News - Page 24 of 37 - Laws101.com

Purdue Pharma Opioid Lawsuit and Settlement

Legal Assistant December 23, 2019Mass Torts, Personal Injury Law, Resources Leave a Comment

Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical giant that makes OxyContin is facing an estimated 3,000 lawsuits against it for its role in perpetuating the US opioid crisis that has plagued the country for the past two decades.

According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), prescription opioid-related deaths make up for a whopping 68% of all drug overdose deaths recorded in any given year.

The lawsuits, which were filed by counties, cities, and states have all been consolidated into one big case where they allege that the company, alongside its owners – the Sackler family, is responsible for the opioid devastation that has rocked the nation in recent years.

This article takes an in-depth look at everything you need to know about the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma.

Who Owns Purdue Pharma?

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately owned pharmaceutical that was established in Manhattan in 1892 by two medical doctors – John Purdue Gray and George Frederick Birmingham. The company was initially called the Purdue Frederick Company.

In 1952, the company was bought by three other medical doctors – Authur Sackler, Raymond Sackler, and Mortimer Sackler – who also happened to be brothers. They have all since died.

Present-day Purdue was incorporated in 1991. It zoned in on developing medication focused on pain management. Some of the company’s pain medication includes oxycodone, codeine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, and fentanyl. It is perhaps best known for OxyContin, which was launched in 1996.

As of 2018, the Sackler family had eight members listed to be active/former members of the Purdue Board of Directors. However, by the beginning of 2019, not a single one of them was left on the panel that currently comprises five members. Richard Sackler, the son of Raymond Sackler, served as both chairman and president of Purdue.

Other members of the Sackler family who have previously been involved in Purdue include Raymond’s wife Beverly Sackler (who died in October 2019), their other son Jonathan Sackler, and grandson David Sackler. David has been the de facto family spokesman since the allegations against the company first surfaced.

Purdue Pharma Lawsuit: Overview

The lawsuits filed against the company claim that its practices have been deceptive and misleading, the result of which has contributed to the 400,000+ lives that have been lost since 1999 due to the opioid crisis.

For this reason, Purdue is partly responsible for those deaths, and the plaintiffs, through their attorneys, intend to hold the multibillion-dollar company liable. Additionally, some of the lawsuits also allege that the Sackler family drained the company’s finances to enrich themselves.

The New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal reiterated that the Sacklers built a multibillion-dollar empire by fuelling opioid addiction among unsuspecting members of the community. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey was the first to include members of the Sackler family in the consolidated lawsuit.

Purdue Pharma said that it was working tirelessly with state attorneys and other plaintiffs to reach an amicable settlement solution that would save the country from “…years of wasteful litigation and appeals”. It, however, stated that it was prepared to defend itself vigorously if it came down to it.

Purdue Pharma Oklahoma Lawsuit

In Oklahoma, the Attorney General Mike Hunter, who accused Purdue of aggressively marketing their top opioid painkiller – OxyContin, reached a $270 million settlement agreement with the giant pharmaceutical corporation.

Hunter argued that the company was guilty of overstating the drug’s benefits while underplaying its risks, which have played a big role in fueling the opioid crisis that’s been plaguing the state for the past two decades.

$102.5 million of the settlement is to be channeled towards establishing a National Addiction Treatment and Research Center at Oklahoma State University. The agreement further stipulated that Purdue is required to contribute an additional $15 million every year beginning in 2020 for five years towards funding the program.

The deal also requires Purdue to pay $20 million for opioid rescue and addiction medication. This is to be spread over five years. $12.5 million of the settlement will be channeled directly towards helping counties and cities in the state in their opioid crisis eradication efforts.

Part of the agreement also compels the Sackler family to pay $75 million over five years to fund the treatment and research center. Despite the Purdue Pharma settlement, the company continues to deny any wrongdoing, stating that their marketing campaigns were appropriate. At the time of the settlement, Oklahoma was slated to be the first of the 36 states to go to trial before a jury who would essentially be the ones who determine Purdue’s culpability.

Purdue Pharma Global Settlement Agreement

In September 2019, Purdue Pharma announced that it reached a settlement agreement in principle with the plaintiffs. This move was seen as an attempt to blunt the effects of litigation if the case were to proceed to trial. Some of the highlights of the agreement indicate that Purdue would have to:

Provide more than $10 billion of value to address the opioid epidemic in the country
File for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
Dissolve and transfer all of its assets to a new entity or trust established for the benefit of claimants and the American people
Agree that a new Board of Directors will be formed to govern the new entity. Plaintiffs would be the ones who select the members of the new board
Adopt a new mission, which would be to potentially “supply tens of millions of doses of opioid addiction and overdose reversal treatment medication at no or low cost”
Agree to be permanently bound by injunctive relief which would include marketing restrictions on the promotion and sale of opioids

The terms of the settlement also require the Sackler families to contribute a minimum of $3 billion with the allowance for additional monetary contributions generated from the revenue from their overseas pharmaceutical businesses.

Plaintiffs’ Concerns

Not all quarters of the plaintiffs’ side have welcomed the deal. About two dozen state attorneys and several local governments and tribes object to the deal stating that they should push for Purdue and the Sacklers to pay much more than the “measly” $10 billion they’ve put on the table.

According to Massachusetts Attorney General Healey, the settlement is nowhere near what Purdue claims it to be, and there is no open admission of any wrongdoing on their part. She insists that Purdue needs to publish all their documents online for public scrutiny.

New York Attorney General Letitia James accused the Sacklers of secretly transferring $1 billion from Purdue Pharma to their offshore accounts, in an attempt to hide the funds from creditors in bankruptcy court. This finding was the result of one of the dozens of subpoenas served to advisers and institutions known to have previously done business with the Sacklers.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro voiced concerns over the fact that the claimants would continue to benefit from continued revenue generated from the company’s opioid sales. He stated that profiting off of the very product that is causing widespread death and devastation was “problematic at best”.

Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy: What It Means for the Settlement Agreement

Purdue Pharma filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in a move designed to shield the company and its owners from the state and federal lawsuits currently plaguing it. The terms of filing included a comprehensive proposed settlement “in principle”.

An agreement in principle is usually a stepping stone to a legally binding contract between all litigating parties. It specifies the expression of intent and still leaves room for negotiation.

Several states led by New York and Massachusetts state attorney have rejected the settlement offer and have stated their intent to fiercely pursue the company’s owners, the Sacklers.

At the heart of the tentative settlement agreement was the restructuring of the company through bankruptcy and what was termed as an all-encompassing solution that dedicates all the company’s assets and resources in their entirety towards settling lawsuits and for the benefit of the American public.

The Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing automatically prompts a stay in all civil litigation the company is facing, including those over the opioid crisis.

What Does Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Mean for a Company?

Chapter 11, which has been named after the US bankruptcy code 11, is a type of bankruptcy that involves the reorganization of a debtor’s assets, debts, and other business affairs. Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is different from Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in that in the latter; an entity has to stop all operations and go completely out of business. In such instances, a trustee is usually appointed to liquidate all the company’s assets and resources so that the money can be channeled towards paying off creditors.

In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the company is allowed to continue its operations but after undergoing an intensive restructuring process. The proposed reorganization plan has to be in the best interest of the creditors. If the company in question fails to propose a plan, the creditors are at liberty to go ahead and propose one instead.

The possibility of Purdue filing bankruptcy isn’t anything new. It has been in the pipeline since 2018 when the pharmaceutical named Steve Miller, a renowned restructuring specialist, the chair of its board. The company also hired the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, which is a predominantly bankruptcy-law practice.

Bankruptcy Court Precedent: Why the Purdue Case Is Different

Purdue isn’t the first company to undergo restructuring to resolve litigation. A precedent was set by the 1982 Johns Manville Personal Injury case where the asbestos maker sought bankruptcy protection against thousands of mesothelioma lawsuits.

Another precedent was set, but the Dow Corning case where the silicone breast implants manufacturer filed for bankruptcy protection in 1995 to shield the company against thousands of lawsuits as well. The Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case is however unique in some aspects.

For starters, Purdue’s list of creditors comprises mainly of federal and state litigants. The claims that Johns Manville and Dow Corning had to settle were filed by thousands of individual litigants, whereas the 3,000 cases against Purdue represent anywhere between tens of thousands to millions of US citizens.

There’s also the issue that the plaintiffs, in this case, are governments. This means the states like New York and Massachusetts that are objecting to the proposal, have the right to argue that their authority to protect their citizens gives them the mandate to override any bankruptcy protection sought by the Sacklers. On the flip side, bankruptcy courts are federal. It is, therefore, not clear whether state law is persuasive in this instance.

A federal bankruptcy judge also has to rule on whether the objections to the tentative deal being raised by the opposing states warrant the scuttling of the agreement in principle that’s in place or if they are bound by its terms as well.

There are a host of other nettlesome issues that also need to be ironed out, such as the order in which plaintiffs will be paid out, how much each one should receive as settlement and the allocation plans, or how the funds will be used to eradicate the opioid epidemic.

Fraudulent Conveyance: How It Might Impact the Sackler Bankruptcy Claim

If the Sackler family is found to have transferred billions of dollars into their private accounts and shell corporations as the opposing state attorneys claim, it might end up piercing their bankruptcy shield. Additionally, many states claim that the Sacklers have violated their local state fraud and consumer protection laws. This gives them leeway to pursue the wealthy family in their state courts.

It’s Far from Over

As far as the Purdue Pharma opioid lawsuit and settlement goes, the move by the company to file for bankruptcy changes the course of the entire case. It now shifts the focus to wrangling over how the proceeds from the assets will be divided up among the 3,000 litigants and whether the proposed $10 billion to $12 billion settlement valuation is accurate and enough to make a difference in the communities ravaged by the opioid addiction epidemic. For now, the public is watching keenly to see how it all plays out.

If you have more legal questions about a drug injury case, you can comment below or chat online with a Laws101.com attorney, where you’ll be instantly connected to a lawyer who can give you legal guidance on your specific case or question.

Johnson and Johnson Oklahoma Opioid Lawsuit

Legal Assistant December 23, 2019Mass Torts, Personal Injury Law, Resources Leave a Comment

An estimated 130 people in the US die every day from opioid overdoses. In 2017 alone, it was responsible for more than 70,000 deaths. The abuse and misuse of opioids – including heroin, prescription pain medication, and synthetic ones like fentanyl have become a national crisis that needs to be nipped in the bud.

The first step to doing this is to hold the pharmaceutical giants that manufacture and market these drugs, accountable for the role they play in promoting the epidemic.

