HomeMy WebLinkAboutDISCUSSION re Opioid settlements - approved documents
JAMES M. KENNEDY
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney
Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor
Christopher R. Ashcraft, Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor
Melissa Pleimann, Civil Deputy Prosecutor
Ariel Speser, Civil Deputy Prosecutor
Holly Graham, Deputy Prosecutor
Jeremiah Luther, Deputy Prosecutor
Jeffrey Chalfant, Deputy Prosecutor
Jim Funaro, Victim Services
Lysa Phillis, Child Support Enforcement Officer
Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office
1820 Jefferson Street
Post Office Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone: (360) 385-9180
Fax: (360) 385-9186
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/prosecutor
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 8, 2025
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil DPA
Re: Nine New Opioid Settlements – Request for Authorization to Join All
Settlements
Commissioners:
It is rare that a legal department is the source of funds for its client. Previous opioid settlements
have generated about $2 million in recoveries for the county.
Jefferson County’s Opioid Settlement Recoveries as of September 5, 2025
Distributor Settlement $896,804.78
Janssen (J&J) Settlement $218,933.00
Walmart Settlement $129,632.68
Allergen Settlement $103,100.73
Teva Settlement $173,059.73
CVS Settlement $228,917.95
Walgreens Settlement $248,924.30
TOTAL $1,999,373.17
Under the leadership of James Kennedy, the PAO is happy to report that 9 new nationwide opioid
settlements in principle (the 9 settlement) have been reached that likely will result in up to
$2,556,418.26 in new recoveries for the county, provided the county opts into them.
On August 28, 2025, the Washington Attorney General’s Office (AGO) wrote to strongly
encourage all local jurisdictions in Washington opt in to all of the 9 settlements. According to the
September 8, 2025
Page 2
Washington Attorney General’s Office (AGO), if all cities and counties participate in all of the
settlements, local governments in Washington “will collectively receive approximately $61.1
million over 15 years.” The AGO estimates that the Jefferson County’s share of the 9 settlements
will be $2,556,418.26, paid out over time.
The PAO and the county’s outside counsel, Keller Rohrback, also recommend that the county opt
in to all of the 9 settlements for the reasons discussed below.
The 9 Settlements
The 9 settlements are with Purdue Pharma and the Sacker family, who own the controlling interest
in Purdue Pharma, and another 8 manufacturers of opioids being referred to as “the G8:”
1. Alvogen, Inc.
2. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
3. Apotex Inc.;
4. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.;
5. Indivior Inc.;
6. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
7. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; and,
8. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc.
As with all prior settlements, all of the 9 settlements require the all local jurisdictions to opt into
the settlements to receive the top settlement amount. There is an opt in form for the Purdue
Pharma/Sackler settlement due September 30, 2025 and another form for all the G8 settlements
due October 8, 2025. All of necessary forms have been completed and signed by me. All are
attached. The BoCC should authorize me to send the forms to the settlement administrator on or
before September 30, 2025. These forms require a contact person for the county, and having the
PAO be the place of contact makes the most sense since we have guided all prior finalizations of
opioid settlements.
We will not know until after October 8, 2025 the level of participation of all local governments,
which affects the payouts in the settlements. Therefore, the county cannot count on the funds from
the 9 settlements yet. All the prior opioid settlements had 100% participation by local
governments. It is reasonable to expect the same with the 9 settlements.
September 8, 2025
Page 3
I suggest we have a workshop to discuss the 9 settlements, including the payouts to the county the
second Monday after October 8. That will give everyone the necessary time to calculate the amount
of recovery for the 9 settlements. More detailed information on the 9 settlements is below.
Purdue/Sackler Direct Settlement and the Purdue Bankruptcy Plan
Purdue Pharma is the largest and worst-behaved opioid manufacturer. States and local
governments, including Jefferson County, have fought for many years to achieve this settlement.
According to a story by National Public Radio, the National Prescription Opiate Litigation
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee said, “After five years of litigation and three years in bankruptcy,
we are pleased that all 55 eligible states and territories have unanimously agreed to accept” the
Purdue Pharma/Sackler settlement. The county’s outside counsel, Keller Rohrback, is a member
of this executive committee.
As reported to you on June 13, 2025, the AGO joined the Purdue Pharma/Sacker settlement; along
with 100% of the other eligible states and territories. All the eligible states and territories agreed
to the Government Entity Settlement Agreement or “GESA,” which requires payment of a total of
$7.4 billion.
This settlement includes a direct settlement with the Sackler family and a connected new
bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, which has been approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
The AGO also agreed that the Purdue Pharma/Sackler settlement is subject to the One Washington
Agreement to which Jefferson County is a party, which allocates to local governments 50% of the
settlement proceeds. Jefferson County’s percentage of the recovery (0.4417137380%) is
determined by the formula in the One Washington Agreement.
