 Well, good afternoon. I'm Attorney General TJ Dunovan. I am joined by Jill Abrams from my office, as well as Rose Hayes, who's the investigator. Kate Van Hayes from Senator Bernie Sanders' office is here, as well as Bob Bick from the Howard Center. Bob, I want to thank you and your team for hosting us again here at the Howard Center to announce another lawsuit in our effort to address the opiate crisis in our state. Let me say this before I begin about the Howard Center. They have been on the front lines before anyone in addressing the opiate crisis in this state. They have expended significant resources in addressing the opiate crisis in this state. They have saved thousands of lives in this state. They were the first voices to call for treatment, to expand the hub and spoke model, to create the methadone clinic and open the doors to the methadone clinic, to argue and advocate for medically-assistant treatment and to advocate for the dignity of all people, especially those who suffer with addiction. So Bob, I want to thank you and your team for all that you have done for this community, for those that who have suffered from addiction, and for setting an example for fearless advocacy on this issue of the opiate epidemic in our state. So thank you. Today I'm proud to announce that the state of Vermont is suing the Sackler family for deceptive acts, unfair and deceptive conduct, nuisance and unjust enrichment for the role they played in promoting these deceptive acts to spread and sell oxy-cotton throughout our state. We filed a case against eight individual members of the Sackler family who personally participated in and directed the misconduct of Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of highly-indictive oxy-cotton. As I said, we sued for unfair and deceptive conduct, nuisance and unjust enrichment. These eight members of the Sackler family, they served as officers or directors of Purdue between 1996 and 2018, and oversaw the deceptive marketing campaign that led to an explosion in opiate prescribing and the opiate crisis in Vermont. They made billions of dollars as a result of this. The Sackler family managed the company's core business activities, marketing, sales, and product development of opiates. They directed and authorized the company's deceptive strategy to minimize the health risk associated with opiates and deceptively claim that prescription opiates were rarely the cause of death, of addiction, abuse, or misuse. The Sacklers directed and approved hiring sales representatives whose job was to visit doctors and persuade them to prescribe more opiates, higher doses of opiates, and for longer periods of time. They did this in Vermont. They also devised several additional unconscionable schemes to fortify their market. They directed sales representatives to expand the market to new and vulnerable populations, the elderly and the opioid naive, those who had not previously used these powerful drugs. They directed their sales representatives to promote an ever-increasing escalation of doses to increase sales of Purdue's more expensive products without adequately explaining that patients who use opiates become physically dependent on them and require higher doses to achieve the same level of pain relief, and that increased opiate doses carry higher health and addiction risks. And they directed sales representatives to promote and distribute opiate saving cards, which provided substantial price discounts for the express purpose of inducing patients to continue to use opiates long term. They received detailed briefings on the size, distribution, daily activities, and compensation of their opiates sales force. They were engaged in this deception on a daily basis. They were active participants in this deception that has devastated and impacted thousands of Vermonters' lives. The Sackler family members who we sue today and their positions are as follows. Richard Sackler, who was the board member from 1990 to 2018, he was the co-chair of the board in 2003 and remained co-chair until he left the board in 2018. He was Purdue's head of research and development from 1990 through 1999, and he was the president and CEO of Purdue from 1999 through 2003. Jonathan Sackler, he joined the board in 1990 and remained on the board until 2018. He was a vice president. Kathy Sackler, she was a board member from 1990 to 2018. She was a vice president. Eileen Sackler, left court, board member from 1990 to 2018. Mortimer D.A. Sackler, he was a board member from 1993 to 2018. Teresa Sackler, a board member from 1993 to 2018. And David Sackler, a board member from 2012 to 2018. And finally, Beverly Sackler, who was a board member from 1993 to 2017. This is our third lawsuit that we've brought in the state of Vermont in regards to the opioid crisis in the state. As you know, we sued Purdue Pharma as a corporation. We sued as well as two other corporations. But I want to be clear about the Sacklers. They made billions of dollars off the backs of patients who became addicted to OxyCotin. They made billions of dollars. The entire Sackler family has been unjustly enriched by their misdeeds. But our lawsuit only names the Sackler family board members who served in the board of directors between 1993 and 2017. Because these eight individuals that I previously named were officers or directors of Purdue Pharma during that relevant time period. The evidence shows that they were deeply involved in running the company. As one of Purdue's prior CEOs said, the board of directors in which these eight Sackler family members were on functioned as the de facto CEO. That's why we sue the Sacklers today. With that, let me turn it over to Kate Van Haste from Senator Bernie Sanders' office, who is here to announce efforts by Senator Sanders and others in the United States Senate to address the opioid crisis. Thanks very much. On behalf of Senator Sanders, thanks for having me here today. So first, let me just agree with the Attorney General, Bob, you and all of your staff at the Howard Center are doing tremendous