The genesis of the crisis can be traced back to the late 1990s when these companies assured medical practitioners that patients would not become addicted to prescription pain relievers made from opioids.

As a result, the number of medical care providers prescribing them to their patients began to soar. The result? The widespread abuse of and addiction to these products emerged and thousands of Americans began to die from opioid overdoses.

The landmark ruling in the Johnson and Johnson lawsuit marked a giant step in putting pharmaceutical companies in check to fight the war against addiction to prescription opioids. This article delves deep into the famous Oklahoma opioid lawsuit and what it means for pharmaceutical companies going forward.

Oklahoma vs. Johnson and Johnson

Can a state make a major pharmaceutical pay for the pain and devastation its products cause to the general public? That is the question that was on everyone’s minds when the Oklahoma State decided to go head to head with Big Pharma in the historical opioid trial.

The state’s Attorney General Mike Hunter accused giant drug makers like Johnson and Johnson, Purdue Pharma, and Teva pharmaceuticals of perpetuating a deceitful and cynical brainwashing campaign worth millions of dollars promoting opioid analgesics as some sort of magical wonder drug.

He presented a mountain of irrefutable evidence to demonstrate the role they play in the opioid crisis that is devastating the state. He revealed that over 4,000 people died of overdoses involving prescription opioids in the past decade.

A majority of these deaths were the result of unintentional overdosing. He went further to show that more than 28,000 people had been admitted for heroin and prescription opioid treatment in state-run drug facilities.

Oklahoma ranks seventh in the nation for opioid prescription drug abuse among children aged between 12 and 17 years old. Moreover, hundreds of babies are diagnosed with opioid-induced neonatal abstinence syndrome each year. Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a medical term that refers to a cumulative group of health issues that develop in newborns who were exposed to addictive substances while in their mother’s womb.

According to the AG, Big Pharma, in its quest to satiate its greed ignored volumes of well-documented historical research that established a clear association between opiates and fatal addiction epidemics.

The state attorney and his team decided to focus their attention on drug “kingpin” Johnson and Johnson stating that the company is responsible for the public nuisance it has created which in turn continues to cost the state billions of dollars in trying to “clean up” its mess and destroying thousands of lives in the process.

Johnson and Johnson Defense

Larry Ottaway, the defense lawyer representing Johnson and Johnson, rubbished the state’s allegations stating that opioids are generally rarely addictive. They cited the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) stance, which was that the drugs, when used as they should, rarely cause addiction.

The defense team went on to show that the state’s allegations that the pharmaceutical company markets opioids to children, were utterly false. The went on to prove this by playing a video commercial that appeared to encourage children to stay away from consuming the prescription drugs of others.

He further justified that Johnson and Johnson were doing a public service by helping millions of Americans who suffer from chronic pain, which according to statistics from the CDC, accounts for 20% of deaths each year.

He argued that chronic pain leads to depression, which ultimately causes death. He faulted the state for failing in its oversight responsibility to monitor and rectify illegal prescribers of opioid medication stating that shutting down legitimate access to treatment was not a fair alternative to those who need the drugs.

He challenged the state team to prove that the company’s marketing campaigns were misleading and that patients who took the drug as prescribed ended up dead or addicted.

He referred to accusations made by the state against the company as “baseless and unsubstantiated”, adding that all their prescription medication provided clear information about the risks associated with taking them as well as the benefits patients reap when they take them correctly.

The Effects of the Oklahoma Opioid Crisis

State attorneys told the court that the opioid crisis in the state of Oklahoma has had far-reaching and adverse implications on the community at large. The prescription opioid analgesics manufactured by Big Pharma have caused marriages and families to tear apart, and have cost the country more than $500 billion to deal with the addiction epidemic that is sweeping the nation. They reiterated that the Johnson and Johnson products had been marketed to target anyone and everyone.

To drive the point home, research conducted in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, by the state team, revealed that more than 149,000 sales visits had been made to doctors between 1999 and 2005, and a staggering 135 opioid pills were available to virtually every adult in the country.

They argued that Johnson and Johnson competed with other opioid manufacturers like Purdue Pharma to find new ways of getting patients hooked on their drugs so that they would continue taking them.

Purdue Settlement

Before the Johnson and Johnson suit was filed in 2017, the Oklahoma attorney general had bagged two major settlements from other large opioid manufacturers. The first of these was a $270 million settlement from Purdue Pharma, the company famous for OxyContin. Hunter accused the pharmaceutical of aggressively marketing the opioid, which in turn fueled the addiction epidemic that is currently plaguing the state.

$102.5 million of the settlement would go towards establishing a National Addiction Treatment and Research facility at Oklahoma State University. The company would also be required to contribute an additional $15 million in payments each year for five years beginning in 2020 in continued support of the program.

Part of the settlement also required them to provide $20 million to cater for opioid rescue medications and addiction treatment at the facility over the five years.

$12.5 million would go directly towards helping counties and cities battling the opioid crisis. Away from the company, the Sackler family, the founders of Purdue Pharma, were compelled to contribute a total of $75 million spread over five years to go towards the treatment and research center.

The settlement came after the Purdue defense team sought to have the trial delayed for 100 days. The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected their appeal. So far, the giant pharmaceutical company is battling lawsuits that have been filed by 36 other states, with Oklahoma being the first to set a precedent.

Purdue settled the suit without admitting to any wrongdoing. According to Hunter, the company deceived the public into believing that their opioid analgesics were safe for prolonged use.

Teva Opioid Settlement

In a revised settlement between the State of Oklahoma and Teva Pharmaceuticals, the company was ordered to pay $85 million that would be channeled towards curbing the opioid addiction epidemic running rampant in the state.

The company was required to pay the amount within three days to the law firm that has been working on the case on behalf of the state. The money is to be wired to the state treasury’s Opioid Lawsuit Settlement Fund once the private law firm that was representing the state withdrew its legal fees.

The state proposed a 30-year opioid epidemic eradication plan that is estimated to cost $17.5 billion. The money from the settlement was to be channeled towards that. Part of the Teva opioid settlement included a clause prohibiting the company from employing or contracting sales representatives to promote their opioid products in the state.

The company also agreed to refrain from using lectures and well-known opinion leaders from promoting opioids. The company is also required to cooperate with law enforcement investigations involving the use of opioids in Oklahoma. The spirit of the agreement was to help protect the general public and doctors from being misled by deceptive marketing materials that downplay the addiction factor of opioid medication.

Johnson and Johnson Settlement

According to the judge presiding over the case, the ruling stated that Johnson and Johnson had intentionally overplayed the benefits of their so-called opioid wonder-drug while downplaying its addictive properties and dangers associated with it. The company was ordered to pay $465 million, which fell short of the $17 billion the state had initially sought.

According to the AG, the amount was to pay for drug courts, addiction treatment, and other drug eradication-related services it would need to offer over the next 20 years to reverse the devastation caused by the opioid crisis. In his ruling, the judge found that the pharmaceutical was in breach of the “public nuisance” law.

He further noted that the company had built a reputation spanning decades as a family-friendly and trustworthy manufacturer of baby products, soap, and Band-Aids. It was therefore unacceptable that the company would ride on that sterling reputation to promulgate false, dangerous and misleading marketing campaigns promoting their opioids.

As a result, they had a big part to play in the ever-rising rates of addiction, overdoses, and deaths related to opiate-based prescription analgesics. Additionally, the number of babies born with neonatal abstinence syndrome as a result of opioid exposure while in the womb needed to be dealt with, with the seriousness it deserves.

While the AG would have liked to walk out with the $17 billion settlement the state sought, the judge advised that the $465 million would suffice to pay for a years’ worth of the services required to combat the addiction epidemic plaguing the state.

The Drug “Kingpin”

The Johnson and Johnson legal team stated that they had several grounds on which to appeal and would pursue those avenues vigorously. Johnson and Johnson were labeled the drug “kingpin”, given the fact that they had the financial muscle to directly contract poppy growers in Tasmania to grow the ingredients.

Because of this, the company was responsible for supplying a whopping 60% of the opiate ingredients required to manufacture drugs like oxycodone.

Additionally, the subsidiary company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, also manufactures its opioids by creating synthetic variants of the poppy-derived ingredients. It also produces a fentanyl patch that is also synthetic and similar to morphine but is up to 50 times more potent. It has now become one of the most common prescription drugs responsible for overdose deaths in the US.

As a result of the precedent set by this landmark ruling, there are currently more than 2000 similar lawsuits that have been filed around the country targeting opioid manufacturers, retailers, and distributors.

In light of the historic ruling, the vice president of Johnson and Johnson Michael Ullmann came out strongly to condemn it, stating that both the company and its subsidiary were not responsible for causing the opioid crisis in Oklahoma, citing that it was “a very complex health issue”.

Between the years 2015 and 2018, Oklahoma had 18 million prescriptions written in a state that only has 3.9 million people. Those numbers certainly point to an addiction crisis. The state estimates that it would need approximately $893 million each year to be able to remediate the adverse effects opioid addiction has brought to the state.

The Battle Is Far from Over

If the Johnson and Johnson company does proceed with its appeal, state appeal judges (and possibly federal as well) may have a somewhat skeptical view of Oklahoma’s legal theory on the company’s role in perpetuating public nuisance and the extent of its liability in general. If there’s one certain thing, the legal battle between Oklahoma and Big Pharma is far from over.

If you have more legal questions, you can also chat online with a Laws101.com attorney, where you’ll be instantly connected to a lawyer who can give you legal guidance on your specific case or question.

Diplomatic Immunity: Who Gets It and When They Don’t

Legal Assistant December 23, 2019International Law, Resources Leave a Comment

The recent death of Harry Dunn, a 19-year old British national left many tongues wagging about the peculiar legal status that is diplomatic immunity. Anne Sacoolas, the wife of a US diplomat who became the subject of an investigation after her car collided with the teenager’s motorcycle, left the UK shortly after the unfortunate incident occurred.

British authorities expressed their condolences to the bereaved family, saying that they would “explore all opportunities through diplomatic channels” to ensure unanswered questions surrounding the young man’s death would be answered to give them closure on the matter. From a legal standpoint, Sacoolas is protected by diplomatic immunity, given that she is married to a US diplomat.

But what is diplomatic immunity? Who has it, and how far does it extend? This article explores those questions in depth.

What Is Diplomatic Immunity?

It is a term that refers to a principle in international law that limits the extent to which employees and officials of foreign governments and international organizations are subject to the authority of law enforcement and judicial officers in the countries they’re assigned to work in.