The Sacklers will pay $1.5 billion and Purdue will pay approximately $900 million in the first
payment, followed by $500 million after one year, an additional $500 million after two years, and
$400 million after three years. The AGO values the Washington payout on this settlement at
“$105.6 million payable over 15 years.” This settlement is the nation’s largest settlement to date
with companies responsible for the opioid crisis.
You may recall that both Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family were part of an earlier effort to
settle all their opioid liability as part of the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy. The first Purdue Pharma
bankruptcy plan was approved by the bankruptcy court and was appealed up to the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court held in a 5/4 decision that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a
release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively sought
to discharge claims against the Sacklers who were not bankruptcy debtors, without the consent of
affected claimants. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204, 204, 144 S. Ct. 2071, 2074,
219 L.Ed.2d 721, 725 (2024). This Supreme Court decision overturned jurisprudence that
prevailed in the majority of U.S. appellate courts that promoted comprehensive resolution of
complex personal injury and property damage litigation.
September 8, 2025
Page 4
Recently, the new settlement that includes the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma was reached.
The new settlement includes a separately approved new Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Plan and a
separate direct settlement of the claims of states and local governments, who must opt in to the
settlement to participate.
Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, and Zydus (G8) Settlements
As reported to you on July 15, 2025, proposed nationwide settlement agreements have been
reached that would resolve opioid litigation brought by states, local political subdivisions, and
special districts against eight opioids manufacturers, Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior,
Mylan, Sun, and Zydus.
The G8 settlements will provide a maximum of approximately $720 million in cash to participating
states and subdivisions to remediate and abate the impacts of the opioid crisis. Depending on
participation by states and subdivisions, the G8 settlements require:
Alvogen, Inc. to immediately pay up to approximately $19 million;
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to pay up to approximately $74 million over 10 years, and to provide
either approximately $177 million of its generic version of the drug Narcan or up to an additional
approximately $44 million in cash;
Apotex Inc. to immediately pay up to approximately $65 million;
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. to immediately pay up to approximately $98 million, and to
provide either approximately $35 million of its naloxone product or up to an additional
approximately $7 million in cash;
Indivior Inc. to pay up to approximately $75 million over five years, a portion of which, at the
election of the state, could be paid in the form of Indivior’s branded buprenorphine or nalmefene
products with a value of up to $140 million.;
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. to pay up to approximately $290 million over nine years;
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. to immediately pay up to approximately $32 million; and
Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. to immediately pay up to approximately $15 million.
The G8 settlements also contain injunctive relief governing opioid marketing, sale, distribution, or
distribution practices and require the G8 to implement safeguards to prevent diversion of
prescription opioids. According to the AGO, the “Washington reached settlement agreements with
[the G8] totaling up to $16.7 million, with payment schedules ranging from one to ten years.”
(Emphasis in original.)
September 8, 2025
Page 5
Recommendations:
1. The county should opt into all of the 9 settlements before September 9, 2025.
2. The BoCC should authorize me to send the necessary opt in forms to the settlement
administrator on or before September 30, 2025.
All of the necessary forms have been completed and signed by me. All are attached to this
memorandum.
The BoCC’s authorization can be done by a motion approved by the majority of the BoCC
as follows: I move to authorize Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Philip Hunsucker
to sign and send in the necessary opt in forms for Jefferson County to participate in the
Purdue Pharma/Sacker settlement and the G8 settlement.
3. The BoCC should have a workshop on October 20, 2025 to discuss the final payout
amounts, since total local government participation will not be known until after October
8, 2025.
If you have questions or comments, please let me know.
Philip C. Hunsucker
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
pronouns: he/him/his
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office
P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Ph: 360-385-9219 (direct)
Email: phunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us
cc: James Kennedy, Ariel Speser, and Melissa Pleimann
K-1
EXHIBIT K
Subdivision Participation and Release Form
Governmental Entity: State:
Authorized Official:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Email:
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and
in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to that certain
Governmental Entity & Shareholder Direct Settlement Agreement accompanying this
participation form (the “Agreement”)1, and acting through the undersigned authorized official,
hereby elects to participate in the Agreement, grant the releases set forth below, and agrees as
follows.
1.The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Agreement, and agrees that by
executing this Participation and Release Form, the Governmental Entity elects to
participate in the Agreement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein.
2.The Governmental Entity shall promptly after the Effective Date, and prior to the filing of
the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Shareholder Released Claims and
Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Shareholder Released Claims and
Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804,
the Governmental Entity authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file
on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice
substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com.
3.The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Agreement pertaining to Participating
Subdivisions as defined therein.
4.By agreeing to the terms of the Agreement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental
Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary
payments beginning following the Effective Date.
5.The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Agreement
solely for the purposes provided therein.