work that is critically important to the welfare and the safety and the ability of Vermonters to thrive. And you guys have been really on the front of this effort and we are where we are today and we know what we know because of your work. And you have some phenomenal clients and I think it's important to recognize them as well. These are wonderful members of our community and you are helping them to thrive in our community. And so together I think what we want to do is maybe give you a little less work to do. Maybe have your team be able to focus on some of the other good work that needs to happen in this state. From Bernie's perspective, we have got to get out ahead of this crisis a little bit better. Congress has done a good job on a bipartisan effort to put some money into treatment. We have federal funding to provide treatment to folks, but that is not enough. We have to start looking at prevention efforts to make sure that more and more people don't become addicted to these powerful medications. Part of that effort is making sure that drug companies cannot market to these people and cannot participate in these illegal practices. So we really appreciate the work of the Attorney General and his office to highlight the role that individuals play in this problem because from Senator Sanders' perspective corporations can also often hide behind that corporate name, but we know that there are people making these decisions and these people need to be held accountable for what they are doing to the rest of our country. So Senator Sanders today is going to be introducing legislation with Senator Bennett and others in the United States Senate titled the Opioid Crisis Accountability Act. And part of what that legislation does is to prohibit the illegal marketing and distribution practices that happen today that we're talking about. Right now these drug companies bake in fines into their cost of doing business. They expect to get fined by the Justice Department. They consider it part of the cost of doing business. That has to stop. We have to make the repercussions of their illegal activities mean something. So we are also going to make them reimburse the federal government for the economic impact, the damage that they have caused. We spend billions and billions of dollars of federal funding every year cleaning up the mess that these companies cause and we have to hold them accountable. Another thing we're going to do in this legislation that Senator Sanders is introducing today is to reduce the period of exclusivity that these brand companies have on their products. Right now brand name manufacturer drugs have an exclusive hold on the market from upwards of seven years. We are going to say once and for all that if you participate in illegal practices you are not going to have that close hold on the market any longer. You're going to lose that and that is one thing that these drug companies are not prepared for. And finally the legislation that Senator Sanders is introducing is going to put forward a penalty for the development of opioid medications that are developed with federal funding. Because right now most of these drug companies use federal research dollars to come up with the research and development of these drugs. We need to say again that if you participate in these illegal activities if you create drugs lie about the impact on the American people you're going to have to reimburse the federal government for the funding that was provided to you in taxpayer dollars and you're also going to have to pay a fine. So the legislation imposes up to a 25 percent total amount on the profit from these drugs that those corporations will have to pay back to the federal taxpayer. So Senator Sanders is appreciative of the work that's happening right now to address this crisis and we're happy to work together to make even more strides moving forward. So thanks very much for having me here today on behalf of Senator Sanders. Thank you Kate. Thank you to Senator Sanders for his continued leadership on this issue. The two other corporations that we've sued are McKesson and Cardinal Health. Those lawsuits were filed in Chittenden County Superior Court as this lawsuit will be as well or as was earlier this morning. I just want to make one last point about Bob Bick and the team at Howard. None of this none of this work that we're doing in this state whether it's the hub and spokes whether it's the lawsuit whether it's alternatives to the criminal justice system whether it's addressing addiction as a disease none of this would have happened but for the leadership of Howard really being the moral voice on the dignity of each individual those that suffer from addiction that it is a disease and that really created the environment I think in this state that has led Vermont to do more than most. We still have a long way to go but a lot of the efforts that it frankly is being emulated in other states it started here with the leadership from the folks at Howard so thank you. With that happy to take questions. How much are you seeking in this lawsuit? You know there's never a specific dollar amount that we would ask but as we talked about the Sackler family being unjustly enriched across this nation including Vermont they made billions of dollars and we're looking to discourage that money as a result of that unjust enrichment. Starting update on the other. Well we in the lawsuit against that we brought against Purdue Pharma which was our first lawsuit they filed a motion to dismiss. We were successful we won that. With that let me though turn it over to Jill Irons who has done a tremendous job from my office of being the lead attorney on these lawsuits to give you an update in terms of what's happening here in Vermont but as you all know as well there is a multi-state investigation which Vermont is planning leadership role in. So Jill. So in the Purdue lawsuit we're in the stage called Discovery so we and Purdue will exchange documents there will be depositions and we'll proceed towards trial so that that process