It is a common misconception that these individuals can get away with anything. However, there are existing legal standards that govern the diplomatic community, especially in the US. This legal framework is modeled on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations through which the New York Convention is interpreted.

It’s important to mention here that the principle doesn’t apply to all foreign government and international organization employees. When it does, it is subject to the extenuating circumstances surrounding the incident in question as well as the different categories and subcategories to which the individual and their families/dependents belong to.

Difference Between Diplomat and Consular

The two terms are often used interchangeably as many people erroneously think that they mean the same thing. They don’t.

A diplomat is a high-ranking official in an embassy who serves as the official representative of their home country in the host country they’ve been assigned to. They are stationed in an embassy, which is much larger than a consulate and is a permanent diplomatic mission generally located in the host country’s capital. They are charged with handling major issues like safeguarding the rights of their home country’s citizens abroad.

A consular, on the other hand, is the chief diplomat who serves in a consulate, which is essentially a smaller version of an embassy. They handle minor issues like issuing visas, looking after the interests of expatriates, migrants, tourists, and helping to promote trade relationships between their home and host countries. They typically located in larger tourist cities outside the country’s capital.

Who Has Diplomatic Immunity and Who Doesn’t

Generally speaking, it covers diplomats and their families. The provisions of the Vienna Convention stipulate the major personnel who enjoy diplomatic protection.

Embassy Personnel: High Ranking Foreign Diplomats

High ranking embassy officials such as ambassadors, who interact directly with the officials of the host country on behalf of their home country, enjoy the highest level of diplomatic immunity. The same extends to members of their families. Law enforcement agencies cannot arrest or detain them, nor can they search or seize their homes or properties, respectively.

So, if an ambassador gets sued for failing to service their mortgage premiums, the worst-case scenario is that they’ll lose the title to the property. The legal system in the host country, however, cannot compel them to pay damages, nor can they be evicted from the home.

Embassy Personnel: Administrative and Technical Staff

The next sub-category of embassy personnel is the administrative and technical staff. These are the individuals who offer direct support to ambassadorial activities in the host country. Examples of such people are personal assistants.

They enjoy the same level of immunity from law enforcement and criminal courts as their high ranking counterparts but not as much immunity from the civil courts.

Anyone can file a lawsuit against them for any reason except for activities that were performed in line with their official duties. However, this exception does not apply to their family members. So an ambassador’s PA who defaults on their mortgage premiums can end up not only losing the title to their home but can also get sued for damages.

Embassy Personnel: Indirect Support Staff

Embassy support staff who support ambassadorial activities, albeit indirectly, have the lowest degree of immunity. Employees in this category include chauffeurs for instance. They only enjoy criminal and civil protection for actions performed in line with their official duties.

In certain rare cases, administrative, technical, and indirect support staff may enjoy the same level of exemptions as that of high ranking diplomats. However, this only happens when there’s a custom home country and host country agreement for that specific purpose. On the other end of the spectrum, home countries could also waive the benefit entirely.

Embassy Personnel: Nationals of the Host Country

Embassy employees who are permanent residents or nationals of the country of assignment do not get any level of diplomatic immunity whatsoever. The same applies to their family members.

Consular Personnel

Consular personnel generally enjoy lower levels of immunity than embassy personnel. They benefit from full immunity for incidences that occur in line with their official duties and are subject to criminal prosecution for activities that fall outside that range.

However, they can only be detained on felony charges. This protection doesn’t apply to members of their families.

Consular technical and administrative staff members only enjoy immunity for behavior that is in line with their official duties. Other lower ranking consular employees do not enjoy any diplomatic immunity unless provided for in a special treaty between the home and host countries.

International Organization Representatives

High-ranking international organization representatives enjoy the same level of immunity as high-ranking diplomatic agents. Lower-ranking employees only benefit from protection for actions performed in line with their official duties.

However, not all high-ranking officials of international organization representatives enjoy equal levels of diplomatic protection. For instance, the UN Secretary-General enjoys full diplomatic immunity, whereas the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Director does not.

There Are Exceptions to the Rule

Diplomatic immunity doesn’t mean that its beneficiaries can get away with anything. Law enforcement officers are allowed to disregard whenever necessary if there’s an imminent threat to public safety.

For instance, a diplomat’s driver’s license suspension in cases of traffic violations, like driving under the influence (DUI).

If you have more legal questions, comment below or chat online with a Laws101.com attorney, where you’ll be instantly connected to a lawyer who can give you legal guidance on your specific case or question.

Extradition: When Crimes Cross-National Borders

Legal Assistant December 23, 2019International Law, Resources Leave a Comment

Remember when Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid getting extradited to Sweden in 2012? Well, it looks like his extradition woes had only just begun. At the time, he was facing sexual assault charges, which have since been dropped.

He was granted asylum by Ecuador to avoid possible extradition to the US to face 18 federal conspiracy charges related to leaking classified government secrets. However, in an unprecedented turn of events, Assange’s asylum was withdrawn and was subsequently arrested by the UK authorities.

UK’s home secretary Sajid Javid approved the extradition request, which might see him extradited to the US once he finishes his 50-week stint in a UK jail for jumping bail. The decision as to whether or not the request will be fulfilled ultimately lies with the courts.

It is the most talked-about extradition example in modern times. This article deciphers everything you need to know about the process.

What Does Extradition Mean?

The term refers to the formal process where one state surrenders an individual to another state to answer for crimes they committed in the latter state’s jurisdiction. The individual would then be prosecuted and, if found culpable, is subject to the punishment prescribed by the state’s governing law for their respective criminal activities.

This arrangement is facilitated by an existing bilateral or multilateral extradition treaty. In some instances, some non-extradition states can extradite without a treaty. However, such cases are few and far between.

Extradition Law 101: The Basics

First, before any two countries can extradite individuals to each other, a treaty between the two countries needs to exist. The US has treaties with more than 100 extradition countries across the globe as well as those within the European Union. Extraditable crimes generally include offenses that are punishable by a prison term of at least one year in both countries.

They include conspiracy or attempt to commit the offense in question, as well as special inclusions for offenses that involve foreign exchange, taxes, or customs duties. Treaties often exclude the extradition of an individual who happens to be a national of the requested state. So, if another country requested the US to extradite one of its citizens, that request would effectively be denied.

In other instances, states can refuse to grant requests if the offending individuals face the possibility of torture or capital punishment. When notorious serial killer Charles Ng fled to Canada, Canada weighed whether it should grant the US its extradition request.

This came after Canada had abolished the death penalty, whereas the US had not. In the end, they ultimately decided to extradite him since they didn’t want to set a precedent that would make the country a safe-haven for murders. When they did, they could have negotiated the terms to demand that Ng wouldn’t face capital punishment. Instead, they sent him back without any assurances whatsoever.

The Process: How It Works Between Countries with a Treaty

When the US wants to extradite someone residing in a foreign state with which it has a treaty in effect, the process begins by filing a complaint in any US court. The complainant has to stipulate the charges and abide by the treaty requirements.

Next, an extradition warrant will then be prepared by the courts and issued to the State Secretary, who will then proceed to contact the foreign government. This marks the beginning of the international extradition process. The requested state will then refer to the treaty obligations and also into its internal laws. This will inform its decision on whether or not to approve the request.

Several countries do not extradite individuals facing political crimes like espionage, treason, sedition, and those relating to criticism of political leaders. If you’re wondering how long an extradition process takes from request to surrender, the answer is, it varies widely. Cases involving the US take more than a year on average.

Extradition Without a Treaty

For countries with no extradition treaty with the US, it is still quite possible to extradite an individual who has committed a crime within the offending country’s jurisdiction. In such instances, the US has to negotiate with the non-extradition country. However, they might still reject the request. This is what happened with Julian Assange when he took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Since Ecuador doesn’t have a treaty with the US, it reserved the right to refuse to surrender him to the US authorities. Theoretically, Assange could have chosen to remain at the embassy until his death. However, when the Ecuadorian authorities got tired of his behavior, they withdrew their asylum, at which point he could then be arrested by the London police.

Some of the countries with which the US does not have treaties include China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and several Middle Eastern, formerly Soviet, and African countries.

The Infamous Hong Kong Extradition Bill

The Hong Kong government attempted to pass a law that would allow extradition to mainland China and all other jurisdictions that didn’t have an existing agreement with the region. Despite Hong Kong being part of China, it has always enjoyed a high degree of autonomy, which includes capitalist markets and free speech.

If the bill was signed into law, the US risked losing its special customs status with Hong Kong. The region’s exports to the US are not subject to the restrictive tariffs the Trump administration imposed on goods coming from mainland China. The bill has since been formally withdrawn following widespread pro-democracy protests that marred the region.

Keeping Interstate Crime at Bay

Given the spread of transnational crimes that transcend state borders, the extradition process has never been more important than it is today. It allows countries to crack down on individuals involved in terrorism, cybercrime, drug trafficking, and counterfeiting.

Nonetheless, even with airtight treaties in place, extraditions can sometimes become entangled in geographical and political friction, which can render an otherwise straightforward process, lengthy and complicated. In such cases, it is always a good idea to talk to an attorney.

Jeffrey Epstein Case – A Legal Timeline

Legal Assistant December 23, 2019Criminal Law, Personal Injury Law Leave a Comment

Following his arrest on July 8, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was charged with one count of sex trafficking and one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking. He pleaded not guilty to both charges and was remanded in jail awaiting trial after his application for bail was denied.

In August 2019, Epstein, a registered sex offender, was found dead in his cell as a result of what appeared to be an apparent suicide. But who was Jeffrey Epstein? What are the facts surrounding his arrest and accusations? What was he famous for? This article takes a detailed look at the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case and provides a legal timeline of events leading up to his death.

1953: Born In New York City

Jeffrey Epstein was born in 1953 in New York, where he was raised with his younger brother Mark by middle-class parents in Brooklyn. Their father worked for the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.

The Early 1970s: Attends College

Epstein attended the Cooper Union School of Engineering between 1969 and 1971but never obtained a degree. He then attended New York University between 1971 and 1974 as a visiting student but didn’t take up any specific degree program. (Different sources state that he attended the Courant School of Mathematics during that time).

1973: Becomes Teacher at Dalton School

Epstein went on to become a physics and mathematics teacher at the Dalton School – an exclusive private school located in the Upper East Side of Manhattan in the early 1970s. He landed the role during the period when Donald Barr, the father of the sitting Attorney General in Epstein’s case – William Barr. William had initially refused to recuse himself in the case.

His teaching stint, however, didn’t last long before getting dismissed for “poor performance” a few months after he first began.