6.The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental
Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role
as and to the extent provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the
1 Capitalized terms used in this Exhibit K but not otherwise defined in this Exhibit K have the meanings given to
them in the Agreement or, if not defined in the Agreement, the Master Settlement Agreement.
Jefferson County Washington
Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil DPA
1820 Jefferson StreetP.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(360) 385-9129
paochiefcivil@co.jefferson.wa.us
K-2
Agreement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National
Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise
provided in, the Agreement.
7. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Agreement as provided therein.
8. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for
all purposes in the Agreement, including without limitation all provisions of Article 10
(Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions,
districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in his or her official
capacity whether elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person,
or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified
in the definition of Subdivision Releasor, to the maximum extent of its authority, for good
and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby confirmed, the Shareholder
Released Parties and Released Parties are, as of the Effective Date, hereby released and
forever discharged by the Governmental Entity and its Subdivision Releasors from: any
and all Causes of Action, including, without limitation, any Estate Cause of Action and any
claims that the Governmental Entity or its Subdivision Releasors would have presently or
in the future been legally entitled to assert in its own right (whether individually or
collectively), notwithstanding section 1542 of the California Civil Code or any law of any
jurisdiction that is similar, comparable or equivalent thereto (which shall conclusively be
deemed waived), whether existing or hereinafter arising, in each case, (A) directly or
indirectly based on, arising out of, or in any way relating to or concerning, in whole or in
part, (i) the Debtors, as such Entities existed prior to or after the Petition Date, and their
Affiliates, (ii) the Estates, (iii) the Chapter 11 Cases, or (iv) Covered Conduct and (B) as
to which any conduct, omission or liability of any Debtor or any Estate is the legal cause
or is otherwise a legally relevant factor (each such release, as it pertains to the Shareholder
Released Parties, the “Shareholder Released Claims”, and as it pertains to the Released
Parties other than the Shareholder Released Parties, the “Released Claims”). For the
avoidance of doubt and without limiting the foregoing: the Shareholder Released Claims
and Released Claims include any Cause of Action that has been or may be asserted against
any Shareholder Released Party or Released Party by the Governmental Entity or its
Subdivision Releasors (whether or not such party has brought such action or proceeding)
in any federal, state, or local action or proceeding (whether judicial, arbitral, or
administrative) (A) directly or indirectly based on, arising out of, or in any way relating to
or concerning, in whole or in part, (i) the Debtors, as such Entities existed prior to or after
the Petition Date, and their Affiliates, (ii) the Estates, (iii) the Chapter 11 Cases, or (iv)
Covered Conduct and (B) as to which any conduct, omission or liability of any Debtor or
any Estate is the legal cause or is otherwise a legally relevant factor.
9. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and
irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought,
filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Shareholder Released
Claims or Released Claims against any Shareholder Released Party or Released Party in
any forum whatsoever, subject in all respects to Section 9.02 of the Master Settlement
Agreement. The releases provided for herein (including the term “Shareholder Released
K-3
Claims” and “Released Claims”) are intended by the Governmental Entity and its
Subdivision Releasors to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Shareholder
Released Parties and Released Parties the broadest possible release of any liability relating
in any way to Shareholder Released Claims and Released Claims and extend to the full
extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Agreement shall be
a complete bar to any Shareholder Released Claim and Released Claims.
10. To the maximum extent of the Governmental Entity’s power, the Shareholder Released
Parties and the Released Parties are, as of the Effective Date, hereby released and
discharged from any and all Shareholder Released Claims and Released Claims of the
Subdivision Releasors.
11. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating
Subdivision as set forth in the Agreement.
12. In connection with the releases provided for in the Agreement, each Governmental Entity
expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and
benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other
jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to
§ 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her
favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her, would
have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released
party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows,
believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Shareholder Released Claims or such
other Claims released pursuant to this release, but each Governmental Entity hereby
expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the
Effective Date, any and all Shareholder Released Claims or such other Claims released
pursuant to this release that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or
suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault
whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’
decision to participate in the Agreement.
13. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Agreement, to which
Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent any portion of this Participation and
Release Form not relating to the release of, or bar against, liability is interpreted differently
from the Agreement in any respect, the Agreement controls.
14. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in the Agreement, (x) nothing herein
shall (A) release any Excluded Claims or (B) be construed to impair in any way the rights
and obligations of any Person under the Agreement; and (y) the Releases set forth herein
shall be subject to being deemed void to the extent set forth in Section 9.02 of the Master
Settlement Agreement.
K-4
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation and Release Form
on behalf of the Governmental Entity.