is ongoing and with respect to the McKesson and Carbnell lawsuit because that one is recently filed we're just starting we expect to see motions to dismiss which we feel pretty confident we'll win. Do you expect to see any further shoots down the line from any or is this maybe the last? We're keeping our options open. So this lawsuit is directed at individuals which is very different I mean the previous two are that companies and you're already assuming Purdue Pharma. Yes. Why are you going into the factory? Because the Sacklers as I said directed the company in their capacity as board members they acted as the de facto CEO and directed not only the deceptive marketing but the deployment of sales force sales forces into the state of Vermont to deceive Vermonters that these drugs were not as harmful were not as addictive would not cause death when in fact they did that's the deception or they they directed the company that's why we sue them today in a capacity as board members in the state of Vermont the eight of them and when we talk about unjust enrichment they made billions of dollars here people Vermonters have died we know stories not only of those who've lost their lives but folks who are fighting every single day to regain not only their sobriety but their dignity and their and their way in life as a result of this addiction that started frankly from these prescription drugs it was a prescription drug crisis in this state before it was a heroin crisis before it was a fentanyl crisis it was a prescription drug crisis in this state which was oxycontin which is manufactured by Purdue Pharma which was directed by the Sackler family TJ for those who aren't you know legal experts by any means when you sue the company Purdue Pharma aren't you technically suing the board so where's the difference really between the two between the one that you sue now and Purdue Pharma aren't they kind of intertwined yeah that's a great question i'm having Jill answer that question as you asked for the legal expert here's the legal expert they are intertwined one is a corporate entity and and the other is individual so it gives us multiple places to go for money so with respect to both we're suing for unfair and deceptive acts and practices and for nuisance with respect to the Sacklers for ingest enrichment so it's a way essentially to reach into the pocket of the individual wrongdoer so if one of those individuals say made a billion dollars in a given year we would have access to that billion dollars individually separate and apart from what the company as a separate corporate legal entity would contribute to it to a lawsuit now with the company and the individuals even though they're separate lawsuits could they have the same sort of defense or do you anticipate different defense that they may we will we'll see pretty soon I think sure so so we set our sights on doing the investigation of the corporation first when you do an investigation like this especially one that is over a lot of years and is pretty complex you're literally looking at millions of pages of documents and so it was really important for us to get the first lawsuit filed and be able to continue our investigation against the individual so we felt that we were at the right place now having having reviewed the documents carefully to name the individuals as well I want to add one point to that and which has been reported about Purdue Farm as the corporate entity filing for bankruptcy I won't offer an opinion whether they do that or not but by suing the Sacklers separately we'll be able to keep pressure on the most culpable family members even if the filing and bankruptcy court should come from Purdue as a corporation a number of the lawsuits that happened filed in the opioid crisis by you know states are multiple state is the lawsuit that you filed today against the Sacklers only Vermont yes have other states no it's just Vermont the state of Vermont filing suit against these eight Sacklers it was just the state of Vermont suing Purdue and McKesson and Cardinal Health as we said earlier we are part of the multi-state investigation with 40 some odd other states looking at the distributors and the manufacturers so if another state said we agree with you regarding the Sacklers could they join you on the lawsuit they would have to and they have other states have sued some Sackler family members I know Massachusetts has for even for an example but you know it's based on the facts in each individual case and the issue of jurisdiction now um if it's already been said in other press conferences I apologize it probably has I'm sorry where is the money going to go if I let it leave or to Whitney soon where where do you think it would go with me um how does that ever work I'd probably get in trouble for this but let me say it anyways and this is um I don't want to talk specific about this lawsuit or any lawsuit um I think if if there is a recovery the people that have been on the front lines like Howard need to be the I think the funds need to be directed towards the folks that are out in the community helping people every single day saving people's lives getting people healthy getting people back on the road to recovery it's not just addiction it's mental health too um and I'd like to see the money directed towards organizations like Howard I'd like to see the money directed towards prevention towards treatment towards intervention we're not as has been stated off we're not going to arrest our way out of this issue this is a public health issue it is not a public safety issue by itself because of it's a public health crisis there are public safety consequences but at its core this is a public health issue and it should be directed to public health organizations like the Howard Center Bob I don't know if you want to offer a few words generally speaking generally speaking um Howard is always pleased to receive funding to support the work that we do um if in fact there's a recovery then I would imagine that those dollars were they to come to how