1976: Epstein Joins Bear Stearns

In 1976, he hung his teaching boots and joined Bear Stearns Company Inc., a global investment bank, brokerage firm, and securities trading company. This was after he got the push he needed from one of his student’s parents, who urged him to pursue a career on Wall Street.

He joined as a low-level junior assistant before rapidly rising through the ranks to become a limited partner. In 1981 he was asked to leave abruptly due to a Regulation D Violation. He, however, remained a client of the firm until its collapse in 2008.

1981 – 1988: Launches His Own Companies

In 1981, he left to start his own consulting firm – Intercontinental Assets Group (IAG). The company’s specialty lay in recovering stolen money from fraudulent lawyers and brokers.

In 1988 he founded a financial management firm – J. Epstein & Co., whose investment portfolio had more than US$ 1 billion. One of his firm’s notable clients was Leslie Wexner, a publicly known billionaire who was the CEO and chairperson of Victoria’s Secret and L Brands.

Epstein was often seen attending Victoria’s Secret fashion shows and often hosted the models for lavish parties at this New York City home. According to a 2003 Vanity Fair article, the Wexner and Epstein were very close.

1990: Purchases Secluded Property in Palm Beach

Epstein buys the now-infamous mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, where he allegedly sexually abused several underage girls who were lured there for money. The house is partially obscured by a tall hedge overlooking a lake.

1992: Epstein Attends Party with Donald Trump

Epstein and Donald Trump attended a party together with 28 women who were specifically flown in to “provide entertainment”. They were the only people at the exclusive private pageant. Trump claims that the two had since had a falling out.

1996: Renames and Relocates Company

In 1996 he renamed his firm the Financial Trust Company and relocated it to the US Virgin Islands to reduce the amount of federal taxes he owed. According to various media reports, the company comprised 150 employees whose role was “purely administrative”.

1998: Buys Little St. James Island

Two years after moving his company to the US Virgin Islands, he went on to buy a 72-acre private island dubbed Epstein Island for $7.95 million in large part due to the millions he made in fees from managing Wexner’s financial affairs. Epstein’s net worth has been widely estimated to be in the billions, but, according to Forbes, he was likely worth a fraction of that.

Epstein reportedly employed hundreds of workers to build his island mansion along with a bizarre temple-like building on the property as well. These workers had reported signed nondisclosure agreements that barred them from divulging information about the goings-on they witnessed during their time there.

Little St. James was his primary residence, and it was where Epstein allegedly ran a sex trafficking ring with Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly recruited the underage girls.

The Late 1990s: Moves Into Manhattan’s Largest Mansion

Epstein’s acquisition of the mansion at 9 E. 71st St., still remains a mystery. Epstein declared it his property in an interview with the New York Times in 1996. An anonymous source who claims to be familiar with the issue claims that Wexner sold the home in 1998 to a company closely affiliated with Epstein. However, public records reveal that the title transfer wasn’t made until 2011 at no cost.

1999: Allegedly Forces Underage Girl to Have Sex with Prince Andrew

In January 2015, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a 31-year old woman, swore an affidavit in which she alleged that at the tender age of 15, Epstein held her as a sex slave against her will. She also asserted that lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and Jeff Epstein were just some of the famous men that abused her for several years at the mansion in Palm Beach. She claims that she was initially approached by Maxwell while working at Mar-a-Lago, who offered to provide her with massage training before being taken to Epstein’s mansion.

Roberts later filed a lawsuit against Maxwell on the grounds of defamation. The latter settled out of court.

2002: Allegedly rapes high school student

In a TV interview, Jennifer Araoz alleges that a young woman who was waiting outside her school, approached her and took her to Epstein’s enormous New York mansion. She alleges that the financier would abuse her and pay her money over the following year culminating in forcible rape.

Also in 2002: Travels with Bill Clinton

According to the 2002 and 2003 Lolita express flight logs, former President Bill Clinton took four trips in Epstein’s private jet. Clinton’s office released a statement in which the former president asserts that he only took a total of four trips in Epstein’s jet to Asia, Europe, and twice to Africa in relation to the projects by the Clinton foundation. He also further claims that he had never been to Epstein’s residence in Florida, Zorro Ranch New Mexico, or Little St. James Island. He only made one brief visit to Epstein’s New York apartment in 2002 and had his security detail and staff member present.

One of the Epstein victims, however, claims to have once seen Clinton on the Island, an allegation Clinton fervently denies.

2005: Reported to Police by 14-year Old Girl’s Stepmother

A woman filed a report with the Palm Beach Police Department in March 2005, alleging that the financier had paid her 14-year old stepdaughter $300 to strip and massage him. This sparked a 13-month investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on Epstein. The FBI released a report indicating that at least 40 minors had been sexually abused by Epstein and were eligible for restitution.

May 2006: Charged with Multiple Counts of Sex Acts Involving Minors

In May 2006, Palm Beach PD filed a probable cause affidavit in which Epstein was to be charged with one count of sexual abuse and multiple counts of sex with minors. However, the then state prosecutor Barry Krischer presented evidence from only two of the dozen-plus victims to a grand jury and subsequently returned a single felony charge – solicitation of prostitution. Epstein entered a not guilty plea to the charges in August of the same year.

July 2006: Investigated by the FBI

Due to the leniency shown to Epstein in the state’s handling of the case, the Palm Beach PD mounted pressure on the federal government to intervene. As a result, the FBI launched its own independent investigation on the charges leveled against the wealthy financier.

2007: Enters Into a Plea Deal with US Attorney

While the US attorney’s office was working on an indictment slated for June 2007, Epstein’s attorneys began negotiating for a plea deal on behalf of their client. Acosta, the US attorney, and Epstein’s attorneys entered into an agreement where Epstein would plead guilty to two felony charges.

In a bizarre twist, none of the victims would be notified of the agreement and all grand jury subpoenas would be voided so that no one would know the full extent of the financier’s crimes.

June 2008: Sentenced to 18 Months in Prison

Following the plea deal, Epstein was charged with the lesser charge of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor. He pleaded guilty to the felony and was sentenced to 18 months in prison in a plea deal that sparked public outrage. He also registered as a sex offender as part of the deal. None of the victims were present during the court hearing.

July 2008: Epstein News Reaches Accusers

When the women got the news of Epstein’s cushy deal, they immediately pursue to challenge the matter in court. This would prove to be a lengthy process.

Still In 2008: Begins the Process of Settling Suits Out of Court

A woman who preferred to stay anonymous brought a $50 million civil lawsuit against Epstein. According to court documents, the Virginia woman alleged that when she was a 16-year old minor (four years prior), she was recruited to give the wealthy financier a massage.

She claims that when she arrived at his expansive mansion, Epstein proceeded to abuse her, after which he paid her $200. Several similar suits were filed in the following months from other Epstein victims, a number of which he settled out of court.

July 2009: Released from Jail After 13 Months

Epstein served only 13 of his 18-month sentence confined in the private wing of the Palm Beach County stockade. For the remaining 5 months, he was allowed to commute to an office outside jail six days a week for up to 12 hours a day.

2011: Registers as a Sex Offender in New York City

As a now registered sex offender in New York City, Epstein was required to check with the NYPD every 90 days to verify his address. It was later revealed that he violated the check-in order and never once checked-in in the eight years leading up to his death.

2018: Public Outrage on Epstein Sexual Abuse History Renewed

In November 2018, the Miami Herald published a detailed exposé on the wealthy financier’s long history of sexual abuse allegations. This sparked renewed public outrage calling for justice.

July 2019: Arrested and Indicted for Sex Trafficking Minors

Epstein was arrested and charged with several counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and was looking at up to 45 years behind bars if convicted.

Still In July 2019: More Alleged Victims Come Forward

Dozens of women who were previously unknown to law enforcement came forward with sexual abuse allegations against Epstein. They alleged that they were all minors at the time the alleged abuse took place.

July 18, 2019: Denied Bail

Victims’ attorneys argued that Epstein posed a major flight risk and shouldn’t be granted bail.

July 24, 2019: Epstein Suicide Attempt

Epstein was found semi-conscious in his cell with marks on his neck in what appeared to be a failed suicide attempt. He was placed on a suicide watch.

August 10, 2019: Jeffrey Epstein Death

Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell at around 6:30 a.m. at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York. He was transported to the hospital and pronounced dead on arrival in what appeared to be an apparent suicide. He was 66 years old at the time of his death.

October 2019: Epstein Autopsy Rules Out Homicide

New York Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Barbara Sampson confirms the cause of death as suicide by hanging. Jeffrey Epstein’s family has since challenged that conclusion alleging that his cause of death could have been the result of a fatal assault.

The Future of the Cases

While the victims can sue the estate of the deceased, it could take years before all of Epstein’s assets are retrieved. It is not clear when all the cases will come to a close, but one thing is certain. The sexual criminal legacy he’s left behind will live on for years to come.

jeffrey epstein case prison guards indictment

Jeffrey Epstein Case – Criminal and Civil Lawsuits

Legal Assistant December 23, 2019Criminal Law, Personal Injury Law Leave a Comment

Whether in life or in death, Jeffrey Epstein remains buried deep in lawsuits. On the one hand, are the state and federal prosecutors trying to figure out how to pursue criminal charges against potential Epstein co-conspirators like Ghislaine Maxwell. On the other hand, are the lawyers representing the alleged victims trying to file civil lawsuits against his estate.

The real question however is, will the courts still pursue the criminal and civil lawsuits now that Epstein is dead? Will the Epstein victims get the restitution they so desperately seek? What about the mysterious will he left behind? How might it affect the outcome of the legal issues surrounding his estate?

This article seeks to explore these issues in-depth to find and the options available to all interested parties in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Epstein Sexual Assault Charges

Dozens of women have come forward with alleged sexual assault assertions against Epstein both when he was alive and now that he is deceased. Most of them allege that they were abused by the wealthy financier when they were minors and are now suing his estate for damages.

It’s no secret that these allegations have plagued Epstein over the years. Court documents show that at least 40 underage girls were sexually assaulted by him at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida.

However, in the now infamous 2008 sweetheart deal, Epstein pleaded guilty to a minor state charge of soliciting prostitution, paid a fine , registered as a sex offender, and served a short 18-month sentence with no federal charged filed. The sex crime victims only came to learn of it after the fact, effectively terminating their quest for justice.

But what exactly constitutes sexual assault in the eyes of the law and is it the same as rape?

Sexual Assault Definition

While specific sex crimes law may vary by state, the general definition of what constitutes sexual assault is straightforward. It is a crime in which one party (the offender) subjects the victim to unwanted and unwelcome sexual contact that the latter would consider being offensive.