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Philip C. Hunsucker
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
September 8, 2025
______________________________
K-1
EXHIBIT K
Secondary Manufacturers’ Combined Subdivision Participation and Release Form
(“Combined Participation Form”)
Governmental Entity: State:
Authorized Official:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Email:
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and
in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to each of the
settlements which are listed in paragraph 1 below (each a “Secondary Manufacturer’s Settlement”
and collectively, “the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements”), and acting through the
undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities in each of
the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, and agrees as follows.
1.The Participating Entity hereby elects to participate in each of the following Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements as a Participating Entity:
a. Settlement Agreement for Alvogen, Inc. dated April 4, 2025.
b. Settlement Agreement for Apotex Corp. dated April 4, 2025.
c. Settlement Agreement for Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC dated April 4, 2025.
d. Settlement Agreement for Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. dated April 4, 2025.
e. Settlement Agreement for Indivior Inc. dated April 4, 2025.
f. Settlement Agreement for Viatris Inc. (“Mylan”) dated April 4, 2025.
h. Settlement Agreement for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. dated April 4, 2025.
i. Settlement Agreement for Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. dated April 4, 2025.
2.The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements, understands that all capitalized terms not defined in this
Combined Participation Form have the meanings defined in each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements, and agrees that by executing this Combined Participation
Form, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements and become a Participating Subdivision as provided in each of
the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements.
3.The Governmental Entity shall promptly, and in any event no later than 14 days after the
Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any
Released Claims that it has filed against any Released Entity in each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In re
National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity
Jefferson County Washington
Philip C. Hunsucker
1820 Jefferson StreetP.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368(360) 385-9129
paochiefcivil@co.jefferson.wa.us
K-2
authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the
Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice for each of the
manufacturers listed in paragraph 1 above substantially in the form found at
https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/additional-settlements/.
4. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of each of the Secondary Manufacturers’
Settlements pertaining to Participating Subdivisions as defined therein.
5. By agreeing to the terms of each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements and
becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein,
including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
6. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through each of the
Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements solely for the purposes provided therein.
7. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court and agrees to follow the
process for resolving any disputes related to each Secondary Manufacturer’s Settlement as
described in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements.1
8. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce each of the Secondary Manufacturers’
Settlements as provided therein.
9. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for
all purposes in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, including without
limitation all provisions related to release of any claims,2 and along with all departments,
agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and
attorneys, and any person in his or her official capacity whether elected or appointed to
serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through
any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides
for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity
hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim,
or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish
liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in each
of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements are intended by the Parties to be broad and
shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities in each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any
1 See Settlement Agreement for Alvogen, Inc. Section VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Apotex Corp. Section
VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC Section VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. Section VII.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Indivior Section VI.F.2; Settlement Agreement
for Mylan Section VI.F.2; Settlement Agreement for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. Section VII.F.2; Settlement
Agreement for Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. Section VII.F.2.
2 See Settlement Agreement for Alvogen, Inc. Section XI; Settlement Agreement for Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC
Section X; Settlement Agreement for Apotex Corp. Section XI; Settlement Agreement for Hikma Pharmaceuticals
USA Inc. Section XI; Settlement Agreement for Indivior Section X; Settlement Agreement for Mylan Section X;
Settlement Agreement for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. Section XI; Settlement Agreement for Zydus
Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. Section XI.
K-3
way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental
Entity to release claims. Each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements shall be a
complete bar to any Released Claim against that manufacturer’s Released Entities.
10. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating
Subdivision as set forth in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements.
11. In connection with the releases provided for in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’
Settlements, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges
any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of
the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her
favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her would
have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released
party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows,
believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims in each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and
fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and
all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or
suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault
whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’
decision to participate in each of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements.
12. The Governmental Entity understands and acknowledges that each of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements is an independent agreement with its own terms and
conditions. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of any of the
Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees, aside
from the exceptions in paragraph 13 below. To the extent this Combined Participation
Form is interpreted differently from any of the Secondary Manufacturers’ Settlements in
any respect, the individual Secondary Manufacturer’s Settlement controls.
13. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that some but not all of the Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements proceed past their respective Reference Dates, all releases and
other commitments or obligations shall become void only as to those Secondary
Manufacturers’ Settlements that fail to proceed past their Reference Dates. All releases and
other commitments or obligations (including those contained in this Combined
Participation Form) shall remain in full effect as to each Secondary Manufacturer’s
Settlement that proceeds past its Reference Date, and this Combined Participation Form
need not be modified, returned, or destroyed as long as any Secondary Manufacturer’s
Settlement proceeds past its Reference Date.
K-4
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Combined Participation Form
on behalf of the Governmental Entity.