it's in or another treatment provided throughout the state it would relieve pressure on the state's general fund and then those dollars could be used for other social programs to meet needs of other communities could you give us you know how are things going in terms of our efforts to reduce talented overdoses I know the county has made some progress I wonder if you could just advance the conversation right you know the the the difficulty is when we look at the data we're looking at moments in time right now I think we are making significant progress I think it's fair to say that we're not seeing a huge increase in the number of new individuals that are struggling with an opioid use problem but we still have a very significant number of individuals in this state who are actively using and will ultimately need to enter into the treatment system over time why do you think that's the case that there is still a significant number of individuals that we haven't seen an increase in the number of people is it education that the general public is picking up on is it the doctors that are no longer prescribing opioids why are we not you know why is that increase diminishing yeah I I think that's a complex it's a complex answer I think there are multiple factors certainly I think the outreach and education efforts have had an impact the awareness of the issue is certainly a factor the actions that the state is taken with regard to the prescription monitoring system and the changes in prescription prescribing practices have really for the most part taken prescription opioids off the table so now we're dealing with the consequences of that as TJ had alluded to but you know there's no magic bullet I think one of the things that we all recognize for those of us that have been doing this for a long time is that substance use and abuse patterns run in cycles and that for a period of time depressant type drugs tend to be predominant and then they cycle in stimulant drugs like methamphetamine and cocaine become more dominant than they kind of cycle on a sine wave that opposes each other and we are seeing as the state has indicated some data to suggest an increase in stimulant abuse like cocaine and methamphetamine not just nationally but here in Vermont the most deserving aspect of that is that those drugs are now also involve fentanyl so it still raises the untoward outcome of sudden death well in the Purdue case we just submitted and the judge approved an order which sets out what's going to happen each step along the way in our case against Purdue and we have a trial date in uh 2021 first half of 2021 so um there'll be lots of steps between now and then and with the other two cases we don't have a schedule yet but it probably won't be super different are you going to talk to the settlement though I think the last time we had a press conference like this there was the Oklahoma that just said I'll introduce so are you how close I mean what I would say is that uh conversations are happening and that's what I would say can you be a little more serious no just uh conversations are happening you know I would just say to to follow up on on Bob's point um but we've done a lot of good things as a state to address this issue but last week I met with a family who lost a daughter to an overdose fentanyl and that's our challenge until no one no one else dies no one else gets started that's our challenge that may be an impossible goal but that's our goal we should uh do everything we possibly can uh to help those who are struggling with this addiction which is a devastating uh powerful addiction and we should do everything we can to prevent anybody from getting started and that's you know what's gonna that's gonna take that's gonna take money let's be honest about that that's gonna take money you know if we can't get it from the state the state has done we've done good um we gotta look for other sources and then the question is how where does that money go where do we get our most bang for our buck and so when we talk about these issues I think we could be talking about the the full landscape here um in terms of prevention in terms of treatment acknowledging the work we've done as a state acknowledging the work that the Howard Center has done uh but to those parents we met last week their daughters never given them back um and this was somebody who started with prescription drugs transition to heroin and who died as a result of a fentanyl overdose in our state so this this challenge is real this challenge is ongoing and for me this is our priority because we can do better the lawsuit today uh the court finalism should have been superior yes as are the other lawsuits and is it structured the same way the other two where you have the outside outside of law firms yes yeah yeah yes same same law firm there is a settlement would it be based on per capita use or sales would would some of those uh from on chance be incorporated we're having those conversations sure um we've got the state legislature looking towards adjournment there's been a couple of bills um that have caught people's attention the gun bill and the abortion bill in particular do you anticipate any court uh challenges to those bills um i support both those bills um i hope the governor signs both of them yes i think given the legal challenge to the gun bill from last year i would anticipate another legal challenge as to the abortion bill which i support i would anticipate a legal challenge and we will vigorously defend both those bills or should they become law but with the abortion bill um you already got abortion in statute i mean what would a lawsuit mean my father used to say you can never prevent a lawsuit you can prevent a good lawsuit though so i i we'll see what happens i'm the governor's bill one case of volunteer as your office received for the results of the investigation yes what's the status of any timeline idea on the line no timeline uh we have the investigation and we're reviewing it thank you for coming thank you to our center thank you