From the definition, it is clear that the term is quite broad given that sexual assault crimes can range from sexual groping to attempted rape. Involuntary sexual contact may come about through the offender’s use of force, coercion or incapacitation on the part of the victim. Incapacitation here means that the victim doesn’t have the mental ability to understand the nature of the sexual acts fully.

It also refers to a state where the victim is physically incapable of expressing their unwillingness to take part in sexual activity. Examples of these charges include the use of date-rape drugs or alcohol that both impair the victim’s ability to legally consent to sexual conduct.

The laws that encompass this area include nonconsensual sexual contact between people of any age and sex. Therefore, it covers involuntary sexual contact between same-sex individuals like two men or two women and same-age individuals like two minors.

Some states also extend sexual assault perpetrated by spouses. They’ve done this by removing marriage as a possible defense for assault or by creating an entirely different law that prohibits sexual assault on a spouse.

Sexual Assault vs. Rape

Sexual assault is generally the umbrella term that refers to crimes involving unwanted sexual contact and rape. Some states, however, make a clear distinction between crimes that involve coerced/forced contact/touching and those that involve penetration.

The latter is considered an aggravated or 1^st-degree sexual assault. 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd degree sexual assault are generally regarded as a felony charge, whereas 4^th-degree sexual assault is classified as a misdemeanor. Below is a brief overview of what each one of them entails.

1^st Degree Sexual Assault

A person found guilty of first-degree sexual assault can be jailed for a period not exceeding 40 years. It entails:

Sexual contact or sexual intercourse without consent that causes grievous bodily harm/injury or pregnancy
Sexual contact or sexual intercourse without consent accomplished by threatening using a dangerous weapon
Sexual contact or sexual intercourse without consent aided by one or more persons accomplished by threatening or using a dangerous weapon
Sexual contact or sexual intercourse with/without consent with a minor under the age of 13 years

2^nd Degree Sexual Assault

A person found guilty of second-degree sexual assault could face a jail term of not more than 20 years with/without a fine not exceeding $10,000. It includes:

Sexual contact or sexual intercourse without consent by using or threatening to use violence
Sexual contact or sexual intercourse without consent that results in the victim contracting an illness, disease, or impairment of their reproductive or sexual organ
Sexual contact or sexual intercourse without consent with a victim known to the offender to be mentally ill, unconscious or under the influence of an intoxicant which impairs their ability to appraise a person’s conduct
Sexual contact or sexual intercourse without consent while assisted by one or more individuals to help commit the offense
Sexual contact or sexual intercourse with/without consent with a minor under the age of 16 years

3^rd Degree Sexual Assault

An individual found guilty of third-degree sexual assault could be looking at a prison sentence not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding $10,000. It entails:

Sexual contact that involves intentional penile ejaculation without the consent of the victim
Sexual intercourse without consent

4^th Degree Sexual Assault

A person found guilty of fourth-degree sexual assault can be jailed for a period not exceeding nine months in the county jail with/without a fine of not more than $10,000. It includes:

Sexual contact without a person’s consent. This includes intentional touching of the victim’s intimate areas by the perpetrator either directly or through clothing using a body part or an object, for purposes of humiliating or sexually degrading the complainant, or sexually arousing or gratifying the defendant.

Consent is by law defined as words or overt actions expressed by a person who is of legal age and competence to indicate a freely given agreement to participate in sexual activity, which may include sexual contact or intercourse.

Statute of Limitations on Sexual Assault

When a crime is committed, victims often have a predefined window of time within which they can report the crime for the state to pursue legal action on the perpetrators. The laws in place that determine what this period will be are known as criminal statutes of limitation. These vary from one state to the next and are also dependent on the unique circumstances surrounding the particular crime. After this allotted time runs out, the alleged offender cannot be charged for the crime.

To determine whether a statute of limitations applies, state prosecutors have to consider the type of crime, when it occurred, who was involved, and what exceptions apply. For instance, the more serious a crime is, the longer the statute of limitations applies.

Therefore, felony sex crimes, as opposed to misdemeanors, give the prosecutors a longer period within which they can charge suspects involved.

Expanding Statutes of Limitations for Sex Crimes

Following the #MeToo movement, the willingness of sexual assault and rape victims to report sex crimes against them is on the rise. Recent statistics indicate that in 2017, 40.4% of sexual assault victims are more willing to come forward to police to report the crime compared to 23.3% in the previous year.

These numbers may increase given the new laws being passed around the country that give victims more time to seek justice both through criminal and civil lawsuits. Society has come to understand more about the devastating psychological, emotional, and physical effects of sexual violence and why a victim may be reluctant to report the crime.

For instance, a new law passed in New York – the Child Victims Act – allows individuals who were sexually assaulted as minors up to age 28 to report the crime to law enforcement authorities.

Victims also have the option to seek monetary compensation, protection, or any other remedy by filing a civil lawsuit. They can also seek victim compensation from a state agency, as well. The new law also extends the age for victims to sue alleged perpetrators raising it from the previous age 23 to the new age 55.

Civil vs. Criminal Options from Epstein Victims

Despite the mountain of evidence prosecutors had gathered against Epstein, the sex trafficking and sexual abuse criminal cases against him won’t proceed due to his death. According to Martin Weinberg, Epstein’s lawyer, there were more than one million pages of evidence against him, which included victim testimonials and damning photos.

The sexual abuse charges, however, would have been difficult to demonstrate since the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They would have had to demonstrate “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Epstein indeed abused the victims. This would have been possible if they reported the matter promptly so that DNA evidence of injury could be collected. If convicted, Epstein would have been looking at possible prison or jail time.

In civil cases, however, the threshold for proof is more lenient. The courts only need to establish that the abuse “more likely than not” occurred. The victims can file suites to seek compensation for legal, medical, or mental health costs incurred as a result of the trauma caused by the abuse.

They can even sue for damages arising from gaps in employment as a result of depression or anxiety as a consequence of the abuse. Attorneys representing the victims are suing his estate and it is entirely possible that the deceased financier’s assets could be used in settling these claims.

The Mysterious Epstein Will

Court documents filed in the US Virgin Islands reveal that Epstein had a will that he signed only two days before his suicide. According to the document, all of his estate holdings were left to a newly-created entity known as The 1953 Trust. The will failed to state the trust’s beneficiaries. It did, however, name its executors. Why would Epstein set up a trust in the first place?

The deceased financier’s move can be perceived as an attempt to ensure secrecy. However, from a legal standpoint, Epstein’s wealth cannot be moved into the new entity until all his outstanding debts are settled. This includes all potential monetary damages awarded to his victims.

Jeffrey Epstein Abuse Victim Fund

Executors of the accused child trafficking ring mastermind Jeffrey Epstein’s estate requested a US Virgin Islands court to grant them expedited approval to set up a voluntary claims resolution fund for his victims. The proposed fund would be set up by Jordana Feldman and Kenneth Feinberg. Feinberg supervised the US government’s compensation fund for the 911 victims along with other high-profile compensation programs.

Ideally, the two would have complete autonomy and decision-making authority over all the fund’s affairs without any interference whatsoever from the estate. That way, any eligible victims of the sexual abuse and/or human trafficking crimes against Epstein are accorded the opportunity to resolve their claims confidentially and in a non-adversarial manner as an alternative to litigation. The deceased financier’s estate is currently valued at more than $570 million.

As it currently stands, there are a dozen lawsuits that have been filed against the estate in both federal and New York state courts. One has been filed in the US Virgin Islands. It is anticipated that there will be more civil suits being filed in various jurisdictions like New Mexico, Florida and even France.

How Prosecutors Might Go After Epstein’s Assets

The New York State Department can initiate civil-forfeiture proceedings if they can show that some of Epstein’s properties like the one in New York were acquired fraudulently. If they determine that the property was acquired as the proceeds of criminal activity or was used to facilitate criminal activity, then they can be sold under the forfeiture laws.

The proceeds of the sale would be routed to a fund within the Department of Justice and used to prioritize payouts to victims.

Light at the End of the Tunnel

While the will puts the value of Epstein’s estate at a little over $577 million, this figure is expected to rise as it doesn’t take into account his vast art collection, which is still being appraised.

The victims, however, can rest assured that they will eventually collect on the damages they incurred as the result of the crimes committed against them. It will, however, be a lengthy process before they can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

If you have legal questions about sex abuse cases and your legal rights, you can also chat online with a Laws101.com attorney, where you’ll be instantly connected to a lawyer who can give you legal guidance on your specific case or question.

Jeffrey Epstein Case: Prison Guards Indictment

Legal Assistant December 23, 2019Criminal Law Leave a Comment

The Jeffrey Epstein case has been one of the most sensational high profile cases in recent times. This was fueled in no small part by his apparent friendships and close associations with well-known celebrities, academics, politicians, British royalty, and even presidents.

His proximity to power has given rise to speculation about the circumstances surrounding his death, with some alleging foul play as opposed to suicide while awaiting trial on child sex trafficking charges.

The controversy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein death centers on the failure of the two prison guards on duty at the time, to ensure that he stayed alive to answer for his alleged crimes. This article dives deep into the role the prison guards played in the financier’s suicide and what the road ahead has in store for them.

The Night of Epstein’s Death

On the night that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide by hanging, Tova Noel, 31, and Michael Thomas, 41 were the two prison guards on duty. He was on suicide watch after his first attempt at killing himself some two weeks prior when he was found semi-conscious in his cell with injuries on his neck.

The possibility of this being an assault was ruled out with sources from the prison alluding to the fact that he may have tried to hang himself while another source claims that he may have staged the suicide in an attempt to get transferred to a different facility.

However, it later emerged that he had been taken off suicide watch after a face-to-face evaluation by a doctoral-level psychologist who determined that it was not necessary, as he didn’t exhibit any behavioral symptoms that are characteristic of people who individuals who are at risk of harming themselves.

The Jeffrey Epstein guards allegedly failed to perform safety checks on the accused child trafficker for the eight hours leading up to his death. He was being held with other inmates at a special housing unit at the Metropolitan Correctional Center.

According to reports, the two had been asleep for approximately two hours during the time they were supposed to be checking in on Epstein. It also emerged that they had also been browsing the internet catching up on sports news and doing some online shopping.

They further went ahead to sign multiple false certifications indicating that they had carried out the obligatory inmate headcounts. This was in an effort to conceal their gross failure to carry out their duties.

Security cameras further revealed that for the period between 10.30 p.m. and 6.30 a.m., no one had been to the wing where the Jeffrey Epstein prison cell was, only discovering that the financier was dead when they went in to take him his breakfast.

