of $600 million, McKinsey agreed to releasing all its documents relating to the opioid scandal. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich says there are tens of thousands of these internal documents following allegations some of its partners were destroying paper trails. 

What do you think of the claims against McKinsey? Let us know in the comments! 

The McKinsey Opioid Multidistrict Litigation Decision is In re: McKinsey & Co. Inc., National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation, Case No. 2996, in the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Supreme Court rejects Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
• Feds arrest Done Global CEO alleging $100M Adderall fraud scheme
• Robitussin settlement reached over ‘non-drowsy’ claims
• Blood pressure med recalls issued over potential failed dissolution