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Philip C. Hunsucker
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
September 8, 2025
___________________________
1
WASHINGTON STATE ALLOCATION AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS PAID BY THE PURDUE BANKRUPTCY, SACKLERS,
AND CERTAIN OPIOID MANUFACTURERS
JULY 24, 2025
This Washington State Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by
the Purdue Bankruptcy, Sacklers, and Certain Opioid Manufacturers (the “Allocation Agreement
IV”) governs the distribution of funds obtained from (1) the Purdue Bankruptcy and Sackler
Direct Claims Settlement, (2) the Alvogen Settlement, (3) the Amneal Settlement, (4) the Apotex
Settlement, (5) the Hikma Settlement, (6) the Indivior Settlement, (7) the Mylan Settlement, (8)
the Sun Settlement, and (9) the Zydus Settlement in connection with the resolution of any and all
claims by the State of Washington and the eligible counties, cities, and towns in Washington
State (“Local Governments”) against the Settling Entities defined in the respective Settlement
Agreements via the following settlements and bankruptcy plan of reorganization:
• (1) The 13th Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Purdue Pharma
L.P. and its Affiliated Debtors (the “Purdue Plan”) , including and amendments
thereto and all “Plan Documents” as defined therein, if the “Effective Date” as
defined therein has occurred; (2) the Master Settlement Agreement By and
Among the Master Disbursement Trust, Each of the Parties Listed On Exhibit A
Hereto, Each of the Parties Listed on Exhibit B Hereto, the Sackler Parties’
Representative and PR L.P. and any subsequent amendments, and (3)
Government Entity & Shareholder Direct Settlement Agreement and any
subsequent amendments (collectively, the “Purdue Bankruptcy and Sackler Direct
Claims Settlement”).
• Alvogen Settlement Agreement dated April 4, 2025 and any subsequent
amendments (“Alvogen Settlement”).
• Amneal Settlement Agreement dated April 4, 2025 and any subsequent
amendments (“Amneal Settlement”).
• Apotex Settlement Agreement dated April 4, 2025 and any subsequent
amendments (“Apotex Settlement”).
• Hikma Settlement Agreement dated April 4, 2025 and any subsequent
amendments (“Hikma Settlement”).
• Indivior Settlement Agreement dated April 4, 2025 and any subsequent
amendments (“Indivior Settlement”).
• Mylan Settlement Agreement dated April 4, 2025 and any subsequent
amendments (“Mylan Settlement”).
• Sun Settlement Agreement dated April 4, 2025 and any subsequent amendments
(“Sun Settlement”)
2
• Zydus Settlement Agreement dated April 4, 2025 and any subsequent
amendments (“Zydus Settlement”)
Collectively, the Purdue Bankruptcy and Sackler Settlement, Alvogen Settlement, Amneal
Settlement, Apotex Settlement, Hikma Settlement, Indivior Settlement, Mylan Settlement, Sun
Settlement, and the Zydus Settlement shall be referred to as “the Settlements”. The Settlements
can be accessed at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/ and the Purdue Plan can be accessed at
https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/purduepharma/Home-
DocketInfo?DocAttribute=4218&DocAttrName=PlanDisclosureStatement&MenuID=9013&Att
ributeName=Plan%20%26%20Disclosure%20Statement.The terms and definitions of each of the
respective Settlements are incorporated into this Allocation Agreement IV, and any undefined
terms in this Allocation Agreement IV are as defined in the Settlements.
1. This Allocation Agreement IV is intended to be a State-Subdivision Agreement as
defined in the Settlements. This Allocation Agreement IV shall be interpreted to
be consistent with the requirements of a State-Subdivision Agreement in the
Settlements.
2. This Allocation Agreement IV shall become effective with respect to a Settlement
only if all of the following occur:
A. The State of Washington joins such Settlement and becomes a Settling
State as provided for in the respective Settlement and, with respect to the
Purdue Bankruptcy and Sackler Settlement the State of Washington votes
in favor of the Purdue Plan or does not vote against the Purdue Plan, and
does not object to the confirmation of the Purdue Plan.
B. Such Settlement becomes final and effective and a Consent Judgment that
applies to Washington is filed and approved as provided for in the
respective Settlement. For the Purdue Bankruptcy, the “Effective Date” as
defined in the Purdue Plan has occurred.
C. The number of Local Governments that execute and return this Allocation
Agreement IV satisfies the participation requirements for a State-
Subdivision Agreement as specified in such Settlement.
3. Requirements to become a Participating Local Government. To become a
Participating Local Government that can participate in this Allocation Agreement
IV with respect to any one of the Settlements, a Local Government must do all of
the following:
A. The Local Government must execute and return this Allocation
Agreement IV.
B. The Local Government must do the following:
i. Release its claims against the Settling Entities identified in the
respective Settlements and agree to be bound by the terms of the
3
Settlements by timely executing and returning the Participation
Form for that Settlement and any other necessary documents.
ii. Additionally, for the Purdue Bankruptcy and Sackler Direct Claims
Settlement, either (1) vote in favor of or (2) abstain from voting on
the Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Purdue Pharma L.P. and
its Affiliated Debtors, and (3) not object to the confirmation of the
Purdue Plan.