The Indictment

Noel and Thomas became the first two individuals to face an indictment of the death of the disgraced financier. Given their failure to perform their duty of ensuring the safety and security of all federal inmates at the correction facility, they were arraigned in a Manhattan court to answer to charges leveled against them.

Both guards were charged with a single count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, Noel was charged with four counts of falsifying records while Thomas was charged with two counts of the same offense. They both pleaded “not guilty” to all charges.

Epstein Conspiracy

The controversy surrounding Epstein’s death has been marred with various conspiracy theories alluding to the fact that his death could have resulted from foul play and not suicide.

Not only did it seem bizarre that he was left unsupervised for such long periods as was witnessed in the Epstein prison video, but indictment records reveal that just a day before his death, his cellmate was transferred out in what was considered a “routine transfer”. Records show that no new cellmate was assigned to his cell as would be the norm during such procedures.

It is no secret that Epstein rubbed shoulders with the high and mighty with names like Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and many others in the now-famous Epstein black book. Perhaps one (or some) of them may have wanted to eliminate the risk Epstein posed to their public image if he spilled the secrets he had on them.

What’s more, according to the findings of an independent forensic pathologist hired by the Jeffrey Epstein family, the deceased had broken bones and torn cartilage in his neck, which according to them, points to homicide.

Nonetheless, conspiracy theories aside, the New York City Medical Examiner ruled his death a suicide by hanging putting to rest any conspiracies that surrounding his death.

Systemic Failures in the Prison System

Manhattan federal prosecutors have offered both Noel and Thomas plea deals by they have been unable to reach an agreement. According to Thomas’ lawyer, the guard asserts that he is being used as a scapegoat to cover up what he claims to be “systemic failures” in the prison bureau that stems from staff shortages and gross mismanagement.

On the fateful night of Epstein’s death, Noel had been slotted to work a grueling 16-hour double shift while Thomas had already completed several hours of overtime that same week. It remains unclear whether their overtime shifts were mandatory.

Of the two of them, one was responsible for keeping an eye on Epstein while the other was not a detention guard but had instead been temporarily assigned to that post.

Controversy In Life and In Death

What is clear is that while Epstein’s death may have put an end to the criminal charges he was facing, the controversy that plagued him during his life continues even in his death. It, however, sheds a bright light on some of the gaps that need to be filled in the prison system to avoid both convicted criminals as well as those awaiting conviction from slipping through the cracks to take the easy way out of paying for their crimes.

For now, both Noel and Thomas could be facing prison time for their failure to perform their duties. Whether they are entirely to blame is a discussion to be had another day.

The Prince Andrew Interview: Legal Implications

Legal Assistant December 23, 2019Criminal Law, Personal Injury Law Leave a Comment

Jeffrey Epstein’s death couldn’t have come at a worse time for Prince Andrew. His suicide happened before he could answer to sex trafficking charges in the US. As a result, a shining spotlight has now been placed on his friend Prince Andrew following the allegations made by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

Her original allegations were made in December 2014, of which a judge later ordered that they are voided from the court file. However, in September 2019, she appeared in an interview on NBC News in a fresh attempt to bring the matter to the forefront.

In the interview, she alleged that she was sexually abused by the British Prince on three different occasions when she was a minor. According to her, this happened between 1999 and 2002 in London, New York, and Little St. James – a private island in the US Virgin Islands that Epstein owned.

In an attempt to clean up his public image following his association with Epstein, Prince Andrew decided to participate in a BBC interview. The end result, however, poses serious legal implications for him. This article explores how that single decision could potentially implode on him.

Who is Prince Andrew?

When you think of the major players in the British monarchy, there figures that come to mind. There’s Queen Elizabeth II, her husband, Prince Philip, their son Prince Charles and his children Prince Harry and Prince William, and of course their wives Duchess Kate and Meghan as well as their children.

However, the Queen also has three other children that don’t share quite the same level of public interest as the rest of the firm. They are Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, and the youngest, Prince Edward. Prince Andrew has been making headlines in recent times in connection to the infamous Epstein sex trafficking case.

The Prince Andrew Interview: Highlights

Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew have been friends for many years, having reportedly met in 1999 through his close friend, who also happened to be Epstein’s longtime girlfriend – Ghislaine Maxwell.

In the widely publicized “no holds barred” interview with journalist Emily Maitlis, the Duke of York (which is the Prince’s other title) discussed the damning Virginia Roberts Giuffre photos vehemently denying ever meeting the accuser stating that he had “… no recollection of ever meeting this lady – none whatsoever”.

His denial came in the wake of a photo taken showing Roberts, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Prince Andrew in Ghislaine’s home in London. Roberts claims to have been 17 at the time the photo was taken. According to the prince, he stated that no one could prove that the photo had been doctored but didn’t state outright that it was fake.

As the conversation progressed, he expressed regret that he visited Epstein in New York to break-off their friendship, stating that he felt that it was the “honorable” thing to do at the time. He states that it was when the Prince Andrew photo with Epstein walking in the park was taken by unknown people.

Epstein had just finished serving his short 18-month stint for solicitation of prostitution from a minor. He didn’t seem particularly fazed by the fact that he was wining and dining with a registered sex offender at the time and didn’t explicitly express sympathy for what Epstein’s victims had been through which to most people seemed quite bizarre.

He also was not forthcoming about whether or not he would willingly offer up any information that would be deemed relevant to the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein case. Instead, he stated that if he was compelled to, then he would have no choice but to cooperate with the authorities.

Prince Andrew and Diplomatic Immunity: Does He Qualify?

Given Prince Andrew’s position in the UK and the fact that he was in the close-knit circle that was Jeffrey Epstein’s friends, can the US authorities seek his extradition from the UK? Can he benefit from diplomatic immunity? What is diplomatic immunity anyway?

The term “diplomatic immunity” is an international law principle that limits the degree by which employees of foreign governments and international organizations are subject to the authority of law enforcement and judicial officers the respective countries they are assigned to. This, however, doesn’t mean that they can get away with anything in those countries.

It also doesn’t apply to all foreign government or international organization employees. When it does apply, there are different categories and subcategories of such individuals, their families, and the specific circumstances relating to the incident in question.

Under English law, the Queen of England is immune from criminal liability. So, if, for instance, the Queen shot the British Prime minister in the head, there is no court in England that would find her guilty of the act. This kind of immunity, however, does not extend to the other members of her family.

Recall the instance when Princess Anne failed to control her dogs in Windsor Great Park, and they ended up biting two children who were playing there. She was convicted and held liable for the unfortunate incident.

In the same breath, Prince Andrew does not benefit from immunity under English criminal law. In 2016, after Roberts’ sex trafficking allegations, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that following a review of the evidence that was available at the time, they opted not to proceed with a full investigation on the price.

The UK investigative bodies, therefore, had no reason to open a criminal investigation against him at the time. However, if damning evidence does come to light implicating Prince Andrew in the offense, then he would be subject to criminal prosecution in England.

Extradition Laws: How They Affect Prince Andrew

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is actively investigating Roberts’ allegations of sex trafficking against Prince Andrew. The real question is: What happens if the US seeks extradition of the Prince? Well, there isn’t a clear cut answer to that. It depends on several factors. First, consider the UK extradition laws.

An extradition request would be dealt with in pursuant to Part 2 of the Extradition Act of 2003 – English law. The decision on whether or not certify such a request lies with the Secretary for the Home Department. If they did certify it, it would be sent to the appropriate judge who would then issue an arrest warrant for the prince.

The certification of the extradition request is not dependent on the evidentiary proof pointing towards guilt. Further to this, the US has been designated as a country that doesn’t need to produce evidence to back up its extradition requests to other countries. Therefore, the judge issuing the arrest warrant doesn’t have to go on any evidence to issue it. Prince Andrew would, therefore, not be able to question the evidentiary basis on which the extradition request is granted.

However, the requested person does have some rights in extradition proceedings against them. They can claim diplomatic or sovereign immunity to be determined according to the guiding principles of Customary International Law (CIL), the State Immunity Act of 1978, and the Diplomatic Privileges Act of 1964 under the laws of England. The State Immunity Act is applicable for heads of state and others, whereas the Diplomatic Privileges Act is applicable to diplomats.

Prince Andrew Immunity Under Customary International Law

Can Prince Andrew benefit from immunity under CIL? The straightforward answer to this is no. Only a small group of senior state officials in the UK can benefit from full immunity under CIL. This applies to sitting heads of state, heads of government, as well as foreign ministers. This extends to whether or not the criminal conduct was private or official and whether or not the offense was committed while they were in office or not.

Put simply, these state officials are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the foreign state, which in this case, is the US. Prince Andrew would, by definition, not be categorized as a head of state, head of government or foreign minister. So, he wouldn’t be protected by the immunity that CIL grants to these senior officials.

Prince Andrew Immunity Under the State Immunity Act 1978

The UK state Immunity Act of 1978 confers immunity to serving heads of state and the members of their family that form part of the household. This grants them immunity from all criminal proceedings as well.

On this basis, it would appear that Prince Andrew would be protected from an extradition request from the US. However, it all boils down to the term “household”. Does the prince form part of the royal household? Well, English extradition would unlikely conclude that Prince Andrew would be considered a member of the Queen’s household, whether presently or at the time of the alleged offenses for purposes of the State Immunity Act.

Applying for such immunity would be in no doubt an uphill task for the Prince to show the court that a US extradition request should be denied by virtue of the fact that he is an heir to the throne and, as such, forms part of the royal household.

Prince Andrew Immunity Under Special Mission Immunity

Special mission immunity is a different type of immunity that takes effect when one state receives a “special mission” from another state and applies for the duration of their visit. In 1978, a US court ruled Prince Charles, should be immune to US civil proceedings against him, by virtue of the fact that he was the son of a ruling monarch in addition to being the heir apparent to the throne at the time. This decision was placed by the court based on the fact that Prince Charles was in the US to fulfill his official functions and was, therefore, on a special diplomatic mission.

Since Roberts’ allegation became the subject of an indictment, the US State Department would have to determine if Prince Andrew’s visits to the US, at a time when he was an official UK trade envoy, were part of a special mission in which case he would benefit from special mission immunity.

Despite the precedent set by the civil claim against Prince Charles, the US State Department would be unlikely to grant mission immunity to Prince Andrew offenses given the grave nature of the allegations against him.

