Oklahoma has obtained $ 270 million from Purdue to address the opioid crisis. His next target: Johnson & Johnson

After obtaining a major financial settlement from Purdue Pharma last week, Oklahoma's Attorney General Mike Hunter forms the legal armament of the state to a much larger pharmaceutical player: Johnson & Johnson.

The company has already become a popular target. Of the 1,600 lawsuits filed against opioids in federal and federal courts, Johnson & Johnson have been named, although its analgesic products make up less than 1% of the US opioid market.

But Oklahoma may well set new ground in its recent salvo against the multinational manufacturer of drugs, medical devices and popular brands of baby shampoo and baby powder.

Hoping to find millions of pages of business documents, Oklahoma's lawyers say Johnson & Johnson did more than just push its own drugs: it also took advantage of the opioid crisis a poppy producer in Australia (Tasmanian Alkaloids) and an American importer. raw materials used to make opioids (Noramco).

The Johnson & Johnson pain relievers include Duragesic, Nucynta and Nucynta ER. The company sold its rights on Nucynta products in 2015.

"The public disclosure of Purdue's claims is a drop of water compared to the evidence in this litigation, which shows precisely how J & J – a" family business "- has been the linchpin of this health emergency. public, "wrote a lawyer from Oklahoma. February deposit.

While the Oklahoma Legislature is scheduled to close its May 31st session, three days after the start of the opioid trial at Norman's courthouse, state attorneys say it is urgent to publicly release Johnson's documents. & Johnson.

"Our legislature, our governor, our policymakers and our doctors need to know the truth about how a society, J & J, has become part of our state and has sought to influence all decisions made or contemplated by the government. State about opioids, from planning to swallowing »Oklahoma wrote. The documents would also be made available to the public.

Judge Thad Balkman of the Oklahoma District has not yet responded to the state's request to unseal the documents.

Oklahoma wants to know if Johnson & Johnson marketing is for kids, veterans or seniors. The motion also asks whether the company has blocked legislation and regulatory measures to limit the availability of opioids, whether it has partnered with Purdue and whether it has paid neutral "third parties" as part of its internal marketing plan. . "

Hunter and Oklahoma's outside lawyers declined several requests for interviews.

In his own filing, Johnson & Johnson – which ceded both Tasmanian Alkaloids and Noramco in 2016 – claims that Oklahoma's goal in unveiling the documents is to "strike Oklahomans with Sensational headlines and poisoning potential jurors "against his opioid unit, Janssen Pharmaceuticals. .

Janssen rejected Oklahoma's claim that corporate ownership of the poppy fields would make it a conspirator of the opioid epidemic.

"As a supplier, we have not played any role in the manufacture, development, sale and marketing of finished products from other manufacturers," Janssen said in a statement sent by a spokesman to Stateline. "The allegations against our company are unfounded and unfounded."

The company also indicated that it had fully complied with the stringent control measures imposed by the US Drug Enforcement Administration when importing poppy straw and other raw materials used in the manufacture of anesthetics. opioids and pain medications.

Legal experts have said other states may follow Oklahoma, but it will be difficult to prove that Johnson & Johnson's poppy fields have contributed significantly to the opioid epidemic.

University of Kentucky law professor Richard Ausness described Oklahoma's strategy as "excessive".

"The only way for Oklahoma to win this case is to prove some sort of conspiracy. It seems more than they are trying to prevent Johnson & Johnson from setting up, "Ausness said.

"I can understand why J & J would be particularly sensitive to this kind of pressure because it sells consumer products and is considered a family business," he said. "If they're called bad guys, it's obviously going to hurt them."

Until recently, state and federal opioid prosecutions throughout the country were aimed primarily at Purdue Pharma, the company that had developed and benefited from OxyContin.

But last month, Craig Landau, President and CEO of Purdue Pharma, told the Washington Post that the company could bring a bankruptcy action under Chapter 11, a move that could put an end to the lawsuits against him. Now, many plaintiffs in a consolidated national case before the US District Court of Northern District of Ohio – the national litigation regarding opiate prescription – are also suing the Sackler family, to which the company belongs .

Recent court records in New York and elsewhere claim that members of the Sackler family – worth an estimated $ 14 billion – have been deeply involved in the commercial decisions that have worsened the opioid epidemic.

These documents followed the publication in January of a previously redacted complaint filed by Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, in a case pending in the Superior Court against Purdue.

In addition to the $ 270 million that Oklahoma obtained from Purdue, last month's landmark settlement included an additional $ 75 million commitment from the Sackler family. Of this total, $ 102.5 million will support a new drug treatment and research center at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa.

An additional $ 12.5 million will go to towns, counties and tribes of Oklahoma for damage caused by the opioid epidemic, as well as $ 60 million to pay back to the province. 39; State its procedural costs.

In the Oklahoma case, Purdue and the Sackler family are no longer involved, the state may attempt to increase Johnson & Johnson's liability by linking it to Purdue and other drug companies in the US. part of an alleged conspiracy, said Andrew Pollis, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

It remains to be seen whether Oklahoma can produce documents proving such a conspiracy. Meanwhile, "the optics are bad for Johnson & Johnson," Pollis said. "If they have nothing to hide, why are they trying to hide it?"

Sign up for exclusive reports and research on state policies