C. Litigating Subdivisions, also referred to as Litigating Local Governments,
must dismiss the Settling Entities identified in the respective Settlement
with prejudice from their lawsuits.
D. Each Local Government that is eligible to participate in this Allocation
Agreement IV has previously executed and signed the One Washington
Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities
(“MOU”) agreed to by the Participating Local Governments in
Washington State, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. By executing
this Allocation Agreement IV, the Local Government agrees and affirms
that the MOU applies to and shall govern the LG Share, as defined below,
as modified by this Allocation Agreement IV for each of the Settlements
in which the Local Government participates.
A Local Government that meets all of the conditions in this paragraph for any of
the Settlements shall be deemed a “Participating Local Government” for that
Settlement. A Local Government can be a “Participating Local Government” for
less than all of the Settlements. If a Local Government is a Participating Local
Government for less than all of the Settlements, the Local Government can only
receive a portion of the Washington Abatement Amount for the specific
Settlement(s) for which it is a Participating Local Government.
4. The allocations set forth in this Allocation Agreement IV apply to the following,
all of which collectively shall be referred to as the “Washington Abatement
Amount”:
A. For the Purdue Bankruptcy and Sackler Settlement, all amounts
(collectively, “Washington Distributions”) that are apportioned to
Washington as Estate Distributions or from the Shareholder Direct
Settlement Portion, including, without limitation, those to Washington’s
State Fund, Remediation Accounts Fund, Subdivision Fund, Direct
Payment, Earned Direct Payment, and Estate Distributions for Washington
and all Participating Local Governments for the Purdue Bankruptcy and
Sackler Settlement, provided, however, that for the purposes of the
allocations set forth in this Allocation Agreement IV, Washington
Distributions shall not include State’s Fees and Costs (as defined below).
This Allocation Agreement IV shall be considered a State-Subdivision
4
Agreement under the Government Entity & Shareholder Direct Settlement
Agreement.
B. For the Alvogen Settlement, the State of Washington’s (1) Statewide
Payment Amount and (2) Additional Remediation Amount.
C. For the Amneal Settlement, the State of Washington’s (1) State Allocation
and (2) Additional Remediation Amount.
D. For the Apotex Settlement, the State of Washington’s (1) Statewide
Payment Amount and (2) Additional Remediation Amount.
E. For the Hikma Settlement, the State of Washington’s (1) Statewide
Payment Amount and (2) Additional Remediation Amount.
F. For the Indivior Settlement, the State of Washington’s (1) Statewide
Payment Amount and (2) Additional Remediation Amount.
G. For the Mylan Settlement, the State of Washington’s (1) Statewide
Payment Amount and (2) Additional Remediation Amount.
H. For the Sun Settlement, the State of Washington’s (1) Statewide Payment
Amount and (2) Additional Remediation Amount.
I. For the Zydus Settlement, the State of Washington’s (1) Statewide
Payment Amount and (2) Additional Remediation Amount.
As specified in each of the Settlements, the Washington Abatement Amount will
vary depending on the percentage of Participating Local Governments and
whether there are any Later Litigating Subdivisions.
5. The (1) Amneal Settlement, (2) Hikma Settlement, and (3) Indivior Settlement
each provide the option for Settling States to obtain Settlement Product or the
discretion to convert any portion of the Settlement Product allocated to the
Settling State into a cash value as specified in those Settlements of the Settling
State’s allocated Settlement Product in specified years. It shall be solely the
decision of the State regarding whether to convert any portion of the Settlement
Product allocated to Washington into a cash value or to obtain the Settlement
Product for each of those Settlements. If the State elects to obtain Settlement
Product for a particular Settlement, the State in its sole discretion shall make all
decisions related to the Settlement Product, including but not limited to where,
how, and to whom it shall be distributed. For purposes of calculating the division
of the Washington Abatement Amount in Paragraph 10 of this Allocation
Agreement IV, the Settlement Product allocated to Washington shall be
considered “State Share” and shall have the cash conversion value assigned to it
in the respective Settlement Agreements, i.e., the “Settlement Product Cash
Conversion Amount” or the “Cash Conversion Amount” identified in those
settlements.
5
6. The allocations set forth in this Allocation Agreement IV do not apply to (i) the
State Cost Fund, State AG Fees and Costs, State Expense Fund, State AG Fees,
State Direct Expenses, or any attorneys’ fees, fees, costs, or expenses referred to
in the Settlement or via Fee Petitions or that are paid directly or indirectly via the
Settlements or court order to the State of Washington and/or its outside counsels
(“State’s Fees and Costs”) or to (ii) any payments made to Participating
Subdivisions pursuant to section 5.9 of the Purdue Plan, which provides for a
Local Government Fee Fund.
