This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Product Liability
Health Care / Pharmaceutical Personal Injury

In re: McKinsey & Co. Inc. National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation

Published: May 3, 2024 | Result Date: Feb. 2, 2024 |

Case number: 3:21-md-02996-CRB Settlement –  $207,000,000

Judge

Charles R. Breyer

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Elizabeth J. Cabraser
(Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP)

Aelish M. Baig
(Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP)

Taeva C. Shefler
(Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP)

Hadiya K. Deshmukh
(Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP)


Defendant

James L. Bernard
(Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP)

Josh A. Cohen
(Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

Mark David McPherson
(Morrison & Foerster LLP)

Ingrid S. Martin
(Todd & Weld LLP)


Facts

McKinsey & Company is a worldwide consulting firm. One of its clients, Purdue Pharma, it the maker of Oxycontin. McKinsey helped Purdue devise marketing strategies for its products.

A group of private citizens, city governments, Native American tribes, school districts, and others filed suit against McKinsey in the Northern District of California.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that McKinsey played a seminal role in helping Purdue carry out a targeted marketing campaign to increase sales; that these campaigns deceptively downplayed the dangers of addiction associated with Oxycontin; and that these deceptive campaigns led to the over-prescribing of opioids, resulting in the national opioid epidemic. The plaintiffs contended that McKinsey had acted fraudulently; had been negligent; had created a public nuisance; and had violated numerous state consumer protection laws.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: McKinsey denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiffs' material allegations and claims. Moreover, McKinsey contended that it had never manufactured, distributed, or sold prescription medicine; and that it had never interacted with or made any representations to any of the plaintiffs.

Settlement Discussions

In August 2022, the parties participated in a two-day in person mediation session with Jed D. Melnick, Esq. and Simone Lelchuk of JAMS. They continued remote mediation with Melnick through early 2023, resulting in a settlement agreement.

Result

McKinsey and the government-unit plaintiffs reached an agreement wherein McKinsey admitted no liability or wrongdoing but agreed to pay $207 million to settle their claims. This was in addition to an approximately $641.5 million settlement agreement reached with other plaintiffs.


#142200

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390