The 2007 Acosta Sweetheart Plea Deal

In the infamous secret plea deal signed by federal prosecutors in 2007, the non-prosecution agreement effectively granted immunity to Jeffrey Epstein and any potential co-conspirators against all allegations of sexual abuse brought against them. This means that none of the big names in the Epstein black book or those featured in the Epstein flight logs can face prosecution regardless of their involvement in the sexual abuse of the Epstein victims.

Attempts to scrap the controversial plea deal have been unsuccessful despite the glaring fact that it violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. On that front, the prince cannot be held criminally liable for that even if he is found culpable.

His interview, however, opened a Pandora’s Box of sorts with regards to being more involved in the Epstein sex trafficking case than he alluded to in a brief conversation with Emily Maitlis. If the FBI’s evidence against him shows probable cause, then a US extradition could be plausible in the near future.

However, such a move could be considered hostile and will likely sever the diplomatic ties that exist between the US and the UK. From a purely political standpoint, the US could instead choose to hand over the evidence it has on the price to the UK authorities and let them initial domestic prosecution proceedings against him. Taking that route would mean that the Duke of York would have no immunity to ward off the charges leveled against him.

What Legal Action Is the Prince Facing

In August 2021, Ms. Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew in New York under the Child Victims Act of 2019. The law allows individuals who were sexually abused as children to seek legal redress against the perpetrators, regardless of how much time has passed.

In the suit, the Prince is accused of sexually assaulting and battering Giuffre when she was 17 years old. She asserts that the three instances in which Andrew allegedly assaulted her have caused her significant psychological and emotional distress.

As it stands, the Prince is not facing any legal proceedings in the UK. As part of the civil action in the US, the New York Metropolitan Police reviewed the information submitted to them in June 2021 from the media, as well as a document released in August 2021. Upon the completion of their review, they stated that they would not take any further action against Prince Andrew.

It would appear that none of the information received provided solid evidence of Andrew’s involvement in Epstein’s criminal conduct. The Prince has since offered to assist law enforcement authorities in their investigations.

As for Giuffre’s legal action against Andrew, where she is suing him for monetary damages, it is unlikely that the case will go all the way to trial. Most civil suits of this nature usually settle out of court. Nonetheless, he could still be liable for a significant amount in monetary damages.

Will Prince Andrew Go to Jail

So far, he has no criminal exposure, so the answer to that question is – no. With Ghislaine Maxwell’s ongoing trial, where she pleaded “not guilty” on charges of conspiring with Epstein in abusing four underage girls, she might be tempted to take a plea deal from federal prosecutors.

She might use the opportunity to cooperate with authorities and provide more information about Epstein’s network, which could allegedly include Andrew. At this point, it could go either way.

The Opioid Lawsuit: Where is it Today

Legal Assistant December 20, 2019Mass Torts, Personal Injury Law, Resources Leave a Comment

In 2017 alone, opioid overdoses accounted for approximately 47,600 of reported deaths in the US. This accounts for 67.8% of drug overdose deaths. Manufacturers of opioid drugs have largely been accused by various state governments for contributing to the opioid crisis in the country, citing that the drugs and their subsequent effects are a public nuisance and are taking up a large portion of state resources to manage the situation.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, opioid use disorder currently costs the American taxpayer $78.5 billion a year. States and individuals as well are now taking these companies to task by holding them accountable for the role they play in contributing to the menace.

The proposed legal settlements slapped on big pharmaceuticals are aimed at holding these companies liable to put an end to the opioid addiction epidemic that currently plagues the nation. This article explores the opioid lawsuit and where it is today.

What Are Opioids?

“Opioids” is a collective term that refers to a class of drugs that include heroin – which is illegal, synthetic opioids like fentanyl and analgesics like hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, codeine, methadone, buprenorphine, etc. Synthetic opiates and analgesics are available legally by prescription and are often given to patients for pain management purposes.

For the most part, Big Pharma markets the drugs as “safe for long term use in chronic pain management”. However, if the current addiction crisis that’s threatening to cripple the population is anything to go by, using these drugs for extended periods is anything but safe.

Opioid Addiction

Opiates are highly addictive and cause major health, social, and economic issues in the long run. The addiction is characterized by a strong compulsive urge to keep using opioids even when an individual is no longer medically required to continue taking them. These drugs alter the brain’s chemistry, which increases the body’s tolerance to the drug over time.

People who use the drug find that they require more of it to achieve the same pain-relieving effects. This eventually produces dependence and eventual addiction. Opioid dependence and addiction mean different things.

Everyone who takes opioids for an extended period develops a dependence on the drug, but not everyone develops an addiction – although this is rarely the case.

Dependence is characterized by increased tolerance and withdrawal when a person stops using the drug. Addiction, or substance use disorder as it is also called, is characterized by a marked change in behavior brought on by the alteration of an individual’s brain chemistry that induces a powerful compulsive need for the drug. This compulsion often drives people with addiction, to act irrationally when they don’t have opiates in their system.

The Opioid Crisis

Experts report that an estimated 10.3 million Americans above the age of 12 years abused opioids in 2018. Pain reliever misusers made up for a whopping 9.9 million of that figure, while heroin users accounted for 808,000. The International Narcotics Control Board cites the US as the country with the largest number of hydrocodone users making up for approximately 99.2% of the global hydrocodone consumption.

The crisis has had devastating consequences on the population and the country’s resources. Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) incidence is also on the rise, resulting from in-utero exposure of opioids. These are a few of the reasons that led to the declaration of an opioid crisis in the country.

A new opioid law dubbed opioid crisis response Act of 2018 is expected to tame the opioid epidemic by boosting access to addiction treatment as well as a myriad of other breakthrough interventions designed to mitigate the crisis. Some of these include:

Reauthorizing funding from the Cures Act which approved $500 million each year to go towards eradicating the opioid crisis
Creating an opioid recovery center grant program to serve individual communities’ treatment and recovery needs
Approving another grant program that helps healthcare professionals get waivers so that they can prescribe medication that is effective in the treatment of opioid addiction
Expanding the existing funding program to allow more first responders like law enforcement and firefighters to carry and use naloxone – a drug used to reverse opioid overdoses
Empowering federal agencies to extensive research projects that are related to pain and addiction
Promoting new initiatives that educate as well as raise awareness on appropriate pain management techniques
Increasing penalties for opioid manufacturers and distributors who are found guilty of overprescribing these drugs

Opioid Lawsuit News: Where Is the Case Today

In 2007, the federal government came down hard on three Purdue Pharma executives for what it cited as misbranding of its OxyContin pill as “safer and less addictive” than other opioid painkillers. The three individuals were collectively fined $634 million for their extensive marketing campaign that urged medical practitioners to prescribe the drug stating that if addiction did occur, it was very rare.

This, however, was far from the truth. They offered their sales employees fat bonuses to boost opioid sales and even had contests for their top sales reps. It was an all-out strategic push to get unsuspecting patients hooked on their drugs. They had well-respected industry professionals advocate for their pain management drugs on TV talk shows, gala dinners, and medical conferences.

Since then, a floodgate of lawsuits against many drug makers who have been known to pay doctors and use celebrities in their marketing campaigns to promote aggressive pain treatment have been filed. This is in a bid to hold them liable for the role they’ve played in the opiate epidemic.

National Prescription Opiate Multidistrict Litigation

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is the process through which several related cases from across the country, against the same defendant, are consolidated in a single case and transferred to one court. One judge presides over the litigation during the discovery and pre-trial phases. If the parties involved fail to resolve the case through a settlement during MDL or it is dismissed, it gets sent back to the original court for trial.

In December of 2017, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered that the then 200 opioid MDL plaintiffs who comprised consumers, individuals, medical facilities, Third-Party Payors, Native American tribes, counties, cities, and states, to consolidate into MDL under Judge Dan Aaron Polster in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. That number has since grown to more than 3,000 suits and is now referred to as the National Prescription Opiate Litigation.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs allege that the drug manufacturers misrepresented the adverse effects of the long-term use of opioids has on people dealing with chronic pain. They also allege the distributors failed to authenticate suspicious orders on prescription opiates before delivery.

The plaintiffs lay the blame of the current opioid crisis squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturers and distributors. Here’s a snapshot of some of the major defendants in the suit.

Purdue Pharma Lawsuit

Purdue Pharma is currently in talks to pay more than $10 billion in an estimated 3,000 suits. These comprise federal, state, county, municipality, Native American, and others spread across 23 states who all filed opioid lawsuit claims against the OxyContin manufacturer.

While the exact details of the settlement are still to be ironed out, the settlement agreement, in principle, indicates that the Sackler Family would be required to relinquish their control of Purdue Pharma. They would also have to pay a minimum of $3 billion in cash of its own money spread over several years as part of the deal.

The company has since filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and part of the restructuring plan includes divesting itself from its pharmaceutical holdings across the globe. This is to prevent a repeat case of an opioid epidemic breaking out in other parts of the world.

Teva Opioid Lawsuit

In June 2019, an Oklahoma judge approved an $85 million settlement filed by the state against the world’s largest generic drugmaker Teva. The agreement was reached just days before the giant pharmaceutical was set to face trial.

In the deal, the company agreed to be paying $20 million in cash and contribute $25 million worth of Suboxone – a drug used in the treatment of opiate addiction. This was to be done over 18 months.

The company has now set aside $1.2 billion for global legal settlements related to the US opioid epidemic. Teva also agreed to provide $23 billion worth of addiction treatment medication that would be used over 10 years in the rehabilitation of affected individuals.

Teva has been accused of overstating the benefits of their opioid drugs while grossly understating its risks. It has, however, denied its role in the crisis, arguing that its products all have US FDA-approved labeled that warn users of potential risks.

Johnson and Johnson Opioid Lawsuit

In the historic first-of-its-kind trial of Johnson and Johnson vs. the State of Oklahoma, County District Judge Thad Balkman ruled that the pharmaceutical company would pay $465 million for their role in the addiction crisis that has ravaged the state and the nation at large.

In his ruling, Balkman stated that the epidemic has become a public nuisance and that the defendants have consistently engaged in false and misleading marketing campaigns of their opioid products.

The initial judgment that was delivered in August 2019 ordered the defendants to pay $572 million. However, the amount was later revised to $465 million following a math error on the judge’s part. In his earlier ruling, he had indicated that $107.6 million was to be set aside for neonatal abstinence syndrome support programs, which he later indicated was supposed to be $107,600.

The overall settlement amount was a far cry from the initial $17 billion the state attorneys had initially asked for. The national suit still rages on.

AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson Opioid Lawsuit

The country’s three largest drug distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson, may not be as famous as some of the other corporate players implicated in the country’s opioid epidemic. But, they are bigger and richer than drug manufacturers.

The three, who are among the top 20 companies in the US in terms of revenue, were facing several lawsuits which pointed to the fact that they routinely played cat and mouse games with regulators, and even went as far as helping pharmacies and manufacturers find ways to get round order limits on opioid painkillers.

Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee are leading the settlement discussions for the states alongside lawyers representing thousands of counties and cities which have cases in federal court. Some of the details of the global deal were as follows:

$20 billion to $25 billion in cash to be paid out to the affected localities and states. This was to help pay for law enforcement, healthcare, and other costs associated with the opioid crisis.
Another $25 billion to $30 billion to go towards addiction treatment supplies, drugs, and associated delivery services.

The Settlement with Ohio Counties

In a last-minute turn of events, however, the three companies, who have a combined distribution market share of an estimated 90% of all US prescription drugs, agreed to collectively pay $215 million upfront after they struck a deal with two Ohio counties. This was in an attempt to avert a federal trial over the addiction epidemic.

They were unable to agree on a global settlement amount that would effectively put an end to all the opiate litigation against them. As it currently stands, talks aimed at reaching an estimated $48 billion global settlement against the same opioid lawsuit defendants collapsed, which will see the cases proceed to trial if an agreement isn’t reached.

The Legal Battle Rages On

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation have maintained their aggressive stance that they will not accept any amount of money that is less than what would be required to make a substantive and meaningful difference in the war against the opiates.

While some states like Ohio agreed on a settlement, the pending 3,000 lawsuits are slated to proceed to trial if the defendants don’t agree to a settlement before then. Until that time, the national lawsuit rolls on.

Who are the Best Lawyers in Houston in 2019?

Legal Assistant December 20, 2019Business Law, Criminal Law, Divorce Law, Maritime Law, Personal Injury Law, Personal Injury Lawyers, Resources, Tax Law, Wills Leave a Comment

Should you ever find yourself in any legal battle, one of the most prudent things you can do to give yourself the best chance of coming out on top is to find yourself the best lawyer for your particular situation. There are very many different kinds of lawyers in Houston.

Just as is the case with everything in life, some are better than others, and many have a specialized field in which they practice. This resource will help you find the best lawyers in Houston for a variety of legal fields.

How to Choose the Best Lawyer in Houston

The fact that there are excellent lawyers in Houston is not in contention. However, just because a certain attorney enjoys the reputation of being the best in his/her field doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the right attorney for you.

To find the best lawyer, you have to do a little bit of research on your own. This research involves a lot more than just reading online reviews or trying to find cases in which those particular lawyers have been involved. There is a bit more leg-work in the process.

Here are some simple steps that you can take to help you choose, not only the best lawyer in Houston but also the best lawyer for you:

Make a list of the top rated lawyers in the field and conduct interviews

Finding the best lawyer for you is like hiring any other professional, you have to conduct several interviews to see whether or not you guys are a good match. Find out things like what experience the lawyer has, how long they have been specialized in that field and their track record.

Ask other lawyers about your prospective lawyer

Professionals in the same field tend to know more about the reputations of their colleagues that customers would. If you are a looking for a personal injury lawyer in Houston but have the contacts to a good divorce lawyer, you can ask them who they know of in the personal injury field and whether or not they can give you a referral.

Carry out a background check

This can include steps such as emailing or calling the lawyer disciplinary agency in Texas to confirm whether or not your prospective lawyer is in good standing with the body. You could also run a quick check online to see what other previous clients are saying about working with that lawyer.

Take a tour of their offices

A lawyer’s office says a lot about the kind of practice that he or she runs. If they have a well-organized, well-staffed office, then there is a good chance that you will be in excellent hands.

You also need to find out how the lawyer practices their craft. How many people is he/she going to put on your case? How heavy is the lawyer’s current caseload, and will they be able to give your case adequate time and attention?

Who are the Best Lawyers in Houston in 2019?

The very first thing that should be mentioned here is that it’s difficult to determine who the “best” in any field is as every case is different and even the most experienced lawyers lose a few of those.

That being said, finding the best lawyer is about finding someone with an excellent reputation – someone who has a higher win-to-loss ratio and someone who knows how to get the job done most of the time.

With that in mind, these are the best lawyers in Houston by our reckoning and online reputation:

The Best Houston Car Accident Lawyer

Andrew Cobos, The Cobos Law Firm

Andrew Cobos from the Cobos Law Firm is our pick for the best car accident and personal injury lawyer in Houston. His firm handles cases involving serious injuries and wrongful death. Most often such cases involve car or 18 wheeler truck accidents, but they also specialize in explosions, boating accidents, mishaps at refineries or construction sites, and other instances where one person’s conduct caused injury to another person.

Cobos is distinguished among his personal injury peers because of the ability of the Cobos Law Firm to settle cases much faster for much higher settlement amounts than other firms. That’s a true win for the client.

The Cobos Law Firm has quickly developed a reputation as an aggressive and no-nonsense operation. They file cases much faster than other firms, most often within days of completing an investigation into the incident. This aggressive approach—which is only employed by a handful of firms we talked to—tends to put insurance companies on the defensive, and results in a monetary benefit to the client.

Besides being the named partner at the Cobos Law Firm, what sets Andrew apart from others is his military background as an Army officer and his strategic approach to complex litigation. The ability to explain difficult problems in a simple way has led the Cobos Law Firm to its many victories.

For this reason, his firm has a stellar reputation for being prompt and communicative with its clients. One visit to their offices, and you’ll be impressed by their polished, professional and efficient operation.

The Best Immigration Lawyer in Houston

The Law Office of Lindsey J. Harris

Armed with a team of immigration lawyers who speak five different languages, The Law Office of Lindsey J. Harris is one of the best and most specialized immigration law practices in Houston. This team specializes in:

Family-based immigration
Employment and investor visas
Academic visas
Asylum and TPS (Temporary Protected Status)
Citizenship and naturalization
International adoption

The Best Houston Criminal Lawyer

Law Office of Paul Schiffer

With a combined experience of almost 40 years, Law Office of Paul Schiffer takes on a wide range of criminal cases including white color crimes and even DWI offenses. They have extensive experience representing clients who have been charged with violent crimes such as domestic violence and even drug possession.

Over the years, the Law Office of Paul Schiffer has been recognized as a “Super Lawyer in Texas” by Thomson Reuters (one of the best attorneys in America by Rue’s ratings).

The Best Houston Divorce Lawyer

Carl Selesky, Attorney at Law

When it comes to divorce attorneys, you want someone who has extensive experience in these kinds of often dicey negotiations. Law Thompson P.C. has well over 25 years of experience in this field. They have experience in dealing with all sorts of family setups, including non-traditional ones such as unmarried parents and adoptive situations.

If, however, you are looking for Houston volunteer lawyers to help out with your case, you could try checking out the Houston Volunteer Lawyers website for a long list of qualified attorneys who are experts in all manner of fields including real estate and criminal law.

That being said, these are some of the finest lawyers in the land, and their expertise, coupled with their experience, should be enough to help you out of whatever legal issue you might be experiencing. You can also find many other outstanding lawyers

If you have more legal questions, you can also chat online with a Laws101.com attorney where you’ll be instantly connected to a lawyer who can give you legal guidance on your specific case or question.

Page 24 of 37
←
1
...
23
24
25
...
37
→

Who Owns Purdue Pharma?

Purdue Pharma Lawsuit: Overview

Purdue Pharma Oklahoma Lawsuit

Purdue Pharma Global Settlement Agreement

Plaintiffs’ Concerns

Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy: What It Means for the Settlement Agreement

What Does Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Mean for a Company?

Bankruptcy Court Precedent: Why the Purdue Case Is Different

Fraudulent Conveyance: How It Might Impact the Sackler Bankruptcy Claim

It’s Far from Over

Oklahoma vs. Johnson and Johnson

Johnson and Johnson Defense

The Effects of the Oklahoma Opioid Crisis

Purdue Settlement

Teva Opioid Settlement

Johnson and Johnson Settlement

The Drug “Kingpin”

The Battle Is Far from Over

What Is Diplomatic Immunity?

Difference Between Diplomat and Consular

Who Has Diplomatic Immunity and Who Doesn’t

Embassy Personnel: High Ranking Foreign Diplomats

Embassy Personnel: Administrative and Technical Staff

Embassy Personnel: Indirect Support Staff

Embassy Personnel: Nationals of the Host Country

Consular Personnel

International Organization Representatives

There Are Exceptions to the Rule

What Does Extradition Mean?

Extradition Law 101: The Basics

The Process: How It Works Between Countries with a Treaty

Extradition Without a Treaty

The Infamous Hong Kong Extradition Bill

Keeping Interstate Crime at Bay

Epstein Sexual Assault Charges

Sexual Assault Definition

Sexual Assault vs. Rape

1st Degree Sexual Assault

2nd Degree Sexual Assault

3rd Degree Sexual Assault

4th Degree Sexual Assault

Statute of Limitations on Sexual Assault

Expanding Statutes of Limitations for Sex Crimes

Civil vs. Criminal Options from Epstein Victims

The Mysterious Epstein Will

Jeffrey Epstein Abuse Victim Fund

How Prosecutors Might Go After Epstein’s Assets

Light at the End of the Tunnel

The Night of Epstein’s Death

The Indictment

Epstein Conspiracy

Systemic Failures in the Prison System

Controversy In Life and In Death

Who is Prince Andrew?

The Prince Andrew Interview: Highlights

Prince Andrew and Diplomatic Immunity: Does He Qualify?

Extradition Laws: How They Affect Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew Immunity Under Customary International Law

Prince Andrew Immunity Under the State Immunity Act 1978

Prince Andrew Immunity Under Special Mission Immunity

The 2007 Acosta Sweetheart Plea Deal

What Legal Action Is the Prince Facing

Will Prince Andrew Go to Jail

What Are Opioids?

Opioid Addiction

The Opioid Crisis

Opioid Lawsuit News: Where Is the Case Today

National Prescription Opiate Multidistrict Litigation

Purdue Pharma Lawsuit

Teva Opioid Lawsuit

Johnson and Johnson Opioid Lawsuit

AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson Opioid Lawsuit

The Settlement with Ohio Counties

The Legal Battle Rages On

How to Choose the Best Lawyer in Houston

Make a list of the top rated lawyers in the field and conduct interviews

Ask other lawyers about your prospective lawyer

Carry out a background check

Take a tour of their offices

Who are the Best Lawyers in Houston in 2019?

1^st Degree Sexual Assault

2^nd Degree Sexual Assault

3^rd Degree Sexual Assault

4^th Degree Sexual Assault