7. This Allocation Agreement IV and the MOU are a State Back-Stop Agreement.
The Settling Entities are paying a portion of the Local Governments’ attorneys’
fees and costs as provided for in the Settlements. The total contingent fees an
attorney receives from the Contingency Fee Fund in the Settlements, the MOU,
and this Allocation Agreement IV combined cannot exceed 15% of the portion of
the LG Share paid to the Litigating Local Government that retained that firm to
litigate against the Settling Entities (i.e., if City X filed suit with outside counsel
on a contingency fee contract and City X receives $1,000,000 from the Walmart
Settlement, then the maximum that the firm can receive is $150,000 for fees as to
the Walmart Settlement; if City X did not retain the same firm for potential
litigation against CVS and City X receives $1,000,000 from the CVS Settlement,
then the firm receives no fees from the CVS Settlement.)
8. No portion of the State’s Fees and Costs and/or the State Share as defined in
Paragraphs 6 and 10 of this Allocation Agreement IV shall be used to fund the
Government Fee Fund (“GFF”) referred to in Paragraph 12 of this Allocation
Agreement IV and Section D of the MOU, or in any other way to fund any
Participating Local Government’s attorneys’ fees, costs, or common benefit tax.
9. The Washington Abatement Amount shall and must be used by the State and
Participating Local Governments for future Opioid Remediation as defined in the
Settlements, except as allowed by the Settlements.
10. The State and the Participating Local Governments agree to divide the
Washington Abatement Amount as follows:
A. Fifty percent (50%) to the State of Washington (“State Share”).
B. Fifty percent (50%) to the Participating Local Governments (“LG Share”).
11. The LG Share shall be distributed to Participating Local Governments pursuant to
the MOU attached hereto as Exhibit 1 as amended and modified in this Allocation
Agreement IV.
12. For purposes of this Allocation Agreement IV only, the MOU is modified as
follows and any contrary provisions in the MOU are struck:
6
A. Exhibit A of the MOU is replaced by the Exhibit specifying the List of
Opioid Remediation Uses for each of the respective Settlements, which
generally can be found at Exhibit E of the respective Settlements.
B. The definition of “Litigating Local Governments” in Section A.4 of the
MOU shall mean Litigating Subdivisions as defined in each the respective
Settlements and shall also include any local government that notified
Judge Polster in Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP of its intent to sue any of
the settling entities that are covered by this Allocation Agreement.
C. The definition of “National Settlement Agreement” in Section A.6 of the
MOU shall mean the Settlements.
D. The definition of “Settlement” in Section A.14 of the MOU shall mean the
Settlements and expressly includes the Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization
of Purdue Pharma L.P. and its Affiliated Debtors.
E. The MOU is amended to add new Section C.4.g.vIV, which provides as
follows:
“If a Participating Local Government receiving a direct payment
(a) uses Opioid Funds other than as provided for in the respective
Settlements, (b) does not comply with conditions for receiving
direct payments under the MOU, or (c) does not promptly submit
necessary reporting and compliance information to its Regional
Opioid Abatement Counsel (“Regional OAC”) as defined at
Section C.4.h of the MOU, then the Regional OAC may suspend
direct payments to the Participating Local Government after
notice, an opportunity to cure, and sufficient due process. If direct
payments to Participating Local Government are suspended, the
payments shall be treated as if the Participating Local Government
is foregoing their allocation of Opioid Funds pursuant to Section
C.4.d and C.4.j.IVi of the MOU. In the event of a suspension, the
Regional OAC shall give prompt notice to the suspended
Participating Local Government and the Settlement Fund
Administrator specifying the reasons for the suspension, the
process for reinstatement, the factors that will be considered for
reinstatement, and the due process that will be provided. A
suspended Participating Local Government may apply to the
Regional OAC to be reinstated for direct payments no earlier than
five years after the date of suspension.”
F. The amounts payable to each law firm representing a Litigating Local
Government from the GFF shall be consistent with the MOU and the
process set forth in the Order Appointing the Fee Panel to Allocate and
Disburse Attorney’s Fees Provided for in State Back-Stop Agreements,
Case No. 1:17-md-02804-DAP Doc #: 4543 (June 17, 2022).
7
G. The GFF set forth in the MOU shall be funded by the LG Share of the
Washington Abatement Amount only. To the extent the common benefit
tax is not already payable by the Settling Entities as contemplated by
Section D.8 of the MOU, the GFF shall be used to pay Litigating Local
Government contingency fee agreements and any common benefit tax
referred to in Section D of the MOU, which shall be paid on a pro rata
basis to eligible law firms as determined by the Settlement Administrator.
