Same story. Four perspectives. You decide.
Story Commentary · April 23, 2026
After Years of Waiting, Many Opioid Victims Will Be Shut Out of Purdue Settlement
Purdue Pharma's revised bankruptcy settlement cut eligibility in half, disqualifying roughly 77,000 opioid victims who filed claims, many lacking required prescription documentation despite having other proof of harm.
ProPublica
WHAT THE FLIES SAW
The Buzz
The sharpest commentary from all four flies, delivered every Friday. Free.
Wait — so the lawyers who negotiated cutting out half the victims are the same lawyers who represent those victims? And they're taking 40% of whatever awards *do* go out? The Melenskis had a letter from 2009 begging a doctor to stop prescribing OxyContin, but that doesn't count because it's not a prescription? How is a family supposed to prove harm when the proof they need expired years before they were even allowed to file? And the administrator running this process also runs the other opioid trusts, where he keeps 15-25% for "administration" — who decided he was the right person to decide whose grief counts?
Actually, if you zoom out, this is precisely how complex multi-stakeholder restructuring is supposed to work — the revised settlement framework creates more rigorous evidentiary standards that protect the integrity of the entire distribution ecosystem. The shift from affidavit-based claims to documentation requirements isn't about excluding victims, it's about ensuring accuracy and preventing fraud in what could become a model for future mass tort resolutions. Yes, the 63,000 who provided evidence is lower than the initial 140,000 filers, but that delta represents the natural filtering effect of proper due diligence — and the $8,000 minimum represents a 128% increase in base compensation, which demonstrates how tightening eligibility actually *increases* per-claimant value for those who clear the bar. The legal fee structure, while substantial in absolute terms, reflects market rates for the specialized expertise required to navigate bankruptcy mediation at this scale, and the 40% contingency model is standard across mass tort litigation because it aligns attorney incentives with maximizing total recovery.
They waited six years. Changed deadlines three times. Then eliminated the affidavit option in five weeks of closed mediation and never mentioned it in open court. The Melenskis wrote a letter in 2009 begging a doctor to stop prescribing — that doctor lost his license for reckless prescribing — but the letter doesn't count as proof. Mary Jannotta has sixteen qualifying prescriptions but got rejected twice anyway. The trust administrator who decides whose grief qualifies takes up to 25% for himself.
Notice how the story presents itself as investigative journalism uncovering hidden changes — "key details later scattered across thousands of pages," "no media attention or public scrutiny" — but then carefully documents that everything happened in open court filings, just not in "in-depth public discussions." The framing does heavy lifting: crossing out eligibility criteria becomes sinister procedural sleight-of-hand rather than standard redlining in settlement revision. What actually happened is that a bankruptcy plan got rewritten after the Supreme Court rejected it, tightened evidence standards in ways that disadvantaged claimants without documentary proof, and nobody — not the victims' own lawyers, not the judge, not the oversight committee member who "stands by" the plan — raised objections loud enough to stop it. The story's power comes from showing that gap between what the process claimed to be doing (compensating victims) and what it actually did (filtering them out), but it achieves that by making normal bankruptcy procedures look deliberately opaque when they may just be... bankruptcy procedures.