A judge rules against Johnson & Johnson in a historic opioid case in Oklahoma

An Oklahoma judge ruled Monday against Johnson & Johnson in the opioid lawsuit in Oklahoma, forcing the company to pay $ 572 million to the state in the first trial in the United States to hold a drug maker. medications responsible for helping to fuel the epidemic.

Calling the opioid crisis "imminent danger," District Judge Thad Balkman said that "the state has discharged its burden that deceptive marketing and opioid promotion of defendants Janssen and Johnson & Johnson have created a nuisance as defined by [the law], including the conclusion that these acts have compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans.

"More specifically, the accused caused an opioid crisis that is manifested by increased dependency rates, overdose deaths, and neonatal abstinence syndrome," he added.

J & J said that he was going to appeal the decision. The fine was significantly lower than the sanctions demanded by Oklahoma, which resulted in an increase of more than 5% of the stock of J & J in the post-market trade after reading the verdict.

Monday's verdict "makes J & J's possession a bit easier," said Jared Holz, Jefferies' health equity strategist. "As others have mentioned, it is a [just] special state. "

Shares of drug manufacturers Mallinckrodt, Teva Pharmaceutical and Endo International climbed the news after the trading session.

J & J was the only defendant to take part in this seven-week trial, which began May 28th. Purdue Pharma, the private manufacturer of OxyContin that has largely held the blame for the national crisis, and Teva Pharmaceutical have each entered into an agreement with the state trial began. Both companies did not admit any wrongdoing.

Balkman's decision could have far-reaching consequences as other states and communities try to hold companies accountable for the opioid epidemic that has killed more than 400,000 people in the US from 1999 to 2017, according to the Centers. for Disease Control and Prevention.

Oklahoma's Attorney General Mike Hunter had said that J & J and its pharmaceutical subsidiary Janssen had been aggressively marketed to doctors and had minimized the risks associated with opioids as early as the 1990s. The state has stated that J & J's business practices created an overabundance of addictive painkillers and a "public nuisance" that disrupted lives and would cost the state between $ 12.7 billion and $ 17.5 billion. The state was seeking more than $ 17 billion from the company.

J & J, which commercialized the opioid analgesics Duragesic and Nucynta, denied any wrongdoing. The company's lawyers disputed the legal basis used by Oklahoma to sue J & J, based on a "public nuisance" complaint. They stated that the state had previously limited the law to disputes over goods or public spaces.

Investors were expecting a fine ranging from $ 500 million to $ 5 billion to J & J, according to Elizabeth Anderson, an analyst at Evercore ISI.

Legal analysts have viewed the lawsuit as a litmus test for plaintiffs of some 1,900 cases pending against Purdue Pharma, J & J and other opioid manufacturers, which have been consolidated and transferred to a Northern District federal judge of Ohio. Some jurists have compared the huge opioid litigation with the tobacco framework agreement of the 1990s.

During debates in Oklahoma, Hunter said J & J and others were eager to produce a "magic pill" in their quest for profits, while ignoring decades of scientific research showing the dangers of opioids . Balkman heard the testimony of victims of the crisis, including the father of a university footballer who died as a result of an overdose.

They "embarked on a multi-billion dollar, cynical, deceptive, brainwashing campaign to establish opioid painkillers as a magic drug," Hunter told the court. "Money may not be the source of all ills but … money can cause people and businesses to do bad things." "Very bad things."

J & J testified in court that his marketing and promotion of pain medication was "appropriate and responsible". The company presented testimonials from doctors and former and former employees who said its marketing practices were appropriate.

This is a story in development. Please check again for updates.