When Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy in 2019, nearly 140,000 individuals filed claims seeking compensation for harm caused by the company’s opioid products, including OxyContin. For many, the process represented not just a chance at financial redress but a long-delayed opportunity to hold the Sackler family accountable for their role in fueling the national opioid crisis. After years of legal delays and a Supreme Court rejection of an initial settlement plan that would have shielded the Sacklers from future liability, a revised $7.4 billion bankruptcy plan was approved in November 2025. However, an investigation by ProPublica and The Philadelphia Inquirer revealed that the final agreement excludes tens of thousands of original claimants, leaving fewer than half eligible for any compensation despite the company’s public characterization of the settlement as meaningful for victims.
The revised plan, which includes $870 million designated for individual claimants, imposed stricter evidence requirements and eliminated a key provision that had allowed individuals to submit sworn affidavits in lieu of prescription or medical records to prove their exposure to Purdue opioids. This change disproportionately affected those who obtained the drugs through informal channels or whose medical records had been destroyed over time — a common occurrence given that pharmacies and physicians are generally required to retain prescription records for only a few years under state and federal guidelines. Many long-time applicants, including parents who lost children to overdose and individuals who developed addiction after legitimate prescriptions, found their claims denied not because of ineligibility in principle, but because they could no longer produce documentation from years or decades prior.
Among those affected is Mary Jannotta, a 77-year-old former supermarket worker from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, who developed a dependence on OxyContin following a botched back surgery in 2008. Her grandson, Tyler Cordeiro, first took her prescription pills as a teenager and died of an overdose in 2020 at age 24. Jannotta submitted a claim and provided pharmacy records showing 16 qualifying prescriptions, yet her claim was twice flagged for rejection by the trust administrator — first for missing a revised deadline and again for allegedly insufficient proof, despite her documentation. She spoke before the bankruptcy court in November 2025, stating, “The legal system should be where the powerless can finally be heard, but in this courtroom it’s being used to shield the powerful.” The following day, Judge Sean H. Lane approved the plan, describing the burden of proof as “very modest” and “an exceedingly low bar.”
Others, like Ellen Isaacs of Michigan, described the impossibility of retrieving classic records. Her son, Ryan, began using OxyContin after a high school injury and died of an overdose in Florida in 2018 at age 33. “I can’t turn up prescriptions for my son back when he was young, years ago,” she said. “They’re not available anymore.” Similar stories emerged from claimants across the country, many of whom said they were unaware of the tightened requirements until contacted by journalists. Cheryl Juaire of Massachusetts, who lost two sons to overdose and served on a plaintiffs’ committee, said she was “being bombarded with calls from folks saying, ‘Hey, I put in a claim and I’m getting rejected. I can’t get that prescription.’ It’s breaking my heart.”
The changes to eligibility and compensation were not debated in open court. According to a review of nearly 1,000 pages of hearing transcripts, there were no in-depth public discussions about the differences between the original and revised plans. Instead, the shifts emerged through filings beginning in March 2025, when Purdue submitted documents that crossed out earlier benefit levels and eligibility criteria without explanation. By April, the court had approved the revised process and authorized the hiring of Edward Gentle, a Birmingham, Alabama-based attorney who specializes in administering trusts for mass tort victims, to begin reviewing claims. Under the new framework, claimants were required to submit evidence within 30 days of notification or risk exclusion — a timeline that caught many off guard after years of dormancy in the process.
Under the revised plan, the minimum payout for qualifying claimants was set at $8,000, up from $3,500 in the earlier proposal. However, estimated awards for families of those who died from overdose were reduced to as little as $8,000, down from a prior benchmark of $48,000 for OxyContin-related deaths. The Sackler family contributed an additional $100 million to the victims’ fund, bringing the total for individual compensation to approximately $970 million. Despite this, more than half of the original 140,000 claimants were excluded — a figure that includes roughly 80,000 individuals who missed the final evidence submission deadline in July 2025 and were formally removed from consideration by a court-approved motion. While some of these individuals may still pursue legal action against the Sacklers directly, such lawsuits face significant hurdles, including the lack of bankruptcy protections and the passage of time.
The financial structure of the settlement has also drawn criticism. Over $100 million of the total trust is allocated to cover legal fees and administrative costs, with firms like ASK LLP and its partner, Andrews & Higgins, having signed up to 30,000 claimants under agreements that entitle them to up to 40% of individual awards. Maureen Kielian, a Florida claimant who lost her son to addiction, criticized the arrangement: “Many of us buried children and you are going to walk away with more money than we will ever spot.” She noted that while the settlement may offer some acknowledgment of wrongdoing, it falls far short of addressing the lifelong costs of addiction, rehabilitation, and lost potential.
As of early 2026, the trust continues to review claims, with no public timeline for when all determinations will be finalized or when payments will begin to flow. Claimants are advised to monitor the official website of the Purdue Products Liability Trust for updates on eligibility criteria, submission deadlines, and appeal procedures. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York retains oversight of the case, and any future hearings or filings will be posted on its public docket.
The outcome of this settlement underscores the enduring challenges in delivering accountability for widespread corporate harm, particularly when the passage of time erodes the very evidence needed to prove injury. For thousands of families who waited years for a chance at recognition, the final terms have felt less like justice and like another barrier in a long line of obstacles.