H. To fund the GFF, fifteen percent (15%) of the LG Share shall be deposited
in the GFF from each LG Share settlement payment until the Litigating
Subdivisions’ contingency fee agreements and common benefit tax (if
any) referred to in Section D of the MOU are satisfied. Under no
circumstances will any Primary Subdivision or Litigating Local
Government be required to contribute to the GFF more than 15% of the
portion of the LG Share allocated to such Primary Subdivision or
Litigating Local Government. In addition, under no circumstances will
any portion of the LG Share allocated to a Litigating Local Government be
used to pay the contingency fees or litigation expenses of counsel for some
other Litigating Local Government.
I. The maximum amount of any Litigating Local Government contingency
fee agreement (from the Contingency Fee Fund of the respective
Settlements) payable to a law firm permitted for compensation shall be
fifteen percent (15%) of the portion of the LG Share paid to the Litigating
Local Government that retained that firm (i.e., if City X filed suit with
outside counsel on a contingency fee contract and City X receives
$1,000,000 from a Settlement, then the maximum that the firm can receive
is $150,000 for fees.) The firms also shall be paid documented expenses
due under their contingency fee agreements that have been paid by the law
firm attributable to that Litigating Local Government. Consistent with
Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses, which is Exhibit R
of the Settlements, as well as the Purdue Plan, amounts due to
Participating Litigating Subdivisions’ attorneys under this Allocation
Agreement IV shall not impact (i) costs paid by the subdivisions to their
attorneys pursuant to a State Back-Stop agreement, (ii) fees paid to
subdivision attorneys from the Common Benefit Fund for common benefit
work performed by the attorneys pursuant to Exhibit R of the Settlements,
or (iii) costs paid to subdivision attorneys from the MDL Expense Fund
for expenses incurred by the attorneys pursuant to the Settlements.
J. Under no circumstances may counsel receive more for its work on behalf
of a Litigating Local Government than it would under its contingency
agreement with that Litigating Local Government. To the extent a law
firm was retained by a Litigating Local Government on a contingency fee
agreement that provides for compensation at a rate that is less than fifteen
percent (15%) of that Litigating Local Government’s recovery, the
maximum amount payable to that law firm referred to in Section D.3 of
8
the MOU shall be the percentage set forth in that contingency fee
agreement.
K. For the avoidance of doubt, both payments from the GFF and the payment
to the Participating Litigating Local Governments’ attorneys from the
Contingency Fee Fund in the respective Settlements as well as any
payments made to Participating Subdivisions pursuant to section 5.9 of the
Purdue Plan shall be included when calculating whether the
aforementioned fifteen percent (15%) maximum percentage (or less if the
provisions of Paragraph 10.J of this Allocation Agreement IV apply) of
any Litigating Local Government contingency fee agreement referred to
above has been met.
L. To the extent there are any excess funds in the GFF, the Settlement
Administrator shall facilitate the return of those funds to the Participating
Local Governments as provided for in Section D.6 of the MOU.
13. In connection with the execution and administration of this Allocation Agreement
IV, the State and the Participating Local Governments agree to abide by the
Public Records Act, RCW 42.56 et seq.
14. All Participating Local Governments, Regional OACs, and the State shall
maintain all non-transitory records related to this Allocation Agreement IV as
well as the receipt and expenditure of the funds from the Settlements for no less
than five (5) years.
15. If any party to this Allocation Agreement IV believes that a Participating Local
Government, Regional OAC, the State, an entity, or individual involved in the
receipt, distribution, or administration of the funds from the Settlements has
violated any applicable ethics codes or rules, a complaint shall be lodged with the
appropriate forum for handling such matters, with a copy of the complaint
promptly sent to the Washington Attorney General, Complex Litigation Division,
Division Chief, 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000, Seattle, Washington 98104.
16. To the extent (i) a region utilizes a pre-existing regional body to establish its
Opioid Abatement Council pursuant to the Section 4.h of the MOU, and (ii) that
pre-existing regional body is subject to the requirements of the Community
Behavioral Health Services Act, RCW 71.24 et seq., the State and the
Participating Local Governments agree that the Opioid Funds paid by the Settling
Entities are subject to the requirements of the MOU and this Allocation
Agreement IV.
17. Upon request by any of the Settling Entities, the Participating Local Governments
must comply with the Tax Cooperation and Reporting provisions of the respective
Settlement.
9
18. Venue for any legal action related to this Allocation Agreement IV (separate and
apart from the MOU or the Settlements) shall be in King County, Washington.
Washington law shall govern any dispute.
19. Each party represents that all procedures necessary to authorize such party’s
execution of this Allocation Agreement IV have been performed and that such
person signing for such party has been authorized to execute this Allocation
Agreement IV.
11
FOR THE PARTICIPATING LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
Name of Participating Local Government:
Authorized signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Jefferson County, Washington
Philip C. Hunsucker
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
September 8, 2025
12
EXHIBIT 1
One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities