Podcasts about Purdue Pharma

AP correspondent Jennifer King reports on a bankruptcy judge's ruling on opioid lawsuits against Purdue Pharma.

President Trump has been briefed on both the risks and benefits of bombing Iran's Fordo nuclear facility. CBS News has learned the president believes that if talks fail, disabling the facility will be necessary because of the risk of weapons being produced in a relatively short period of time, multiple sources told CBS News. A federal bankruptcy judge will decide on Friday whether to approve a nearly $7.5 billion settlement involving OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma. Severe storms are bringing thunder, lightning and heavy rain to parts of the East Coast. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A historic and national $7.4 billion dollar settlement has been reached with Purdue Pharma, the maker of the opioid OxyContin that spurred a major start of the opioid epidemic. A prior settlement had been struck down by the Supreme Court. NPR'S national addiction correspondent, Brian Mann, joins Lisa Desjardins with more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

A historic and national $7.4 billion dollar settlement has been reached with Purdue Pharma, the maker of the opioid OxyContin that spurred a major start of the opioid epidemic. A prior settlement had been struck down by the Supreme Court. NPR'S national addiction correspondent, Brian Mann, joins Lisa Desjardins with more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Israel has expanded its attacks on targets inside Iran to include the country's state television studios. The suspect accused of killing a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband faces federal and state murder charges, and Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family have reached a multibillion dollar settlement with states. Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Vincent Ni, Cheryl Corley, Andrea DeLeon, Janaya Williams and Alice Woelfle. It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Claire Murashima, and Christopher Thomas. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Last night's Pacers game was rough to watch, Is the US about to go on a bombing run on Iran? Maneuvers in the Middle East, Is the US bringing the bunker buster with them? Trump smacking down Macron, It's a scam! Trump wants blue cities targeted for deportation first, IBJ calls for Hogsett's resignation. States agree to $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma in opioid litigation, Trump wants an end not a ceasefire, Get Your Happy Meal Purse, They should have done the deal. The Iranians need to topple the Ayatollah. IBJ calls for Hogsett resignation. Welcome to the party IBJ, Pharmaceutical company planning to relocate from California to Fishers, Le Peep rebrands to Maple, Nearly 1 million illegal immigrants have 'self deported' under Trump, Big Beautiful Bill riding on SALT, Rokita first state AG to threaten private colleges over DEI, echoing Trump with Harvard, Time to end the Ayatollah regime See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

States agree to $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma in opioid litigation, Trump wants an end not a ceasefire, Get Your Happy Meal Purse, They should have done the deal. The Iranians need to topple the Ayatollah See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inside INdiana Business Radio for the morning of June 17, 2025. As Bloomington's $52 million convention center expansion moves ahead, a companion hotel project faces delays tied to financing plans. Indiana is set to receive up to $100 million from the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement. Also: Autocam Medical plans a $70 million facility in Warsaw, Toyota hits 1 million hybrid vehicles in Princeton, and Elkhart unveils an $8 million streetscape project. Get the latest business news from throughout the state at InsideINdianaBusiness.com.

Cache County announces second open space land acquisition -- Utah will get a $57 million cut of Purdue Pharma opioid settlement   

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Court Blocks Trump's Control Over National Guard; Appellate Court Reverses (2:05) ICE Memo Directs Agents to Stop Conducting Workplace Raids In These Locations (6:44) CMS Reportedly Shares Medicaid Data With DHS; Here's What You Need to Know About the Legalities (10:42) States Pull Back State Medicaid Healthcare Programs for Undocumented Immigrants (16:39) Everything We Know About the Targeted Minnesota Attacks and the Shooter (20:14) "No Kings" Protests and Army Parade (33:12) Trump Releases 2024 Financial Disclosures (40:00) Quick Hitters: Washington Post Says It Was the Target of a Cyberattack, Trump Organization Announces Trump Mobile, 50 States Agree to Billion Dollar Settlement with Purdue Pharma, West Virginia Gov. Declares State of Emergency (44:34) Critical Thinking Segment (46:36) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How did a marketing campaign lead to one of the worst public health disasters in American history?  In this episode, I investigate the rise and fall of the Sackler family, the pharmaceutical empire they built, and the marketing tactics that got millions addicted to opioids. You'll learn: How reframing turned OxyContin from a last resort into a “safe” everyday drug. Why a vague letter (not a study) became the foundation for Purdue's 1% addiction claim. How the Sacklers used doctors, pain groups, and celebrities to exploit authority bias. Why repeating a false claim makes it more believable (feat. the mere exposure effect). How behavioural science helped sell a deadly drug—and what we can learn from it. --- Shatterproof non-profit: https://shatterproof.org/ Empire of Pain:  https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/612861/empire-of-pain-by-patrick-radden-keefe/ Sign up to my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/ Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ --- Sources: ABC News. (2025). Purdue Pharma, Sackler family to pay $7.4 billion opioid settlement [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n2uuX1NaQo LastWeekTonight. (2016). Opioids: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pdPrQFjo2o CBS News. (2019). OxyContin maker facing over 2,000 opioid death-related lawsuits [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwGGlEFKrSs ABC News. (2019). Local governments file lawsuit against the family behind OxyContin [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlSDhuhLedg CBS News. (2022). Trump Organization's accounting firm cuts ties over financial statements [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csAS4WLvMao BBC News. (2013). Serpentine Sackler Gallery Opening [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YThcpSZIN0c CBS New York. (2021). Metropolitan Museum Of Art Will Remove Sackler Name From Galleries [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_u29BL2CQE CBC News. (2019). Dozens Storm The Guggenheim Museum In Protest Of Donor [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci_yOI3Wyto CBS News. (2019). Protestors stage a “Die In” at the Guggenheim Museum in New York [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYVvIwbxX2I CNBC Television. (2020). Would have done ‘nothing' differently in opioid crisis: Kathe Sackler says [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRl-Zjyf2UE STAT. (2017). 1998 Purdue Pharma marketing video [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaxlJXpwkzs GoLocal LIVE. (2019). Purdue Pharmaceutical Commercial 1998-Oxycontin [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCOl1exq3IM CBS News. (2017). Behind Purdue Pharma's marketing of OxyContin [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-jxKPpMvmA LastWeekTonight. (2019). Opioids III: The Sacklers: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaCaIhfETsM LastWeekTonight. (2021). McKinsey: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiOUojVd6xQ CBS News. (2018). Whistleblower: Purdue Pharma continued deceptive sales practices after guilty plea [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5qQf3Po31M Washington Post. (2019). Inside the opioid industry's marketing machine [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIlpd40CpT0 CBC News. (2018). How One Man Made The Opioid Crisis Possible [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2AUIBB34nI CBC News. (2019). Nan Goldin ‘Blizzard of Prescriptions' Sackler Pain Guggenheim Protest & Die-In 2/9/19 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2A4Tb8cOxE Keefe, P. R. (2021). Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty. Doubleday.  Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Revised ed.). Harper Business.

An interview with investigative journalist Gardiner Harris regarding his newly released exposé No More Tears that unpacks Johnson & Johnson's white collar criminality, murderous corporate malfeasance, and myriad coverup conspiracies that have left millions dead.Support the show by subscribing to the PPM Patreon and gain access to a bonus, solo ep that explores Gardiner's father's fascinating career as a bureau chief at Time Inc. and protege of spooky, anticommunist publisher Henry Luce (a mini-primer on Luce's myriad ties to intelligence, Cuban paramilitaries, Gladio via his wife Clare Boothe Luce, and the JFK assassination):patreon.com/ParaPowerMapping***One day in 2004, Gardiner Harris, a pharmaceutical reporter for The New York Times, was early for a flight and sat down at an airport bar. He struck up a conversation with the woman on the barstool next to him, who happened to be a drug sales rep for Johnson & Johnson. Her horrific story about unethical sales practices and the devastating impact they'd had on her family fundamentally changed the nature of how Harris would cover the company—and the entire pharmaceutical industry. His subsequent investigations and ongoing research since that very first conversation led to this book—a blistering exposé of a trusted American institution and the largest healthcare conglomerate in the world.Harris takes us light-years away from the company's image as the child-friendly “baby company” as he uncovers reams of evidence showing decades of deceitful and dangerous corporate practices that have threatened the lives of millions. He covers multiple disasters: lies and cover-ups regarding the link of Johnson's Baby Powder to cancer, the surprising dangers of Tylenol, a criminal campaign to sell antipsychotics that have cost countless lives, a popular drug used to support cancer patients that actually increases the risk that cancer tumors will grow, and deceptive marketing that accelerated opioid addictions through their product Duragesic (fentanyl) that rival even those of the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma.Filled with shocking and infuriating but utterly necessary revelations, No More Tears is a landmark work of investigative journalism that lays bare the deeply rooted corruption behind the image of babies bathing with a smile.***Songs:| The Chemical Brothers - "The Pills Won't Help You Now" || Spiritualized - "Medication" |

What makes an organisation toxic, and how can we spot the signs before it's too late? What are the common traits that make seemingly unrelated organisations, ranging from the Catholic Church to corporations, do harm?On this episode, I'm joined once again by one of my favourite guests — Professor Benjamin van Rooij — for a deep dive into the hidden dangers of organisational life.Benjamin and his co-author, Professor Nicholas Lord, are working on a new book (working title) Toxic: Organisations Gone Bad, which explores not just headline-grabbing scandals, but the patterns of behaviour and structures that consistently lead organisations to cause harm.SummaryIn our discussion, we unpack how organisational processes — like silencing, secrecy, and the relentless pursuit of unrealistic goals — can multiply risk.Benjamin explains why organisations, both public and private, can become “toxic” not simply due to bad people or poor oversight, but because of a combination of systemic dynamics and cultural norms that reward silence, over-ambition, and passive harm.We also discuss why the term “toxic” itself is both useful and problematic, and how understanding these dynamics can help leaders make better decisions before disaster strikes; whether it's Facebook's role in spreading misinformation, Wells Fargo's aggressive sales targets, or the normalization of deviance at Chernobyl and Enron, Benjamin helps us trace the common threads that connect seemingly unrelated crises.And, true to form, he doesn't offer simplistic solutions — instead, he gives us tools to ask better questions, challenge dominant narratives, and push for root-cause thinking over box-ticking fixes. Guest Biography Benjamin is Professor in Law and Society and Director of Research at the School of Law at the University of Amsterdam, as well as a Global Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine.In his academic work, Benjamin specialises in understanding how laws and regulations operate within real-world organisational settings, focusing on compliance, harm, and institutional accountability. He blends criminology, behavioural science, and legal studies to explore why people and institutions obey (or disobey) rules, and what systems best support ethical behaviour.  Previous appearancesOn COVID Compliance

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.The CDC has rescheduled a vaccine meeting for April, while President Trump is considering Texas Republican Michael Burgess as the new director of the agency. J&J's Tremfya has won approval for expansion in treating Crohn's disease, while Adaptimmune is facing financial uncertainty despite sales of its T cell therapy. Alnylam's Amvuttra has been approved as the first RNAi silencer for a rare type of cardiomyopathy, setting up competition with Pfizer and BridgeBio. Sino Biological has developed reagents for the 2025-2026 influenza vaccine strains. In other news, J&J plans to boost US manufacturing following tariff threats, Novartis' Fabhata has been approved as the first therapy for a rare kidney disease, and Sanofi commits up to $1.9 billion for Dren Bio's bispecific antibody for autoimmune diseases. Paratek has acquired Optinose for up to $330 million, Purdue Pharma has filed for bankruptcy again to support an opioid settlement, and Novartis' Zolgensma has been found effective in older children.The FDA has approved Alnylam's Amvuttra as the first RNAi silencer for a rare type of cardiovascular disease called ATTR-CM, following the approval of BridgeBio's Attruzy for the same condition. This approval has sparked a three-way race in the rapidly expanding space, with Pfizer's Tafamidis also in the competition. Alnylam is optimistic about Amvuttra's unique mechanism of action, which targets the disease at its source by rapidly reducing the disease-causing TTR protein. This approval comes after Attruzy was also approved for polyneuropathy of hereditary transthyretin-mediated (hATTR) amyloidosis in June 2022. This development has brought cardiovascular disease back into the spotlight, with other companies launching new drugs and treatments for various heart conditions.

The chief of the watchdog agency that protects federal workers and whistleblowers, Hampton Dellinger, was one of the first to be fired by President Trump. So were eighteen inspectors general and the chief of the board that protects federal workers. What is happening to independent watchdogs and why are they being dismantled? Correspondent Scott Pelley sits down with Dellinger and others to find out. Five years after it declared bankruptcy, Purdue Pharma and its wealthy owners, members of the Sackler family, have agreed to pay up to $7.4 billion in a proposed settlement that would deliver funds to victims of the opioid crisis. Correspondent Cecilia Vega investigates how this deal—potentially one of the largest opioid settlements ever—will affect the individuals and families who say Purdue's opioids harmed them. With the NCAA basketball tournament, famously known as “March Madness,” tipping off this month, the University of Connecticut men's team is aiming for a historic three-peat. Correspondent Jon Wertheim provides an inside look at coach Dan Hurley's preparations, his strategies for managing a changing roster, and his pre-season rituals. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

TW: suicide, violences, drogues/addictionNon, cette image n'est pas une revisite du Baiser de Klimt, ni de celui de Magritte. Derrière ce cliché pris à la volée se cache une photographe : Nan Goldin, et une histoire plus sombre, celle de toute une génération.Deux crises sanitaires, un même drame : l'épidémie du sida et la crise des opioïdes révèlent l'échec du système de santé américain. Nan Goldin dénonce un système qui ignore la souffrance des marginalisés et pointe la responsabilité de l'industrie pharmaceutique, en particulier de la famille Sackler.Avec son collectif P.A.I.N, elle mène des actions contre les institutions culturelles qui reçoivent des donations des Sackler et exige que Purdue Pharma à l'origine de l'Oxycontin reconnaisse les dangers de ses produits. Lors d'une manifestation au Met, elle interpelle :« Famille Sackler, Purdue Pharma, utilisez vos profits pour sauver des vies, les Sacklers mentent des gens meurent ! »Comparant la crise des opioïdes au sida, elle alerte :« Une génération a disparu dans les années 80… Allons-nous laisser l'histoire se répéter ? »De photographe de l'intime à photographe du réel, Nan Goldin a témoigné pour tous ces gens qui ne pouvaient plus, pour tous ces gens qui ont disparu. C'est l'histoire d'une lutte sans répit pour être vus. D'une femme contre une famille. D'une artiste contre un empire : l'empire de la douleur, celui des Sackler, producteurs de L'OxyContin. Comment une simple pilule, prescrite par les médecins, a-t-elle pu être à l'origine de l'un des plus grands scandales sanitaires des dernières décennies ?Des racines du malade aux racines du mal, on parlera d'un trafic de petits cachets devenu un nouvel esprit du capitalisme, et surtout de ce projet démiurgique : cacher la douleur ou y mettre tout simplement fin.crédit photo et bibliographie :  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hR6nGalT9HDAXawPP11RWwS9_ZZtrTGMT2kpUlsOKi8/edit?usp=sharingecriture et voix : Ambre Duval et Lea Brayette montage, son, communication : Lea brayette 

“Leadership without courage isn't leadership at all, but courage without integrity is dangerous.'' - Winnie da SilvaWhat if your fear was the key to unlocking your greatest leadership potential? In this episode of Transformative Leadership Conversations, I explore the often-overlooked power of fear in leadership. Fear is something all leaders face, but it's not the fear itself that defines us—it's how we respond to it. You'll hear me discuss how we can transform fear from a roadblock into a powerful catalyst for courageous leadership. The question isn't whether you're afraid, it's what you choose to do in the face of that fear.As we navigate these turbulent times, it's more important than ever to lead with courage, not just for yourself but for your team. Fear will always be a part of leadership, but what if you could choose courage instead of being paralyzed by fear?You'll hear me discuss:The Neuroscience of Fear: I break down how your brain responds to fear and why your body treats psychological threats just like physical ones. I'll explain how your brain's stress response can hijack your decision-making and what this means for leaders in high-pressure situations.The Role of Courage in Leadership: Courage isn't about eliminating fear—it's about navigating it. I'll explain why leadership without courage isn't really leadership at all, and why courage without integrity is dangerous. Courage is a skill, not a trait, and it's essential for effective leadership, especially in times of uncertainty and fear.The Brain's Built-in Mechanism for Courage: Neuroscience reveals that our brains are wired to react to fear, but the good news is we can override that natural response. I'll show you how activating your prefrontal cortex allows you to make better decisions, even when fear is present. Courage isn't the absence of fear—it's the ability to act in spite of it.Whistleblowing as an Act of Courage: Using the example of Stephen May, a whistleblower from Purdue Pharma, I'll discuss how standing up against unethical practices takes immense courage, even when the cost is high. You'll hear how speaking truth to power can lead to transformational change, even when the path isn't easy or well-received.Practical Strategies to Cultivate Courage: Finally, I'll offer practical steps to help you develop and strengthen your own courage. From identifying where fear is holding you back to taking small, intentional steps, I'll guide you on how to confront fear head-on and train yourself to be a braver, more effective leader.ResourcesWinnie da Silva on LinkedIn | On the Web | Substack | Email - winnie@winnifred.org

From hoodies to hip-hop, from cultural influence to corporate boardrooms—your identity is your brand's greatest asset. In this Masterclass episode, Evante Daniels returns to unpack the power of authenticity in branding and how embracing your unique identity can translate into profitability. We explore the psychology behind brand confidence, the impact of personal style in professional spaces, and why cultural IP is one of the most undervalued assets in business.But here's the truth—if you don't tie your branding and positioning to ROI, the market won't either. Evante breaks down why companies cut diversity initiatives, why cultural branding often gets overlooked, and how Black entrepreneurs can strategically position themselves to not just be seen, but to drive revenue and business growth. It's not just about showing up—it's about making sure your presence is tied to measurable impact, market share, and long-term brand equity.We also break down real-world examples of cultural branding done right—from hip-hop moguls to streetwear legends—and how businesses can leverage their narratives to elevate influence, establish credibility, and turn cultural capital into actual capital.Whether you're a creator, executive, or entrepreneur, this conversation will challenge you to rethink your brand positioning, embrace your full identity, and ensure your brand isn't just culturally relevant—but financially powerful.Tap in for Part 3 of this powerful Masterclass with Evante Daniels! Listen to Part 1 of our conversation here.Listen to Part 2 of our conversation here.Beyond The Episode Gems:Follow Evante Daniels On LinkedIn For Creative & Brand Insights, Strategy, Content, & MemesInterested In Working With Evante and Seeqer? Visit Seeqer Website For Services, Case Studies, & Getting StartedBuy Evante's Book "Power, Beats, & Rhymes: Reclaiming Our Cultural Voice"Subscribe To My New Weekly LinkedIn Newsletter: Strategize. Market. Grow.Buy My Book, Strategize Up: The Blueprint To Scale Your Business: StrategizeUpBook.comDiscover All Podcasts On The HubSpot Podcast NetworkTry GetResponse For FREE On Me To Monetize Your Content: GetResopnse Content Monetization Plan Support The Podcast & Connect With Troy: Rate & Review iDigress: iDigress.fm/ReviewsFollow Troy's LinkedIn @FindTroyNeed Growth Strategy, A Keynote Speaker, Or Want To Sponsor The Podcast? Go To FindTroy.comFollow Troy's Instagram @FindTroySubscribe to Troy's YouTube Channel

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.Novo has developed a next-generation obesity drug that has shown promising results with up to 22% weight loss in patients. This news comes after a disappointing performance from Cagrisema, which missed Novo's projection of 25% weight reduction in its phase III trial. In other news, Merck's keytruda combination therapy has failed to extend survival in phase III gastrointestinal cancer trials, indicating that the drug may be reaching its limits after numerous approvals. Aardvark Therapeutics has filed for an IPO to advance its lead candidate for obesity treatment. President Donald Trump's actions in his first week in office have caused upheaval in the biopharma industry, including a freeze on communications at major public health agencies. Additionally, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family have settled opioid lawsuits for $7.4 billion, and Biogen is planning to cut research employees. AbbVie has partnered with Neomorph for a collaboration worth up to $1.64 billion. The biopharma industry is facing uncertainty due to Trump's initial policies and decisions.

Purdue Pharma's owners in the Sackler family have agreed to a new $6.5 billion settlement to lawsuits over their role in the U.S. opioid crisis. This comes after a previous deal was rejected by the Supreme Court last year. We’ll break down the details of the settlement and what could come next. And, the U.S. housing market is the slowest it’s been in 30 years, but prices aren’t coming down. What gives? Plus, we’ll play a round of Half Full/Half Empty! Here’s everything we talked about today: “Existing-Home Sales in 2024 Were Slowest in Decades Amid High Mortgage Rates” from The New York Times “United States Housing Market & Prices” from Redfin “Purdue Pharma's Sacklers Agree to New $6.5 Billion Deal for Opioid Lawsuits” from The Wall Street “Supreme Court Jeopardizes Opioid Deal, Rejecting Protections for Sacklers” from The New York Times “Is there a market for luxury EVs? GM thinks so.” from Marketplace “This 24-hour diner helps New Yorkers make it through the night” from Marketplace “The American workweek is shrinking” from Marketplace “‘Lost’ Tina Turner track to be released 2 years after queen of rock ‘n’ roll’s death” from USA Today “UK's 20mph speed limits ‘are cutting car insurance costs'” from The Guardian We love to hear from you. Email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Purdue Pharma's owners in the Sackler family have agreed to a new $6.5 billion settlement to lawsuits over their role in the U.S. opioid crisis. This comes after a previous deal was rejected by the Supreme Court last year. We’ll break down the details of the settlement and what could come next. And, the U.S. housing market is the slowest it’s been in 30 years, but prices aren’t coming down. What gives? Plus, we’ll play a round of Half Full/Half Empty! Here’s everything we talked about today: “Existing-Home Sales in 2024 Were Slowest in Decades Amid High Mortgage Rates” from The New York Times “United States Housing Market & Prices” from Redfin “Purdue Pharma's Sacklers Agree to New $6.5 Billion Deal for Opioid Lawsuits” from The Wall Street “Supreme Court Jeopardizes Opioid Deal, Rejecting Protections for Sacklers” from The New York Times “Is there a market for luxury EVs? GM thinks so.” from Marketplace “This 24-hour diner helps New Yorkers make it through the night” from Marketplace “The American workweek is shrinking” from Marketplace “‘Lost’ Tina Turner track to be released 2 years after queen of rock ‘n’ roll’s death” from USA Today “UK's 20mph speed limits ‘are cutting car insurance costs'” from The Guardian We love to hear from you. Email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Welcome to The Purple Political Breakdown, a feature of US RESIST NEWS, your trusted nonprofit news service dedicated to truthful reporting in an age of disinformation. Hosted by Radell Lewis, this podcast dives into the biggest political stories shaping America today.From high-profile government confirmationslike Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense and John Ratcliffe as CIA Directorto major media shifts, like CNN's transition to streaming amidst significant layoffs, we break it all down.We also explore critical issues like the landmark $7.4 billion settlement by the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma, which aims to address the opioid crisis, and former President Trumps controversial disaster relief visits tied to broader political conditions.Join us for insightful analysis, in-depth reporting, and balanced conversations that matter. Learn more at usresistnews.org.Stay informed. Stay engaged. This is The Purple Political Breakdown.

Welcome to The Purple Political Breakdown, a feature of US RESIST NEWS, your trusted nonprofit news service dedicated to truthful reporting in an age of disinformation. Hosted by Radell Lewis, this podcast dives into the biggest political stories shaping America today.From high-profile government confirmations—like Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense and John Ratcliffe as CIA Director—to major media shifts, like CNN's transition to streaming amidst significant layoffs, we break it all down.We also explore critical issues like the landmark $7.4 billion settlement by the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma, which aims to address the opioid crisis, and former President Trump's controversial disaster relief visits tied to broader political conditions.Join us for insightful analysis, in-depth reporting, and balanced conversations that matter. Learn more at usresistnews.org.Stay informed. Stay engaged. This is The Purple Political Breakdown.

Hamas publishes a list of female hostages to be released on Saturday, M23 rebels encircle Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada's Supreme Court will hear a Quebec religious symbol ban case, President Trump signs an Executive Order to ban a government digital dollar, Trump orders the declassification of files related to JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King Jr., Economists suggest that Trump's deportation plans are already impacting the agricultural sector, The Sacklers and Purdue Pharma agree to $7.4B opioid settlement, A UK teen is jailed for 52 Years in the murder of three girls, In China, a man is sentenced to death for the murder of Japanese boy, and an injured Novak Djokovic is booed after his Australian Open withdrawal. Sources: www.verity.news

Today's Headlines: Trump's first week back has been eventful. Pete Hegseth's Defense Secretary nomination heads to a final vote, while John Ratcliffe is confirmed as CIA director. A new GOP-led January 6th committee was launched and Speaker Johnson has discouraged subpoenaing Cassidy Hutchinson amid fears of exposing lawmakers' explicit texts. Trump's order to limit birthright citizenship faced its first legal challenge, with a federal judge issuing a restraining order, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." Meanwhile, Trump considers cutting FEMA as wildfires rage in Los Angeles, burning over 10,000 acres and prompting mass evacuations. In Nashville, a school shooting left two dead and two injured, despite AI weapon detection software failing. His manifesto cited Candace Owens and Adolf Hitler as inspirations. Lastly, the Sacklers agreed to a $7.4B settlement over Purdue Pharma's opioid crisis role. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: AP News: Senate advances Pete Hegseth as Trump's defense secretary, despite allegations NBC News: Senate confirms John Ratcliffe to be Trump's CIA director Axios: House GOP launches new panel to investigate Jan. 6  WA Post: Johnson aide discouraged Hutchinson subpoena over concerns about lawmakers' ‘sexual texts'  NBC News: Federal district court judge temporarily blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order CBS News: Hughes Fire in LA County burns 10,000 acres, containment rises as some evacuations remain The Guardian: ‘Setting us up for catastrophe': alarm at Trump attack on federal disaster agency  Tennessean: Antioch school shooting updates: Nashville mayor emphasizes community 'togetherness,' fundraiser NBC News: Purdue Pharma, Sackler family to pay $7.4 billion in settlement to OxyContin lawsuits Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A new $7.4 billion settlement with states has been reached with Purdue Pharma and its Sackler family owners to settle lawsuits alleging that their drug OxyContin helped fuel the opioid crisis — but it still has to be approved by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court. We’ll learn more about all the deal entails. Then, we’ll discuss mortgage rates, job creation and immigration. And after, as Congress struggles with tech legislation, states aim to regulate online privacy

A new $7.4 billion settlement with states has been reached with Purdue Pharma and its Sackler family owners to settle lawsuits alleging that their drug OxyContin helped fuel the opioid crisis — but it still has to be approved by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court. We’ll learn more about all the deal entails. Then, we’ll discuss mortgage rates, job creation and immigration. And after, as Congress struggles with tech legislation, states aim to regulate online privacy

A new $7.4 billion settlement with states has been reached with Purdue Pharma and its Sackler family owners to settle lawsuits alleging that their drug OxyContin helped fuel the opioid crisis — but it still has to be approved by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court. We’ll learn more about all the deal entails. Then, we’ll discuss mortgage rates, job creation and immigration. And after, as Congress struggles with tech legislation, states aim to regulate online privacy

(1/17/2025-1/24/2025) Tune in. patreon.com/isaiahnews #applepodcasts⁠ ⁠#spotifypodcasts⁠ ⁠#youtube #amazon⁠ ⁠#patreon⁠

In our news wrap Thursday, California firefighters are battling new fires in the Los Angeles area, Oxycontin maker Purdue Pharma and the family who owns it will pay up to $7.4 billion to settle lawsuits stemming from the opioid crisis and the International Criminal Court's top prosecutor is seeking arrest warrants for two Taliban leaders over the repression of women in Afghanistan. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

AP correspondent Haya Panjwani reports on a settlement in the opioid crisis.

1UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISIONIn re:INTRUM AB, et al.,1Debtors.Chapter 11Case No. 24-90575 (CML)(Jointly Administered)NOTICE OF APPEALPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002 and 8003,notice is hereby given that the Ad Hoc Committee of holders of 2025 notes issued by Intrum AB(the “AHC”) hereby appeals to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texasfrom (i) the Order Denying Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule ofBankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (ECF No. 262) (the “Motion to Dismiss Order”) and (ii) theOrder (I) Approving Disclosure Statement and (II) Confirming Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11Plan of Intrum AB and Its Affiliated Debtor (Further Technical Modifications) (ECF No. 263) (the“Confirmation Order”). A copy of the Motion to Dismiss Order is attached as Exhibit A and acopy of the Confirmation Order is attached as Exhibit B. Additionally, the transcript of theBankruptcy Court's oral ruling accompanying the Motion to Dismiss Order and ConfirmationOrder (ECF No. 275) is attached as Exhibit C.Below are the names of all parties to this appeal and their respective counsel:1 The Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors'service address in these Chapter 11 Cases is 801 Travis Street, Ste 2101, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 62I. APPELLANTA. Name of Appellant:The members of the AHC include:Boundary Creek Master Fund LP; CF INT Holdings Designated Activity Company; CaiusCapital Master Fund; Diameter Master Fund LP; Diameter Dislocation Master Fund II LP; FirTree Credit Opportunity Master Fund, LP; MAP 204 Segregated Portfolio, a segregated portfolioof LMA SPC; Star V Partners LLC; and TQ Master Fund LP.Attorneys for the AHC:QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPChristopher D. Porter (SBN 24070437)Joanna D. Caytas (SBN 24127230)Melanie A. Guzman (SBN 24117175)Cameron M. Kelly (SBN 24120936)700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900Houston, TX 77002Telephone: (713) 221-7000Facsimile: (713) 221-7100Email: chrisporter@quinnemanuel.comjoannacaytas@quinnemanuel.commelanieguzman@quinnemanuel.comcameronkelly@quinnemanuel.com-and-Benjamin I. Finestone (admitted pro hac vice)Sascha N. Rand (admitted pro hac vice)Katherine A. Scherling (admitted pro hac vice)295 5th AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100Email: benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.comsascharand@quinnemanuel.comkatescherling@quinnemanuel.comB. Positions of appellant in the adversary proceeding or bankruptcy case that isthe subject of this appeal:CreditorsCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 2 of 63II. THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEALA. Judgment, order, or decree appealed from:The Order Denying Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule ofBankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (ECF No. 262); the Order (I) Approving Disclosure Statementand (II) Confirming Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Intrum AB and Its Affiliated Debtor(Further Technical Modifications) (ECF No. 263); and the December 31, 2024 Transcript of OralRuling Before the Honorable Christopher M. Lopez United States Bankruptcy Court Judge (ECFNo. 275).B. The date on which the judgment, order, or decree was entered:The Motion to Dismiss Order and the Confirmation Order were entered on December 31,2024. The Court issued its oral ruling accompanying the Motion to Dismiss Order and theConfirmation Order on December 31, 2024.III. OTHER PARTIES TO THIS APPEALIntrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLCMILBANK LLPDennis F. Dunne (admitted pro hac vice)Jaimie Fedell (admitted pro hac vice)55 Hudson YardsNew York, NY 10001Telephone: (212) 530-5000Facsimile: (212) 530-5219Email: ddunne@milbank.comjfedell@milbank.com–and–Andrew M. Leblanc (admitted pro hac vice)Melanie Westover Yanez (admitted pro hac vice)1850 K Street, NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20006Telephone: (202) 835-7500Facsimile: (202) 263-7586Email: aleblanc@milbank.commwyanez@milbank.com–and–PORTER HEDGES LLPJohn F. Higgins (SBN 09597500)Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 3 of 64Eric D. Wade (SBN 00794802)M. Shane Johnson (SBN 24083263)1000 Main Street, 36th FloorHouston TX 77002Telephone: (713) 226-6000Facsimile: (713) 226-6248Email: jhiggins@porterhedges.comewade@porterhedges.comsjohnson@porterhedges.comIV. OTHER PARTIES THAT MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS APPEALThe following chart lists certain parties that are not parties to this appeal, but that may havean interest in the outcome of the case. These parties should be served with notice of this appealby the Debtors who are aware of their identities and best positioned to provide notice.All Other Creditors of the Debtors, Including, But Not Limited To:• Certain funds and accounts managed by BlackRock Investment Management (UK)Limited or its affiliates;• Capital Four;• Davidson Kempner European Partners, LLP;• Intermediate Capital Managers Limited;• Mandatum Asset Management Ltd;• H.I.G. Capital, LLC;• Spiltan Hograntefond; Spiltan Rantefond Sverige; and Spiltan Aktiefond Stabil;• The RCF SteerCo Group;• Swedbank AB (publ).Any Holder of Stock of the Debtors• Any holder of stock of the Debtors, including their successors and assigns.Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 4 of 65Respectfully submitted this 13th day of January, 2025.QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN, LLP/s/ Christopher D. PorterChristopher D. Porter (SBN 24070437)Joanna D. Caytas (SBN 24127230)Melanie A. Guzman (SBN 24117175)Cameron M. Kelly (SBN 24120936)700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900Houston, TX 77002Telephone: (713) 221-7000Facsimile: (713) 221-7100Email: chrisporter@quinnemanuel.comjoannacaytas@quinnemanuel.commelanieguzman@quinnemanuel.comcameronkelly@quinnemanuel.com-and-Benjamin I. Finestone (admitted pro hac vice)Sascha N. Rand (admitted pro hac vice)Katherine A. Scherling (admitted pro hac vice)295 5th AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100Email: benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.comsascharand@quinnemanuel.comkatescherling@quinnemanuel.comCOUNSEL FOR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OFINTRUM AB 2025 NOTEHOLDERSCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 5 of 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI, Christopher D. Porter, hereby certify that on the 13th day of January, 2025, a copy ofthe foregoing document has been served via the Electronic Case Filing System for the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas./s/ Christopher D. PorterBy: Christopher D. PorterCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 6 of 6EXHIBIT ACase 24-90575 Document 296-1 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 31IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)In re: ) Chapter 11)Intrum AB, et al.,1 ) Case No. 24-90575 (CML)))Jointly AdministeredDebtors. ))ORDER DENYING MOTION OF THE AD HOCCOMMITTEE OF HOLDERS OF INTRUM AB NOTES DUE 2025TO DISMISS CHAPTER 11 CASES PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B) ANDFEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 1017(F)(1)(Related to Docket No. 27)This matter, having come before the Court upon the Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee ofHolders of Intrum AB Notes Due 2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) [Docket No. 27] (the “Motion toDismiss”); and this Court having considered the Debtors' Objection to the Motion of the Ad HocCommittee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due 2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (the “Objection”) andany other responses or objections to the Motion to Dismiss; and this Court having jurisdiction overthis matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the Amended Standing Order; and this Court havingfound that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); and this Court having foundthat it may enter a final order consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution; and thisCourt having found that the relief requested in the Objection is in the best interests of the Debtors'1 The Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors' serviceaddress in these Chapter 11 Cases is 801 Travis Street, STE 2101, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.United States Bankruptcy CourtSouthern District of TexasENTEREDDecember 31, 2024Nathan Ochsner, ClerkCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29662-1 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 2 o of f2 32estates; and this Court having found that the Debtors' notice of the Objection and opportunity fora hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and Objection were appropriate and no other notice need beprovided; and this Court having reviewed the Motion to Dismiss and Objection and havingheard the statements in support of the relief requested therein at a hearing before this Court; andthis Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Objectionestablish just cause for the relief granted herein; and upon all of the proceedings had beforethis Court; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is HEREBYORDERED THAT:1. The Motion to Dismiss is Denied for the reasons stated at the December 31, 2024 hearing.2. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive venue with respect to allmatters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.DAeucegmubste 0r 23,1 2, 0210294CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29662-1 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 3 o of f2 3EXHIBIT BCase 24-90575 Document 296-2 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 135IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)In re: ) Chapter 11)Intrum AB et al.,1 ) Case No. 24-90575 (CML)))(Jointly Administered)Debtors. ))ORDER (I) APPROVINGDISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND(II) CONFIRMING JOINT PREPACKAGED CHAPTER 11PLAN OF INTRUM AB AND ITS AFFILIATEDDEBTOR (FURTHER TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS)The above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the“Debtors”), having:a. entered into that certain Lock-Up Agreement, dated as of July 10, 2024 (asamended and restated on August 15, 2024, and as further modified,supplemented, or otherwise amended from time to time in accordance with itsterms, the “the Lock-Up Agreement”) and that certain Backstop Agreement,dated as of July 10, 2024, (as amended and restated on November 15, 2024 andas further modified, supplemented, or otherwise amended from time to time inaccordance with its terms), setting out the terms of the backstop commitmentsprovided by the Backstop Providers to backstop the entirety of the issuance ofNew Money Notes (as may be further amended, restated, amended and restated,modified or supplemented from time to time in accordance with the termsthereof, the “Backstop Agreement”) which set forth the terms of a consensualfinancial restructuring of the Debtors;b. commenced, on October 17, 2024, a prepetition solicitation (the “Solicitation”)of votes on the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of IntrumAB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (asthe same may be further amended, modified and supplemented from time totime, the “Plan”), by causing the transmittal, through their solicitation andballoting agent, Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”), to theholders of Claims entitled to vote on the Plan of, among other things: (i) the1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors' serviceaddress in these chapter 11 cases is 801 Travis Street, STE 2102, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.United States Bankruptcy CourtSouthern District of TexasENTEREDDecember 31, 2024Nathan Ochsner, ClerkCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 2 o of f1 133452Plan, (ii) the Disclosure Statement for Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate (as the same may befurther amended, modified and supplemented from time to time, the“Disclosure Statement”), and (iii) the Ballots and Master Ballot to vote on thePlan (the “Ballots”), (iv) the Affidavit of Service of Solicitation Materials[Docket No. 7];c. commenced on November 15, 2024 (the “Petition Date”), these chapter 11 cases(these “Chapter 11 Cases”) by filing voluntary petitions in the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”or the “Court”) for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code(the “Bankruptcy Code”);d. Filed on November 15, 2024, the Affidavit of Service of Solicitation Materials[Docket No. 7] (the “Solicitation Affidavit”);e. Filed, on November 16, 2024 the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code (Technical Modifications) [Docket No. 16] and theDisclosure Statement for Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Intrum AB andits Debtor Affiliate [Docket No. 17];f. Filed on November 16, 2024, the Declaration of Andrés Rubio in Support of ofthe Debtors' Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions [Docket No. 14] (the“First Day Declaration”);g. Filed on November 17, 2024, the Declaration of Alex Orchowski of KrollRestructuring Administration LLC Regarding the Solicitation of Votes andTabulation of Ballots Case on the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 18] (the “Voting Declaration,” andtogether with the Plan, the Disclosure Statement, the Ballots, and theSolicitation Affidavit, the “Solicitation Materials”);h. obtained, on November 19, 2024, the Order(I) Scheduling a Combined Hearingon (A) Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and (B) Confirmation of the Plan,(II) Approving Solicitation Procedures and Form and Manner of Notice ofCommencement, Combined Hearing, and Objection Deadline, (III) FixingDeadline to Object to Disclosure Statement and Plan, (IV) Conditionally (A)Directing the United States Trustee Not to Convene Section 341 Meeting ofCreditors and (B) Waiving Requirement to File Statements of Financial Affairsand Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, and (V) Granting Related Relief[Docket No. 71] (the “Scheduling Order”), which, among other things: (i)approved the prepetition solicitation and voting procedures, including theConfirmation Schedule (as defined therein); (ii) conditionally approved theDisclosure Statement and its use in the Solicitation; and (iii) scheduled theCombined Hearing on December 16, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. (prevailing CentralCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 3 o of f1 133453Time) to consider the final approval of the Disclosure Statement and theconfirmation of the Plan (the “Combined Hearing”);i. served, through Kroll, on November 20, 2025, on all known holders of Claimsand Interests, the U.S. Trustee and certain other parties in interest, the Noticeof: (I) Commencement of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases; (II) Hearing on theDisclosure Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (III) Certain ObjectionDeadlines (the “Combined Hearing Notice”) as evidence by the Affidavit ofService [Docket No. 160];j. caused, on November 25 and 27, 2024, the Combined Hearing Notice to bepublished in the New York Times (national and international editions) and theFinancial Times (international edition), as evidenced by the Certificate ofPublication [Docket No. 148];k. Filed and served, on December 10, 2024, the Plan Supplement for the Debtors'Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Docket 165];l. Filed on December 10, 2024, the Declaration of Jeffrey Kopa in Support ofConfirmation of the Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Intrum ABand its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [DocketNo. 155];m. Filed on December 14, 2024, the:i. Debtors' Memorandum of Law in Support of an Order: (I) Approving, on aFinal Basis, Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement; (II) Confirming theJoint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization; and (III) Granting Related Relief[Docket No. 190] (the “Confirmation Brief”);ii. Declaration of Andrés Rubio in Support of Confirmation of the JointPrepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate.[Docket No. 189] (the “Confirmation Declaration”); andiii. Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Intrum AB and itsDebtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (FurtherTechnical Modifications) [Docket No. 191];n. Filed on December 18, 2024, the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code (Further Technical Modifications) [Docket No. 223];CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 3 4 o of f1 133454WHEREAS, the Court having, among other things:a. set December 12, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) as the deadlinefor Filing objection to the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and/orConfirmation2 of the Plan (the “Objection Deadline”);b. held, on December 16, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) [andcontinuing through December 17, 2024], the Combined Hearing;c. heard the statements, arguments, and any objections made at the CombinedHearing;d. reviewed the Disclosure Statement, the Plan, the Ballots, the Plan Supplement,the Confirmation Brief, the Confirmation Declaration, the SolicitationAffidavit, and the Voting Declaration;e. overruled (i) any and all objections to approval of the Disclosure Statement, thePlan, and Confirmation, except as otherwise stated or indicated on the record,and (ii) all statements and reservations of rights not consensually resolved orwithdrawn, unless otherwise indicated; andf. reviewed and taken judicial notice of all the papers and pleadings Filed(including any objections, statement, joinders, reservations of rights and otherresponses), all orders entered, and all evidence proffered or adduced and allarguments made at the hearings held before the Court during the pendency ofthese cases;NOW, THEREFORE, it appearing to the Bankruptcy Court that notice of theCombined Hearing and the opportunity for any party in interest to object to the DisclosureStatement and the Plan having been adequate and appropriate as to all parties affected or to beaffected by the Plan and the transactions contemplated thereby, and the legal and factual bases setforth in the documents Filed in support of approval of the Disclosure Statement and Confirmationand other evidence presented at the Combined Hearing establish just cause for the relief grantedherein; and after due deliberation thereon and good cause appearing therefor, the BankruptcyCourt makes and issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and orders for thereasons stated on the record at the December 31, 2024 ruling on plan confirmation;2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have meanings given to them in the Plan and/or theDisclosure Statement. The rules of interpretation set forth in Article I.B of the Plan apply to this CombinedOrder.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 4 5 o of f1 133455I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWIT IS HEREBY FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT:A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.1. The findings and conclusions set forth herein and in the record of theCombined Hearing constitute the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law underRule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable herein by Bankruptcy Rules7052 and 9014. To the extent any of the following conclusions of law constitute findings of fact,or vice versa, they are adopted as such.B. Jurisdiction, Venue, Core Proceeding.2. This Court has jurisdiction over these Chapter 11 Cases pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1334. Venue of these proceedings and the Chapter 11 Cases in this district is properpursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 157(b)(2) and this Court may enter a final order hereon under Article III of the United StatesConstitution.C. Eligibility for Relief.3. The Debtors were and continue to be entities eligible for relief under section109 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Debtors were and continue to be proper proponents of thePlan under section 1121(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.D. Commencement and Joint Administration of the Chapter 11 Cases.4. On the Petition Date, the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Cases. OnNovember 18, 2024, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 51] authorizing the jointadministration of the Chapter 11 Case in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b). The Debtorshave operated their businesses and managed their properties as debtors in possession pursuant toCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 5 6 o of f1 133456sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. No trustee, examiner, or statutory committeehas been appointed in these Chapter 11 Cases.E. Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement.5. The Disclosure Statement and the exhibits contained therein (i) containssufficient information of a kind necessary to satisfy the disclosure requirements of applicablenonbankruptcy laws, rules and regulations, including the Securities Act; and (ii) contains“adequate information” as such term is defined in section 1125(a)(1) and used in section1126(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, with respect to the Debtors, the Plan and the transactionscontemplated therein. The Filing of the Disclosure Statement satisfied Bankruptcy Rule 3016(b).The injunction, release, and exculpation provisions in the Plan and the Disclosure Statementdescribe, in bold font and with specific and conspicuous language, all acts to be enjoined andidentify the Entities that will be subject to the injunction, thereby satisfying Bankruptcy Rule3016(c).F. Solicitation.6. As described in and evidenced by the Voting Declaration, the Solicitationand the transmittal and service of the Solicitation Materials were: (i) timely, adequate, appropriate,and sufficient under the circumstances; and (ii) in compliance with sections 1125(g) and 1126(b)of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 3017 and 3018, the applicable Local Bankruptcy Rules,the Scheduling Order and all applicable nonbankruptcy rules, laws, and regulations applicable tothe Solicitation, including the registration requirements under the Securities Act. The SolicitationMaterials, including the Ballots and the Opt Out Form (as defined below), adequately informedthe holders of Claims entitled to vote on the Plan of the procedures and deadline for completingand submitting the Ballots.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 6 7 o of f1 1334577. The Debtors served the Combined Hearing Notice on the entire creditormatrix and served the Opt Out Form on all Non-Voting Classes. The Combined Hearing Noticeadequately informed Holders of Claims or Interests of critical information regarding voting on (ifapplicable) and objecting to the Plan, including deadlines and the inclusion of release, exculpation,and injunction provisions in the Plan, and adequately summarized the terms of the Third-PartyRelease. Further, because the form enabling stakeholders to opt out of the Third-Party Release (the“Opt Out Form”) was included in both the Ballots and the Opt Out Form, every known stakeholder,including unimpaired creditors was provided with the means by which the stakeholders could optout of the Third-Party Release. No further notice is required. The period for voting on the Planprovided a reasonable and sufficient period of time and the manner of such solicitation was anappropriate process allowing for such holders to make an informed decision.G. Tabulation.8. As described in and evidenced by the Voting Declaration, (i) the holders ofClaims in Class 3 (RCF Claims) and Class 5 (Notes Claims) are Impaired under the Plan(collectively, the “Voting Classes”) and have voted to accept the Plan in the numbers and amountsrequired by section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, and (ii) no Class that was entitled to vote on thePlan voted to reject the Plan. All procedures used to tabulate the votes on the Plan were in goodfaith, fair, reasonable, and conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of theBankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules, the Disclosure Statement, theScheduling Order, and all other applicable nonbankruptcy laws, rules, and regulations.H. Plan Supplement.9. On December 10, 2024, the Debtors Filed the Plan Supplement with theCourt. The Plan Supplement (including as subsequently modified, supplemented, or otherwiseCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 7 8 o of f1 133458amended pursuant to a filing with the Court), complies with the terms of the Plan, and the Debtorsprovided good and proper notice of the filing in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, theBankruptcy Rules, the Scheduling Order, and the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases.All documents included in the Plan Supplement are integral to, part of, and incorporated byreference into the Plan. No other or further notice is or will be required with respect to the PlanSupplement. Subject to the terms of the Plan and the Lock-Up Agreement, and only consistenttherewith, the Debtors reserve the right to alter, amend, update, or modify the Plan Supplementand any of the documents contained therein or related thereto, in accordance with the Plan, on orbefore the Effective Date.I. Modifications to the Plan.10. Pursuant to section 1127 of the Bankruptcy Code, the modifications to thePlan described or set forth in this Combined Order constitute technical or clarifying changes,changes with respect to particular Claims by agreement with holders of such Claims, ormodifications that do not otherwise materially and adversely affect or change the treatment of anyother Claim or Interest under the Plan. These modifications are consistent with the disclosurespreviously made pursuant to the Disclosure Statement and Solicitation Materials, and notice ofthese modifications was adequate and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the Chapter11 Cases. In accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3019, these modifications do not require additionaldisclosure under section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code or the resolicitation of votes under section1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, and they do not require that holders of Claims or Interests beafforded an opportunity to change previously cast acceptances or rejections of the Plan.Accordingly, the Plan is properly before this Court and all votes cast with respect to the Plan priorto such modification shall be binding and shall apply with respect to the Plan.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 8 9 o of f1 133459J. Objections Overruled.11. Any resolution or disposition of objections to Confirmation explained orotherwise ruled upon by the Court on the record at the Confirmation Hearing is herebyincorporated by reference. All unresolved objections, statements, joinders, informal objections,and reservations of rights are hereby overruled on the merits.K. Burden of Proof.12. The Debtors, as proponents of the Plan, have met their burden of provingthe elements of sections 1129(a) and 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code by a preponderance of theevidence, the applicable evidentiary standard for Confirmation. Further, the Debtors have proventhe elements of sections 1129(a) and 1129(b) by clear and convincing evidence. Each witness whotestified on behalf of the Debtors in connection with the Confirmation Hearing was credible,reliable, and qualified to testify as to the topics addressed in his testimony.L. Compliance with the Requirements of Section 1129 of the BankruptcyCode.13. The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of section 1129 of theBankruptcy Code as follows:a. Section 1129(a)(1) – Compliance of the Plan with Applicable Provisions of theBankruptcy Code.14. The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code,including sections 1122 and 1123, as required by section 1129(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.i. Section 1122 and 1123(a)(1) – Proper Classification.15. The classification of Claims and Interests under the Plan is proper under theBankruptcy Code. In accordance with sections 1122(a) and 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code,Article III of the Plan provides for the separate classification of Claims and Interests at each Debtorinto Classes, based on differences in the legal nature or priority of such Claims and Interests (otherCaCsaes e2 42-49-09507557 5 D oDcoucmumenetn 2t 9266-32 FFiilleedd iinn TTXXSSBB oonn 1021//3113//2245 PPaaggee 91 0o fo 1f 3143510than Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, and Priority Tax Claims, which areaddressed in Article II of the Plan and Unimpaired, and are not required to be designated asseparate Classes in accordance with section 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code). Valid business,factual, and legal reasons exist for the separate classification of the various Classes of Claims andInterests created under the Plan, the classifications were not implemented for any improperpurpose, and the creation of such Classes does not unfairly discriminate between or among holdersof Claims or Interests.16. In accordance with section 1122(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, each Class ofClaims or Interests contains only Claims or Interests substantially similar to the other Claims orInterests within that Class. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of sections 1122(a),1122(b), and 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Codeii. Section 1123(a)(2) – Specifications of Unimpaired Classes.17. Article III of the Plan specifies that Claims and Interests in the classesdeemed to accept the Plan are Unimpaired under the Plan. Holders of Intercompany Claims andIntercompany Interests are either Unimpaired and conclusively presumed to have accepted thePlan, or are Impaired and deemed to reject (the “Deemed Rejecting Classes”) the Plan, and, ineither event, are not entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan. In addition, Article II of the Planspecifies that Administrative Claims and Priority Tax Claims are Unimpaired, although the Plandoes not classify these Claims. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1123(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 101 o of f1 1334511iii. Section 1123(a)(3) – Specification of Treatment of Voting Classes18. Article III.B of the Plan specifies the treatment of each Voting Class underthe Plan – namely, Class 3 and Class 5. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1123(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.iv. Section 1123(a)(4) – No Discrimination.19. Article III of the Plan provides the same treatment to each Claim or Interestin any particular Class, as the case may be, unless the holder of a particular Claim or Interest hasagreed to a less favorable treatment with respect to such Claim or Interest. Accordingly, the Plansatisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.v. Section 1123(a)(5) – Adequate Means for Plan Implementation.20. The Plan and the various documents included in the Plan Supplementprovide adequate and proper means for the Plan's execution and implementation, including: (a)the general settlement of Claims and Interests; (b) the restructuring of the Debtors' balance sheetand other financial transactions provided for by the Plan; (c) the consummation of the transactionscontemplated by the Plan, the Lock-Up Agreement, the Restructuring Implementation Deed andthe Agreed Steps Plan and other documents Filed as part of the Plan Supplement; (d) the issuanceof Exchange Notes, the New Money Notes, and the Noteholder Ordinary Shares pursuant to thePlan; (e) the amendment of the Intercreditor Agreement; (f) the amendment of the FacilityAgreement; (g) the amendment of the Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement; (h) theconsummation of the Rights Offering in accordance with the Plan, Rights Offering Documentsand the Lock-Up Agreement; (i) the granting of all Liens and security interests granted orconfirmed (as applicable) pursuant to, or in connection with, the Facility Agreement, the ExchangeNotes Indenture, the New Money Notes Indenture, the amended Intercreditor Agreement and theCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 112 o of f1 1334512Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement pursuant to the New Security Documents (including anyLiens and security interests granted or confirmed (as applicable) on the Reorganized Debtors'assets); (j) the vesting of the assets of the Debtors' Estates in the Reorganized Debtors; (k) theconsummation of the corporate reorganization contemplated by the Plan, the Lock-Up Agreement,the Agreed Steps Plan and the Master Reorganization Agreement (as defined in the RestructuringImplementation Deed); and (l) the execution, delivery, filing, or recording of all contracts,instruments, releases, and other agreements or documents in furtherance of the Plan. Accordingly,the Plan satisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Codevi. Section 1123(a)(6) – Non-Voting Equity Securities.21. The Company's organizational documents in accordance with the SwedishCompanies Act, Ch. 4, Sec 5 and the Plan prohibit the issuance of non-voting securities as of theEffective Date to the extent required to comply with section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.vii. Section 1123(a)(7) – Directors, Officers, and Trustees.22. The manner of selection of any officer, director, or trustee (or any successorto and such officer, director, or trustee) of the Reorganized Debtors will be determined inaccordance with the existing organizational documents, which is consistent with the interests ofcreditors and equity holders and with public policy. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies therequirements of section 1123(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code.b. Section 1123(b) – Discretionary Contents of the Plan23. The Plan contains various provisions that may be construed as discretionarybut not necessary for Confirmation under the Bankruptcy Code. Any such discretionary provisionCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 123 o of f1 1334513complies with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and is not inconsistent with the applicableprovisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the Plan satisfies section 1123(b).i. Section 1123(b)(1) – Impairment/Unimpairment of Any Class of Claims orInterests24. Article III of the Plan impairs or leaves unimpaired, as the case may be,each Class of Claims or Interests, as contemplated by section 1123(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.ii. Section 1123(b)(2) – Assumption and Rejection of Executory Contracts andUnexpired Leases25. Article V of the Plan provides for the assumption of the Debtors' ExecutoryContracts and Unexpired Leases as of the Effective Date unless such Executory Contract orUnexpired Lease: (a) is identified on the Rejected Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease List;(b) has been previously rejected by a Final Order; (c) is the subject of a motion to reject ExecutoryContracts or Unexpired Leases that is pending on the Confirmation Date; or (4) is subject to amotion to reject an Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease pursuant to which the requestedeffective date of such rejection is after the Effective Date. Thus, the Plan satisfies section1123(b)(2).iii. Compromise and Settlement26. In accordance with section 1123(b)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code andBankruptcy Rule 9019, and in consideration for the distributions and other benefits provided underthe Plan, the provisions of the Plan constitute a good-faith compromise of all Claims, Interests,and controversies relating to the contractual, legal, and subordination rights that all holders ofClaims or Interests may have with respect to any Allowed Claim or Interest or any distribution tobe made on account of such Allowed Claim or Interest. Such compromise and settlement is theproduct of extensive arm's-length, good faith negotiations that, in addition to the Plan, resulted inCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 134 o of f1 1334514the execution of the Lock-Up Agreement, which represents a fair and reasonable compromise ofall Claims, Interests, and controversies and entry into which represented a sound exercise of theDebtors' business judgment. Such compromise and settlement is fair, equitable, and reasonableand in the best interests of the Debtors and their Estates.27. The releases of the Debtors' directors and officers are an integral componentof the settlements and compromises embodied in the Plan. The Debtors' directors and officers: (a)made a substantial and valuable contribution to the Debtors' restructuring, including extensive preandpost-Petition Date negotiations with stakeholder groups, and ensured the uninterruptedoperation of the Debtors' businesses during the Chapter 11 Cases; (b) invested significant timeand effort to make the restructuring a success and maximize the value of the Debtors' businessesin a challenging operating environment; (c) attended and, in certain instances, testified atdepositions and Court hearings; (d) attended and participated in numerous stakeholder meetings,management meetings, and board meetings related to the restructuring; (e) are entitled toindemnification from the Debtors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, organizationaldocuments, and agreements; (f) invested significant time and effort in the preparation of the Lock-Up Agreement, the Plan, Disclosure Statement, all supporting analyses, and the numerous otherpleadings Filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, thereby ensuring the smooth administration of the Chapter11 Cases; and (g) are entitled to all other benefits under any employment contracts existing as ofthe Petition Date. Litigation by the Debtors or other Releasing Parties against the Debtors'directors and officers would be a distraction to the Debtors' business and restructuring and woulddecrease rather than increase the value of the estates. The releases of the Debtors' directors andofficers contained in the Plan have the consent of the Debtors and the Releasing Parties and are inthe best interests of the estates.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 145 o of f1 1334515iv. Debtor Release28. The releases of claims and Causes of Action by the Debtors, ReorganizedDebtors, and their Estates described in Article VIII.C of the Plan in accordance with section1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Debtor Release”) represent a valid exercise of the Debtors'business judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. The Debtors' or the Reorganized Debtors' pursuitof any such claims against the Released Parties is not in the best interests of the Estates' variousconstituencies because the costs involved would outweigh any potential benefit from pursuingsuch claims. The Debtor Release is fair and equitable and complies with the absolute priority rule.29. The Debtor Release is (a) an integral part of the Plan, and a component ofthe comprehensive settlement implemented under the Plan; (b) in exchange for the good andvaluable consideration provided by the Released Parties; (c) a good faith settlement andcompromise of the claims and Causes of Action released by the Debtor Release; (d) materiallybeneficial to, and in the best interests of, the Debtors, their Estates, and their stakeholders, and isimportant to the overall objectives of the Plan to finally resolve certain Claims among or againstcertain parties in interest in the Chapter 11 Cases; (e) fair, equitable, and reasonable; (f) given andmade after due notice and opportunity for hearing; and (g) a bar to any Debtor asserting any claimor Cause of Action released by the Debtor Release against any of the Released Parties. Theprobability of success in litigation with respect to the released claims and Causes of Action, whenweighed against the costs, supports the Debtor Release. With respect to each of these potentialCauses of Action, the parties could assert colorable defenses and the probability of success isuncertain. The Debtors' or the Reorganized Debtors' pursuit of any such claims or Causes ofAction against the Released Parties is not in the best interests of the Estates or the Debtors' variousCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 156 o of f1 1334516constituencies because the costs involved would likely outweigh any potential benefit frompursuing such claims or Causes of Action30. Holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote have overwhelmingly votedin favor of the Plan, including the Debtor Release. The Plan, including the Debtor Release, wasnegotiated before and after the Petition Date by sophisticated parties represented by able counseland advisors, including the Consenting Creditors. The Debtor Release is therefore the result of ahard fought and arm's-length negotiation process conducted in good faith.31. The Debtor Release appropriately offers protection to parties thatparticipated in the Debtors' restructuring process, including the Consenting Creditors, whoseparticipation in the Chapter 11 Cases is critical to the Debtors' successful emergence frombankruptcy. Specifically, the Released Parties, including the Consenting Creditors, madesignificant concessions and contributions to the Chapter 11 Cases, including, entering into theLock-Up Agreement and related agreements, supporting the Plan and the Chapter 11 Cases, andwaiving or agreeing to impair substantial rights and Claims against the Debtors under the Plan (aspart of the compromises composing the settlement underlying the revised Plan) in order tofacilitate a consensual reorganization and the Debtors' emergence from chapter 11. The DebtorRelease for the Debtors' directors and officers is appropriate because the Debtors' directors andofficers share an identity of interest with the Debtors and, as previously stated, supported and madesubstantial contributions to the success of the Plan, the Chapter 11 Cases, and operation of theDebtors' business during the Chapter 11 Cases, actively participated in meetings, negotiations, andimplementation during the Chapter 11 Cases, and have provided other valuable consideration tothe Debtors to facilitate the Debtors' successful reorganization and continued operation.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 167 o of f1 133451732. The scope of the Debtor Release is appropriately tailored under the factsand circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases. In light of, among other things, the value provided bythe Released Parties to the Debtors' Estates and the critical nature of the Debtor Release to thePlan, the Debtor Release is appropriate.v. Release by Holders of Claims and Interests33. The release by the Releasing Parties (the “Third-Party Release”), set forthin Article VIII.D of the Plan, is an essential provision of the Plan. The Third-Party Release is: (a)consensual as to those Releasing Parties that did not specifically and timely object or properly optout from the Third-Party Release; (b) within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1334; (c) in exchange for the good and valuable consideration provided by theReleased Parties; (d) a good faith settlement and compromise of the claims and Causes of Actionreleased by the Third-Party Release; (e) materially beneficial to, and in the best interests of, theDebtors, their Estates, and their stakeholders, and is important to the overall objectives of the Planto finally resolve certain Claims among or against certain parties in interest in the Chapter 11Cases; (f) fair, equitable, and reasonable; (g) given and made after due notice and opportunity forhearing; (h) appropriately narrow in scope given that it expressly excludes, among other things,any Cause of Action that is judicially determined by a Final Order to have constituted actual fraud,willful misconduct, or gross negligence; (i) a bar to any of the Releasing Parties asserting anyclaim or Cause of Action released by the Third-Party Release against any of the Released Parties;and (j) consistent with sections 105, 524, 1123, 1129, and 1141 and other applicable provisions ofthe Bankruptcy Code.34. The Third-Party Release is an integral part of the agreement embodied inthe Plan among the relevant parties in interest. Like the Debtor Release, the Third-Party ReleaseCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 178 o of f1 1334518facilitated participation in both the Debtors' Plan and the chapter 11 process generally. The Third-Party Release is instrumental to the Plan and was critical in incentivizing parties to support thePlan and preventing significant and time-consuming litigation regarding the parties' respectiverights and interests. The Third-Party Release was a core negotiation point in connection with thePlan and instrumental in developing the Plan that maximized value for all of the Debtors'stakeholders and kept the Debtors intact as a going concern. As such, the Third-Party Releaseappropriately offers certain protections to parties who constructively participated in the Debtors'restructuring process—including the Consenting Creditors (as set forth above)—by, among otherthings, facilitating the negotiation and consummation of the Plan, supporting the Plan and, in thecase of the Backstop Providers, committing to provide new capital to facilitate the Debtors'emergence from chapter 11. Specifically, the Notes Ad Hoc Group proposed and negotiated thepari passu transaction that is the basis of the restructuring proposed under the Plan and provideda much-needed deleveraging to the Debtors' business while taking a discount on their Claims (inexchange for other consideration).35. Furthermore, the Third-Party Release is consensual as to all parties ininterest, including all Releasing Parties, and such parties in interest were provided notice of thechapter 11 proceedings, the Plan, the deadline to object to confirmation of the Plan, and theCombined Hearing and were properly informed that all holders of Claims against or Interests inthe Debtors that did not file an objection with the Court in the Chapter 11 Cases that included anexpress objection to the inclusion of such holder as a Releasing Party under the provisionscontained in Article VIII of the Plan would be deemed to have expressly, unconditionally,generally, individually, and collectively consented to the release and discharge of all claims andCauses of Action against the Debtors and the Released Parties. Additionally, the release provisionsCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 189 o of f1 1334519of the Plan were conspicuous, emphasized with boldface type in the Plan, the DisclosureStatement, the Ballots, and the applicable notices. Except as set forth in the Plan, all ReleasingParties were properly informed that unless they (a) checked the “opt out” box on the applicableBallot or opt-out form and returned the same in advance of the Voting Deadline, as applicable, or(b) timely Filed an objection to the releases contained in the Plan that was not resolved beforeentry of this Confirmation Order, they would be deemed to have expressly consented to the releaseof all Claims and Causes of Action against the Released Parties.36. The Ballots sent to all holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote, aswell as the notice of the Combined Hearing sent to all known parties in interest (including thosenot entitled to vote on the Plan), unambiguously provided in bold letters that the Third-PartyRelease was contained in the Plan.37. The scope of the Third-Party Release is appropriately tailored under thefacts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases, and parties in interest received due and adequatenotice of the Third-Party Release. Among other things, the Plan provides appropriate and specificdisclosure with respect to the claims and Causes of Action that are subject to the Third-PartyRelease, and no other disclosure is necessary. The Debtors, as evidenced by the VotingDeclaration and Certificate of Publication, including by providing actual notice to all knownparties in interest, including all known holders of Claims against, and Interests in, any Debtor andpublishing notice in international and national publications for the benefit of unknown parties ininterest, provided sufficient notice of the Third-Party Release, and no further or other notice isnecessary. The Third-Party Release is designed to provide finality for the Debtors, theReorganized Debtors and the Released Parties regarding the parties' respective obligations underthe Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary, anyparty who timely opted-out of the Third-Party Release is not bound by the Third-PartyRelease.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 290 o of f1 133452038. The Third-Party Release is specific in language, integral to the Plan, andgiven for substantial consideration. The Releasing Parties were given due and adequate notice ofthe Third-Party Release, and thus the Third-Party Release is consensual under controllingprecedent as to those Releasing Parties that did not specifically and timely object. In light of,among other things, the value provided by the Released Parties to the Debtors' Estates and theconsensual and critical nature of the Third-Party Release to the Plan, the Third-Party Release isappropriatevi. Exculpation.39. The exculpation described in Article VIII.E of the Plan (the “Exculpation”)is appropriate under applicable law, including In re Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P., 48 F. 4th 419(5th Cir. 2022), because it was supported by proper evidence, proposed in good faith, wasformulated following extensive good-faith, arm's-length negotiations with key constituents, and isappropriately limited in scope.40. No Entity or Person may commence or continue any action, employ anyprocess, or take any other act to pursue, collect, recover or offset any Claim, Interest, debt,obligation, or Cause of Action relating or reasonably likely to relate to any act or commission inconnection with, relating to, or arising out of a Covered Matter (including one that alleges theactual fraud, gross negligence, or willful misconduct of a Covered Entity), unless expresslyauthorized by the Bankruptcy Court after (1) it determines, after a notice and a hearing, such Claim,Interest, debt, obligation, or Cause of Action is colorable and (2) it specifically authorizes suchEntity or Person to bring such Claim or Cause of Action. The Bankruptcy Court shall have soleand exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether any such Claim, Interest, debt, obligation or Causeof Action is colorable and, only to the extent legally permissible and as provided for in Article XI,CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 201 o of f1 1334521shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate such underlying colorable Claim, Interest, debt, obligation, orCause of Action.vii. Injunction.41. The injunction provisions set forth in Article VIII.F of the Plan are essentialto the Plan and are necessary to implement the Plan and to preserve and enforce the discharge,Debtor Release, the Third-Party Release, and the Exculpation provisions in Article VIII of thePlan. The injunction provisions are appropriately tailored to achieve those purposes.viii. Preservation of Claims and Causes of Action.42. Article IV.L of the Plan appropriately provides for the preservation by theDebtors of certain Causes of Action in accordance with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.Causes of Action not released by the Debtors or exculpated under the Plan will be retained by theReorganized Debtors as provided by the Plan. The Plan is sufficiently specific with respect to theCauses of Action to be retained by the Debtors, and the Plan and Plan Supplement providemeaningful disclosure with respect to the potential Causes of Action that the Debtors may retain,and all parties in interest received adequate notice with respect to such retained Causes of Action.The provisions regarding Causes of Action in the Plan are appropriate and in the best interests ofthe Debtors, their respective Estates, and holders of Claims or Interests. For the avoidance of anydoubt, Causes of Action released or exculpated under the Plan will not be retained by theReorganized Debtors.c. Section 1123(d) – Cure of Defaults43. Article V.D of the Plan provides for the satisfaction of Cure Claimsassociated with each Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease to be assumed in accordance withsection 365(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Any monetary defaults under each assumed ExecutoryCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 212 o of f1 1334522Contract or Unexpired Lease shall be satisfied, pursuant to section 365(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode, by payment of the default amount in Cash on the Effective Date, subject to the limitationsdescribed in Article V.D of the Plan, or on such other terms as the parties to such ExecutoryContracts or Unexpired Leases may otherwise agree. Any Disputed Cure Amounts will bedetermined in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article V.D of the Plan, and applicablebankruptcy and nonbankruptcy law. As such, the Plan provides that the Debtors will Cure, orprovide adequate assurance that the Debtors will promptly Cure, defaults with respect to assumedExecutory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in accordance with section 365(b)(1) of theBankruptcy Code. Thus, the Plan complies with section 1123(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.d. Section 1129(a)(2) – Compliance of the Debtors and Others with the ApplicableProvisions of the Bankruptcy Code.44. The Debtors, as proponents of the Plan, have complied with all applicableprovisions of the Bankruptcy Code as required by section 1129(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code,including sections 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, and 1128, and Bankruptcy Rules 3017, 3018,and 3019.e. Section 1129(a)(3) – Proposal of Plan in Good Faith.45. The Debtors have proposed the Plan in good faith, in accordance with theBankruptcy Code requirements, and not by any means forbidden by law. In determining that thePlan has been proposed in good faith, the Court has examined the totality of the circumstancesfiling of the Chapter 11 Cases, including the formation of Intrum AB of Texas LLC (“IntrumTexas”), the Plan itself, and the process leading to its formulation. The Debtors' good faith isevident from the facts and record of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Disclosure Statement, and the recordof the Combined Hearing and other proceedings held in the Chapter 11 CasesCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 223 o of f1 133452346. The Plan (including the Plan Supplement and all other documents necessaryto effectuate the Plan) is the product of good faith, arm's-length negotiations by and among theDebtors, the Debtors' directors and officers and the Debtors' key stakeholders, including theConsenting Creditors and each of their respective professionals. The Plan itself and the processleading to its formulation provide independent evidence of the Debtors' and such other parties'good faith, serve the public interest, and assure fair treatment of holders of Claims or Interests.Consistent with the overriding purpose of chapter 11, the Debtors Filed the Chapter 11 Cases withthe belief that the Debtors were in need of reorganization and the Plan was negotiated and proposedwith the intention of accomplishing a successful reorganization and maximizing stakeholder value,and for no ulterior purpose. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1129(a)(3) of the BankruptcyCode are satisfied.f. Section 1129(a)(4) – Court Approval of Certain Payments as Reasonable.47. Any payment made or to be made by the Debtors, or by a person issuingsecurities or acquiring property under the Plan, for services or costs and expenses in connectionwith the Chapter 11 Cases, or in connection with the Plan and incident to the Chapter 11 Cases,has been approved by, or is subject to the approval of, the Court as reasonable. Accordingly, thePlan satisfies the requirements of section 1129(a)(4).g. Section 1129(a)(5)—Disclosure of Directors and Officers and Consistency with theInterests of Creditors and Public Policy.48. The identities of or process for appointment of the Reorganized Debtors'directors and officers proposed to serve after the Effective Date were disclosed in the PlanSupplement in advance of the Combined Hearing. Accordingly, the Debtors have satisfied therequirements of section 1129(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 234 o of f1 1334524h. Section 1129(a)(6)—Rate Changes.49. The Plan does not contain any rate changes subject to the jurisdiction of anygovernmental regulatory commission and therefore will not require governmental regulatoryapproval. Therefore, section 1129(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to the Plan.i. Section 1129(a)(7)—Best Interests of Holders of Claims and Interests.50. The liquidation analysis attached as Exhibit D to the Disclosure Statementand the other evidence in support of the Plan that was proffered or adduced at the CombinedHearing, and the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases are (a) reasonable, persuasive,credible, and accurate as of the dates such analysis or evidence was prepared, presented orproffered; (b) utilize reasonable and appropriate methodologies and assumptions; (c) have not beencontroverted by other evidence; and (d) establish that each holder of Allowed Claims or Interestsin each Class will recover as much or more value under the Plan on account of such Claim orInterest, as of the Effective Date, than the amount such holder would receive if the Debtors wereliquidated on the Effective Date under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or has accepted the Plan.As a result, the Debtors have demonstrated that the Plan is in the best interests of their creditorsand equity holders and the requirements of section 1129(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code are satisfied.j. Section 1129(a)(8)—Conclusive Presumption of Acceptance by UnimpairedClasses; Acceptance of the Plan by Certain Voting Classes.51. The classes deemed to accept the Plan are Unimpaired under the Plan andare deemed to have accepted the Plan pursuant to section 1126(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. EachVoting Class voted to accept the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, however, even if section1129(a)(8) has not been satisfied with respect to all of the Debtors, the Plan is confirmable becausethe Plan does not discriminate unfairly and is fair and equitable with respect to the Voting Classesand thus satisfies section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to such Classes as describedCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 245 o of f1 1334525further below. As a result, the requirements of section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code are alsosatisfied.k. Section 1129(a)(9)—Treatment of Claims Entitled to Priority Pursuant to Section507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.52. The treatment of Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, andPriority Tax Claims under Article II of the Plan satisfies the requirements of, and complies in allrespects with, section 1129(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.l. Section 1129(a)(10)—Acceptance by at Least One Voting Class.53. As set forth in the Voting Declaration, all Voting Classes overwhelminglyvoted to accept the Plan. As such, there is at least one Voting Class that has accepted the Plan,determined without including any acceptance of the Plan by any insider (as defined by theBankruptcy Code), for each Debtor. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1129(a)(10) of theBankruptcy Code are satisfied.m. Section 1129(a)(11)—Feasibility of the Plan.54. The Plan satisfies section 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thefinancial projections attached to the Disclosure Statement as Exhibit D and the other evidencesupporting the Plan proffered or adduced by the Debtors at or before the Combined Hearing: (a)is reasonable, persuasive, credible, and accurate as of the dates such evidence was prepared,presented, or proffered; (b) utilize reasonable and appropriate methodologies and assumptions; (c)has not been controverted by other persuasive evidence; (d) establishes that the Plan is feasibleand Confirmation of the Plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation or the need for furtherfinancial reorganization; (e) establishes that the Debtors will have sufficient funds available tomeet their obligations under the Plan and in the ordinary course of business—including sufficientamounts of Cash to reasonably ensure payment of Allowed Claims that will receive CashCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 256 o of f1 1334526distributions pursuant to the terms of the Plan and other Cash payments required under the Plan;and (f) establishes that the Debtors or the Reorganized Debtors, as applicable, will have thefinancial wherewithal to pay any Claims that accrue, become payable, or are allowed by FinalOrder following the Effective Date. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code.n. Section 1129(a)(12)—Payment of Statutory Fees.55. Article XII.C of the Plan provides that all fees payable pursuant to section1930(a) of the Judicial Code, as determined by the Court at the Confirmation Hearing inaccordance with section 1128 of the Bankruptcy Code, will be paid by each of the applicableReorganized Debtors for each quarter (including any fraction of a quarter) until the Chapter 11Cases are converted, dismissed, or closed, whichever occurs first. Accordingly, the Plan satisfiesthe requirements of section 1129(a)(12) of the Bankruptcy Code.o. Section 1129(a)(13)—Retiree Benefits.56. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code, and as provided inArticle IV.K of the Plan, the Reorganized Debtors will continue to pay all obligations on accountof retiree benefits (as such term is used in section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code) on and after theEffective Date in accordance with applicable law. As a result, the requirements of section1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code are satisfied.p. Sections 1129(a)(14), (15), and (16)—Domestic Support Obligations, Individuals,and Nonprofit Corporations.57. The Debtors do not owe any domestic support obligations, are notindividuals, and are not nonprofit corporations. Therefore, sections 1129(a)(14), 1129(a)(15), and1129(a)(16) of the Bankruptcy Code do not apply to the Chapter 11 Cases.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 267 o of f1 1334527q. Section 1129(b)—Confirmation of the Plan Over Nonacceptance of VotingClasses.58. No Classes rejected the Plan, and section 1129(b) is not applicable here,but even if it were, the Plan may be confirmed pursuant to section 1129(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode because the Plan is fair and equitable with respect to the Deemed Rejecting Classes. ThePlan has been proposed in good faith, is reasonable, and meets the requirements and all VotingClasses have voted to accept the Plan. The treatment of Intercompany Claims and IntercompanyInterests under the Plan provides for administrative convenience does not constitute a distributionunder the Plan on account of suc

Welcome to a special edition of Grieving Out Loud, where we reflect on some of the most impactful conversations of 2024. This year, we shared stories that illuminated the devastating effects of the overdose and fentanyl crisis—stories ranging from a Nashville wedding overshadowed by tragedy to a sister's fight for justice after her brother's murder.We heard from a grieving father battling Purdue Pharma, a paramedic turned bereaved mother, and the cousin of the late musician Prince, who offered insight into his untimely death.These conversations have touched hearts and sparked meaningful dialogue, including efforts to make naloxone more accessible, the tragic consequences of pill mills, and safe havens for opioid-exposed newborns. As we reflect on these unforgettable moments, we honor the courage of our guests and the resilience of those navigating unimaginable loss. Join us as we revisit the stories that have inspired hope, raised awareness, and called for action.Episode 177 with Lauren SislerEpisode 146 with Carol WolfeEpisode 149 with Chris DidierEpisode 153 with Justin PhillipsEpisode 161 with Charles “Chazz” SmithEpisode 159 with Stephen LoydEpisode 178 with Philip EilEpisode 189 with Jazmin PedrozaEpisode 192 with Nicola MarshallSend us a textThe Emily's Hope Substance Use Prevention Curriculum has been carefully designed to address growing concerns surrounding substance use and overdose in our communities. Our curriculum focuses on age-appropriate and evidence-based content that educates children about the risks of substance use while empowering them to make healthy choices. Support the showFor more episodes and to read Angela's blog, just go to our website, emilyshope.charityWishing you faith, hope and courage! Podcast producers: Casey Wonnenberg & Kayli Fitz

Ralph and team spend the entire hour with Israeli reporter, Gideon Levy, a singular voice in an otherwise compliant domestic press to discuss his book “The Killing of Gaza: Reports on a Catastrophe” a series of columns written before and after the October 7th, 2023 attacks that put this ongoing tragedy in historical context.Gideon Levy is a Haaretz columnist and a member of the newspaper's editorial board. He is the author of the weekly “Twilight Zone” feature, which covers the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza over the last 25 years, as well as the writer of political editorials for the newspaper. He is the author of The Punishment of Gaza, and his latest book is The Killing of Gaza: Reports on a Catastrophe.If you talk with me about a very broad scheme—not ending this war now in Gaza, but really for a long range, a real vision—the vision is only the choice between an apartheid state between the river and the sea, or a democracy between the river and the sea. There is no third way anymore, unfortunately. And we have to choose, and the world has to choose: Is the world ready to accept a second apartheid state, or is the world ready to act for having an equal democracy for Palestinians and Israelis living between the river and the sea?Gideon LevyWe have to stick to global, universal values: occupation is illegal, apartheid is immoral, and war is always cruel.Gideon LevyAfter the 7th of October, an iron curtain fell between Israel and any kind of human sentiments toward Gaza— the people of Gaza, the victims of Gaza, we don't want to hear, we don't want to know, we are not bothered, and we have the right to do whatever we want.Gideon LevyWe hear about the hundred hostages held by Hamas underground a great deal in the US media, but we don't hear much about the torture and the other mistreatment of thousands of Palestinians—some of them women and children—who were arrested, just arbitrarily kidnapped, and sent to Israeli jails.Ralph NaderNews 12/18/241. Our top story this week comes from Public Citizen Corporate Crime expert Rick Claypool, who reports that the Biden Department of Justice has opted to not prosecute McKinsey, the consulting firm that advised Purdue Pharma to “turbocharge” OxyContin sales even as the opioid crisis reached its peak. Instead, the DOJ announced they would enter into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the firm; in other words, the Biden administration is giving McKinsey a get out of jail free card for their role in perhaps the most expansive, destructive, and clear case of corporate crime this century. Claypool rightly calls this deal “Pathetic” and “A slap in the face to everyone who lost a loved one to the crisis.”2. On December 10th, a federal judge blocked Kroger's proposed $20 billion acquisition of Albertsons supermarkets, per the Wall Street Journal. According to the Journal, U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson sided with the Federal Trade Commission, which had sued to stop the merger, agreeing that this consolidation in the grocery store sector would “erode competition and raise prices for consumers.” This argument was particularly poignant given the soaring cost of groceries since the COVID-19 pandemic. In the aftermath of this decision, Albertsons has filed suit against Kroger alleging that the larger supermarket chain had resisted calls to “divest itself of a larger number of stores,” in order to stave off the inevitable antitrust actions federal regulators would bring against this merger. Albertsons filed this lawsuit, which seeks at least $6 billion in damages less than 24 hours after the ruling, per the Journal.3. On December 14th, the BBC reported 26-year-old OpenAI whistleblower Suchir Balaji was found dead in his San Francisco apartment. In October, Balaji exposed that OpenAI had flagrantly violated US copyright laws while developing its flagship AI program ChatGPT. Balaji's revelations form the underpinnings of lawsuits against OpenAI by news publishers, including the New York Times, as well as best-selling authors who allege their work was unlawfully used to train the company's AI models. The BBC reports that Balaji's death was ruled a suicide by the San Francisco medical examiner's office and that his body was discovered by police when they were called in to “check on his wellbeing.” This report does not include who called in the wellness check.4. According to intrepid independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, the New York Times has issued internal guidance directing staff to “dial back” its use of photos of Luigi Mangione's face. The reasons for withholding images of Mangione's face – bizarre in its own right given the inherent newsworthiness of such photos – is however just the tip of the iceberg. The Times has also directed its reporters to refrain from publishing Mangione's manifesto, despite having copies in their possession. As Mr. Klippenstein puts it “This is media paternalism at its worst, the idea that seeing the shooter's face too much, or reading his 262-word statement, will necessarily inspire copy-cat assassinations and should therefore be withheld from the public.” To his immense credit, Mr. Klippenstein has published the manifesto in full, which is available on his Substack – as are photos of Mangione's face.5. Turning to the Middle East, the diplomatic tension between Israel and Ireland continues to deepen. On December 11th, the Middle East Monitor reported that Ireland will “formally join South Africa's genocide case against Israel,” at the International Court of Justice, following formal approval by the Irish government. Ireland will reportedly ask the Court to “broaden its interpretation” of what constitutes genocide, according to the nation's Foreign Minister Micheal Martin. Martin went on to say that Ireland is “concerned that a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes genocide leads to a culture of impunity in which the protection of civilians is minimised,” and that the government has also approved joining the Gambia's genocide case against Myanmar. Just days later, Israel announced that the country would shutter its embassy in Dublin, accusing Ireland of “extreme anti-Israel policies,” including joining the genocide lawsuit and recognizing the state of Palestine, per CNN. Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris, facing harsh criticism from Israeli politicians, wrote “I utterly reject the assertion that Ireland is anti-Israel. Ireland is pro-peace, pro-human rights and pro-International law.”6. In more Palestine news, the Hill has published a heartrending op-ed by Hamid Ali, widower to Aysenur Eygi, the American citizen murdered in cold blood by the IDF during a protest in the West Bank in September of this year. This piece begins “What do you do with the clothes your wife was wearing when she was killed, now stained with her blood? How do you preserve them as evidence for an investigation that may never happen? What else can you do when your government has given no indication that it will hold her killer — a soldier in the army of a close ally — accountable[?]” Ali goes on to tell the story of how he met Aysenur, how they fell in love, and eventually got married – and recounts the eyewitness testimony that she was shot after “20 minutes of calm, sheltering behind an olive tree.” Ali also expresses his anger and frustration – both at the Israeli military's flimsy attempt to cover up the murder by falsely claiming she was “shot accidentally during a violent protest,” an assertion that, he notes, was swiftly debunked by major news outlets – and at the United States government, which has refused to hold the Israeli military accountable. Ali ends this piece by laying out how he and his family will meet with the State Department and members of Congress next week to “plead with them to do something about Aysenur's senseless killing…support our family's call for an independent U.S. investigation into her death and accountability for the soldier that killed her…[and] urge President Biden to prioritize this case in the last days of his administration and uphold justice for our family.”7. Last week, we reported on the so-called “mutiny” of younger Democrats against the old-guard poised to take the ranking member committee seats in the new Congress. Chief among these was AOC's bid to seize the ranking member slot on the Oversight Committee from Congressman Gerry Connolly, who is 74 years old and suffering from cancer. At first, it seemed like the young Congresswoman from Queens had successfully outmaneuvered Connolly – even going so far as to pledge that she would no longer back primary challenges against incumbent Democrats, a cornerstone of her outsider brand and appeal, POLITICO reports. Yet, with help from the Democratic power brokers including Nancy Pelsoi, Connolly was able to beat back this challenge at the Democratic Steering Committee. The final vote was a lopsided 131-84, per Axios.8. Our last three stories this week concern the legacy of the Biden Administration. First, progressives are calling on the president to pardon environmental lawyer Steven Donziger, who has faced persecution as a “corporate political prisoner” per American University's Center for Environment Community & Equity for his role in suing Chevron over that company's environmental devastation in Ecuador. In a letter signed by 34 congressional Democrats, led by Congressman Jim McGovern and including Senators Bernie Sanders and Sheldon Whitehouse, along with Representatives Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, and Jamie Raskin among others, the progressives write “Mr. Donziger is the only lawyer in U.S. history to be subject to any period of detention on a misdemeanor contempt of court charge…the legal case against Mr. Donziger, as well as the excessively harsh nature of the punishment against him, are directly tied to his prior work against Chevron.” This letter continues “Pardoning Mr. Donziger”…[would send] “a powerful message to the world that billion-dollar corporations cannot act with impunity against lawyers and their clients who defend the public interest.” We echo this call to pardon Donziger, particularly since President Biden's recent, highly-publicized pardons have consisted of corrupt public officials and his own troubled son Hunter.9. Next, Reuters reports that on December 11th, the Senate opted not to back President Biden's renomination of Lauren McFerran to the National Labor Relations Board. The upper chamber voted 50-49 against holding a confirmation vote, with the usual suspects – Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema – defeating the move. Had the Senate reconfirmed McFerran, the balance of the labor board would have remained tilted in favor of Democrats and their allies in organized labor. Now, incoming President Trump will be able to stack the board with his own nominees, expected to be much friendlier to business. Trump is also expected to sack NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, who has been instrumental in leveraging the power of the NLRB in favor of workers.10. Finally, on a lighter note, Deadline reports the NLRB has ruled that contests on the Netflix dating show Love Is Blind are in fact employees under the law. This reclassification opens the door to widespread unionization throughout the unscripted television sector, which has long skirted the heavily-unionized Hollywood system. The fallout from this decision will have to be observed over time and the Trump NLRB could certainly seek to hold the line against unionization in that industry – of which Trump himself was a longtime fixture – but this decision could mean an almost unprecedented expansion of the Screen Actors Guild. We will be watching.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

American healthcare is well known for its extreme cost and worst outcomes among industrialized (such as the 38 OECD member) countries, and beyond that to be remarkably opaque. The high cost of prescription drugs contributes, and little has been done to change that except for the government passing the Affordable Insulin Now Act at the end of 2022, enacted in 2023. But in January 2022 Mark Cuban launched Cost Plus Drugs that has transformed how many Americans can get their prescriptions filled at a fraction of the prevailing prices, bypassing pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that control 80% of US prescriptions. That was just the beginning of a path of creative destruction (disruptive innovation, after Schumpeter) of many key components American healthcare that Cuban is leading, with Cost Plus Marketplace, Cost Plus Wellness and much more to come. He certainly qualifies as a master disrupter: “someone who is a leader in innovation and is not afraid to challenge the status quo.” Below is a video clip from our conversation dealing with insurance companies. Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The current one is here. If you like the YouTube format, please subscribe! The audios are also available on Apple and Spotify.Transcript with External links to Audio (00:07):Hello, it's Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and I have our special phenomenal guest today, Mark Cuban, who I think you know him from his tech world contributions and Dallas Mavericks, and the last few years he's been shaking up healthcare with Cost Plus Drugs. So Mark, welcome.Mark Cuban (00:25):Thanks for having me, Eric.Eric Topol (00:27):Yeah, I mean, what you're doing, you've become a hero to millions of Americans getting them their medications at a fraction of the cost they're used to. And you are really challenging the PBM industry, which I've delved into more than ever, just in prep for our conversation. It's just amazing what this group of companies, namely the three big three CVS Caremark, Optum of UnitedHealth and Express Scripts of Cigna with a market of almost $600 billion this year, what they're doing, how can they get away with all this stuff?Inner Workings of Pharmacy Benefit ManagersMark Cuban (01:03):I mean, they're just doing business. I really don't blame them. I blame the people who contract with them. All the companies, particularly the bigger companies, the self-insured companies, where the CEO really doesn't have an understanding of their healthcare or pharmacy benefits. And so, the big PBMs paid them rebates, which they think is great if you're a CEO, when in reality it's really just a loan against the money spent by your sickest employees, and they just don't understand that. So a big part of my time these days is going to CEOs and sitting with them and explaining to them that you're getting ripped off on both your pharmacy and your healthcare side.Eric Topol (01:47):Yeah, it's amazing to me the many ways that they get away with this. I mean, they make companies sign NDAs. They're addicted to rebates. They have all sorts of ways a channel of funds to themselves. I mean, all the things you could think of whereby they even have these GPOs. Each of these companies has a group purchasing organization (I summarized in the Table below).Mark Cuban (02:12):Yeah, which gives them, it's crazy because with those GPOs. The GPO does the deal with the pharmacy manufacturer. Then the GPO also does the deal with the PBM, and then the PBM goes to the self-insured employer in particular and says, hey, we're going to pass through all the rebates. But what they don't say is they've already skimmed off 5%, 10%, 20% or more off the top through their GPO. But that's not even the worst of it. That's just money, right? I mean, that's important, but I mean, even the biggest companies rarely own their own claims data.Mark Cuban (02:45):Now think about what that means. It means you can't get smarter about the wellness of your employees and their families. You want to figure out the best way to do GLP-1s and figure out how to reduce diabetes, whatever it may be. You don't have that claims data. And then they don't allow the companies to control their own formularies. So we've seen Humira biosimilars come out and the big PBMs have done their own version of the biosimilar where we have a product called Yusimry, which is only $594 a month, which is cheaper than the cheapest biosimilar that the big three are selling. And so, you would think in a normal relationship, they would want to bring on this new product to help the employer. No, they won't do it. If the employer asks, can I just add Cost Plus Drugs to my network? They'll say no, every single time.Mark Cuban (03:45):Their job is not to save the employer money, particularly after they've given a rebate. Because once they give that loan, that rebate to the employer, they need to get that money back. It's not a gift. It's a loan and they need to have the rebates, and we don't do rebates with them at all. And I can go down the list. They don't control the formula. They don't control, you mentioned the NDAs. They can't talk to manufacturers, so they can't go to Novo or to Lilly and say, let's put together a GLP-1 wellness program. All these different things that just are common sense. It's not happening. And so, the good news is when I walk into these companies that self-insured and talk to the CEO or CFO, I'm not asking them to do something that's not in their best interest or not in the best interest of the lives they cover. I'm saying, we can save you money and you can improve the wellness of your employees and their families. Where's the downside?Eric Topol (04:40):Oh, yeah. Yeah. And the reason they can't see the claims is because of the privacy issues?Mark Cuban (04:46):No, no. That's just a business decision in the contract that the PBMs have made. You can go and ask. I mean, you have every right to your own claims. You don't need to have it personally identified. You want to find out how many people have GLP-1s or what are the trends, or God forbid there's another Purdue Pharma thing going on, and someone prescribing lots of opioids. You want to be able to see those things, but they won't do it. And that's only on the sponsor side. It's almost as bad if not worse on the manufacturer side.Eric Topol (05:20):Oh, yeah. Well, some of the work of PBMs that you've been talking about were well chronicled in the New York Times, a couple of major articles by Reed Abelson and Rebecca Robbins: The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs and The Powerful Companies Driving Local Drugstores Out of Business. We'll link those because I think some people are not aware of all the things that are going on in the background.Mark Cuban (05:39):You see in their study and what they reported on the big PBMs, it's crazy the way it works. And literally if there was transparency, like Cost Plus offers, the cost of medications across the country could come down 20%, 30% or more.Cost Plus DrugsEric Topol (05:55):Oh, I mean, it is amazing, really. And now let's get into Cost Plus. I know that a radiologist, Alex Oshmyansky contacted you with a cold email a little over three years ago, and you formed Cost Plus Drugs on the basis of that, right?Mark Cuban (06:12):Yep, that's exactly what happened.Eric Topol (06:15):I give you credit for responding to cold emails and coming up with a brilliant idea with this and getting behind it and putting your name behind it. And what you've done, so you started out with something like 110 generics and now you're up well over 1,200 or 2,500 or something like that?Mark Cuban (06:30):And adding brands. And so, started with 111. Now we're around 2,500 and trying to grow it every single day. And not only that, just to give people an overview. When you go to www.costplusdrugs.com and you put in the name of your medication, let's just say it's tadalafil, and if it comes up. In this case, it will. It'll show you our actual cost, and then we just mark it up 15%. It's the same markup for everybody, and if you want it, we'll have a pharmacist check it. And so, that's a $5 fee. And then if you want ship to mail order, it's $5 for shipping. And if you want to use our pharmacy network, then we can connect you there and you can just pick it up at a local pharmacy.Eric Topol (07:10):Yeah, no, it's transparency. We don't have a lot of that in healthcare in America, right?Mark Cuban (07:15):No. And literally, Eric, the smartest thing that we did, and we didn't expect this, it's always the law of unintended consequences. The smartest thing we did was publish our entire price list because that allowed any company, any sponsor, CMS, researchers to compare our prices to what others were already paying. And we've seen studies come out saying, for this X number of urology drugs, CMS would save $3.6 billion a year. For this number of heart drugs at this amount per year, for chemotherapy drugs or MS drugs this amount. And so, it's really brought attention to the fact that for what PBMs call specialty drugs, whether there's nothing special about them, we can save people a lot of money.Eric Topol (08:01):It's phenomenal. As a cardiologist, I looked up a couple of the drugs that I'm most frequently prescribed, just like Rosuvastatin what went down from $134 to $5.67 cents or Valsartan it went down from $69 to $7.40 cents. But of course, there's some that are much more dramatic, like as you mentioned, whether it's drugs for multiple sclerosis, the prostate cancer. I mean, some of these are just thousands and thousands of dollars per month that are saved, brought down to levels that you wouldn't think would even be conceivable. And this has been zero marketing, right?Mark Cuban (08:42):Yeah, none. It's all been word of mouth and my big mouth, of course. Going out there and doing interviews like this and going to major media, but it's amazing. We get emails and letters and people coming up to us almost single day saying, you saved my grandma's life. You saved my life. We weren't going to be able to afford our imatinib or our MS medication. And it went from being quoted $2,000 a month to $33 a month. It's just insane things like that that are still happening.Eric Topol (09:11):Well, this is certainly one of the biggest shakeups to occur in US healthcare in years. And what you've done in three years is just extraordinary. This healthcare in this country is with its over 4 trillion, pushing $5 trillion a year of expenditure.[New CMS report this week pegs the number at $4.867 trillion for 2023]Mark Cuban (09:30):It's interesting. I think it's really fixable. This has been the easiest industry to the disrupt I've ever been involved in. And it's not even close because all it took was transparency and not jacking up margins to market. We choose to use a fixed margin markup. Some choose to price to market, the Martin Shkreli approach, if you will. And just by being transparent, we've had an impact. And the other side of it is, it's the same concept on the healthcare side. Transparency helps, but to go a little field of pharmacy if you want. The insane part, and this applies to care and pharmacy, whatever plan we have, whether it's for health or whether it's for pharmaceuticals, there's typically a deductible, typically a copay, and typically a co-insurance.Insurance CompaniesMark Cuban (10:20):The crazy part of all that is that people taking the default risk, the credit risk are the providers. It's you, it's the hospital, it's the clinics that you work for. Which makes no sense whatsoever that the decisions that you or I make for our personal insurance or for the companies we run, or if we work for the government, what we do with Medicare or Medicare Advantage, the decisions we all make impacts the viability of providers starting with the biggest hospital systems. And so, as a result, they become subprime lenders without a car or a house to go after if they can't collect. And so, now you see a bunch of people, particularly those under the ACA with the $9,000, the bronze plans or $18,000 out-of-pocket limits go into debt, significant medical debt. And it's unfortunate. We look at the people who are facing these problems and think, well, it must be the insurance companies.Mark Cuban (11:23):It's actually not even the insurance companies. It's the overall design of the system. But underneath that, it's still whoever picks the insurance companies and sets plans that allow those deductibles, that's the core of the problem. And until we get to a system where the providers aren't responsible for the credit for defaults and dealing with all that credit risk, it's almost going to be impossible to change. Because when you see stories like we've all seen in news of a big healthcare, a BUCA healthcare (Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), UnitedHealth, Cigna, and Aetna/CVS) plan with all the pre-authorizations and denials, typically they're not even taking the insurance risk. They're acting as the TPA (third party administrator) as the claims processor effectively for whoever hired them. And it goes back again, just like I talked about before. And as long as CMS hires or allows or accepts these BUCAs with these plans for Medicare for the ACA (Affordable care Act), whatever it may be, it's not going to work. As long as self-insured employers and the 50 million lives they cover hire these BUCAs to act as the TPAs, not as insurance companies and give them leeway on what to approve and what to authorize and what not to authorize. The system's going to be a mess, and that's where we are today.Academic Health System PartnershipsEric Topol (12:41):Yeah. Well, you've been talking of course to employers and enlightening them, and you're also enlightening the public, of course. That's why you have millions of people that are saving their cost of medications, but recently you struck a partnership with Penn Medicine. That's amazing. So is that your first academic health system that you approached?Cost Plus MarketplaceMark Cuban (13:00):I don't know if it was the first we approached, but it was certainly one of the biggest that we signed. We've got Cost Plus Marketplace (CPM) where we make everything from injectables to you name it, anything a hospital might buy. But again, at a finite markup, we make eight and a half percent I think when it's all said and done. And that saves hospital systems millions of dollars a year.Eric Topol (13:24):Yeah. So that's a big change in the way you're proceeding because what it was just pills that you were buying from the pharma companies, now you're actually going to make injectables and you're going to have a manufacturing capability. Is that already up and going?Mark Cuban (13:39):That's all up and going as of March. We're taking sterile injectables that are on the shortage list, generic and manufacturing them in Dallas using a whole robotics manufacturing plant that really Alex created. He's the rocket scientist behind it. And we're limited in capacity now, we're limited about 2 million vials, but we'll sell those to Cost Plus Marketplace, and we'll also sell those direct. So Cost Plus Marketplace isn't just the things we manufacture. It's a wide variety of products that hospitals buy that we then have a minimal markup, and then for the stuff we manufacture, we'll sell those to direct to like CHS was our first customer.Eric Topol (14:20):Yeah, that's a big expansion from going from the pills to this. Wow.Mark Cuban (14:24):It's a big, big expansion, but it goes to the heart of being transparent and not being greedy, selling on a markup. And ourselves as a company, being able to remain lean and mean. The only way we can sell at such a low markup. We have 20 employees on the Cost Plus side and 40 employees involved with the factories, and that's it.Eric Topol (14:46):Wow. So with respect to, you had this phenomenal article and interview with WIRED Magazine just this past week. I know Lauren Goode interviewed you, and she said, Mark, is this really altruistic and I love your response. You said, “how much f*****g money do I need? I'm not trying to land on Mars.” And then you said, “at this point in my life, it's just like more money, or f**k up the healthcare industry.” This was the greatest, Mark. I mean, I got to tell you, it was really something.Mark Cuban (15:18):Yeah.Eric Topol (15:19):Well, in speaking of that, of course, the allusion to a person we know well, Elon. He posted on X/Twitter in recent days , I think just three or four days ago, shouldn't the American people be getting their money's worth? About this high healthcare administration costs where the US is completely away from any other OECD country. And as you and I know, we have the worst outcomes and the most costs of all the rich countries in the world. There's just nothing new here. Maybe it's new to him, but you had a fabulous response on both X and Bluesky where you went over all these things point by point. And of course, the whole efforts that you've been working on now for three years. You also mentioned something that was really interesting that I didn't know about were these ERISA lawsuits[Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974.] Can you tell us about that?ERISA LawsuitsMark Cuban (16:13):Yeah, that's a great question, Eric. So for self-insured companies in particular, we have a fiduciary responsibility on a wellness and on a financial basis to offer the members, your employees and their families the best outcomes at the best price. Now, you can't guarantee best outcomes, but you have to be able to explain the choices you made. You don't have to pick the cheapest, but again, you have to be able to explain why you made the choices that you did. And because a lot of companies have been doing, just like we discussed earlier, doing deals on the pharmacy side with just these big PBMs, without accounting for best practices, best price, best outcomes, a couple companies got sued. Johnson and Johnson and Wells Fargo were the first to get sued. And I think that's just the beginning. That's just the writing on the wall. I think they'll lose because they just dealt with the big pharmacy PBMs. And I think that's one of the reasons why we're so busy at Cost Plus and why I'm so busy because we're having conversation after conversation with companies and plenty of enough lawyers for that matter who want to see a price list and be able to compare what they're paying to what we sell for to see if they're truly living up to that responsibility.Eric Topol (17:28):Yeah, no, that's a really important thing that's going on right now that I think a lot of people don't know about. Now, the government of the US think because it's the only government of any rich country in the world, if not any country that doesn't negotiate prices, i.e., CMS or whatever. And only with the recent work of insulin, which is a single one drug, was there reduction of price. And of course, it's years before we'll see other drugs. How could this country not negotiate drugs all these years where every other place in the world they do negotiate with pharma?Mark Cuban (18:05):Because as we alluded to earlier, the first line in every single pharmaceutical and healthcare contract says, you can't talk about this contract. It's like fight club. The number one rule of fight club is you can't talk about fight club, and it's really difficult to negotiate prices when it's opaque and everything's obfuscated where you can't really get into the details. So it's not that we're not capable of it, but it's just when there's no data there, it's really difficult because look, up until we started publishing our prices, how would anybody know?Mark Cuban (18:39):I mean, how was anybody going to compare numbers? And so, when the government or whoever started to negotiate, they tried to protect themselves and they tried to get data, but those big PBMs certainly have not been forthcoming. We've come along and publish our price list and all that starts to change. Now in terms of the bigger picture, there is a solution there, as I said earlier, but it really comes down to talking to the people who make the decisions to hire the big insurance companies and the big PBMs and telling them, no, you're not acting in your own best interest. Here's anybody watching out there. Ask your PBM if they can audit. If you can audit rather your PBM contract. What they'll tell you is, yeah, you can, but you have to use our people. It's insane. And that's from top to bottom. And so, I'm a big believer that if we can get starting with self-insured employers to act in their own best interest, and instead of working with a big PBM work with a pass-through PBM. A pass-through PBM will allow you to keep your own claims, own all your own data, allow you to control your own formulary.Mark Cuban (19:54):You make changes where necessary, no NDA, so you can't talk to manufacturers. All these different abilities that just seem to make perfect sense are available to all self-insured employers. And if the government, same thing. If the government requires pass-through PBMs, the price of medications will drop like a rock.Eric Topol (20:16):Is that possible? You think that could happen?Mark Cuban (20:19):Yes. Somebody's got to understand it and do it. I'm out there screaming, but we will see what happens with the new administration. There's nothing hard about it. And it's the same thing with Medicare and Medicare Advantage healthcare plans. There's nothing that says you have to use the biggest companies. Now, the insurance companies have to apply and get approved, but again, there's a path there to work with companies that can reduce costs and improve outcomes. The biggest challenge in my mind, and I'm still trying to work through this to fully understand it. I think where we really get turned upside down as a country is we try to avoid fraud from the provider perspective and the patient perspective. We're terrified that patients are going to use too much healthcare, and like everybody's got Munchausen disease.Mark Cuban (21:11):And we're terrified that the providers are going to charge too much or turn into Purdue Pharma and over-prescribe or one of these surgery mills that just is having somebody get surgery just so they can make money. So in an effort to avoid those things, we ask the insurance companies and the PBMs to do pre-authorizations, and that's the catch 22. How do we find a better way to deal with fraud at the patient and provider level? Because once we can do that, and maybe it's AI, maybe it's accepting fraud, maybe it's imposing criminal penalties if somebody does those things. But once we can overcome that, then it becomes very transactional. Because the reality is most insurance companies aren't insurance companies. 50 million lives are covered by self-insured employers that use the BUCAs, the big insurance companies, but not as insurance companies.Eric Topol (22:07):Yeah, I was going to ask you about that because if you look at these three big PBMs that control about 80% of the market, not the pass-throughs that you just mentioned, but the big ones, they each are owned by an insurance company. And so, when the employer says, okay, we're going to cover your healthcare stuff here, we're going to cover your prescriptions there.Mark Cuban (22:28):Yeah, it's all vertically integrated.Mark Cuban (22:36):And it gets even worse than that, Eric. So they also own specialty pharmacies, “specialty pharmacies” that will require you to buy from. And as I alluded to earlier, a lot of these medications like Imatinib, they'll list as being a specialty medication, but it's a pill. There's nothing special about it, but it allows them to charge a premium. And that's a big part of how the PBMs make a lot of their money, the GPO stuff we talked about, but also forcing an employer to go through the specialty mail order company that charges an arm and the leg.Impact on Hospitals and ProceduresEric Topol (23:09):Yeah. Well, and the point you made about transparency, we've seen this of course across US healthcare. So for example, as you know, if you were to look at what does it cost to have an operation like let's say a knee replacement at various hospitals, you can find that it could range fivefold. Of course, you actually get the cost, and it could be the hospital cost, and then there's the professional cost. And the same thing occurs for if you're having a scan, if you're having an MRI here or there. So these are also this lack of transparency and it's hard to get to the numbers, of course. There seems to be so many other parallels to the PBM story. Would you go to these other areas you think in the future?Mark Cuban (23:53):Yeah, we're doing it now. I'm doing it. So we have this thing called project dog food, and what it is, it's for my companies and what we've done is say, look, let's understand how the money works in healthcare.Mark Cuban (24:05):And when you think about it, when you go to get that knee done, what happens? Well, they go to your insurance company to get a pre-authorization. Your doctor says you need a knee replacement. I got both my hips replaced. Let's use that. Doctor says, Mark, you need your hips replaced. Great, right? Let's set up an appointment. Well, first the insurance company has to authorize it, okay, they do or they don't, but the doctor eats their time up trying to deal with the pre-authorization. And if it's denied, the doctor's time is eaten up and an assistance's time is eaten up. Some other administrator's time is eaten up, the employer's time is eaten up. So that's one significant cost. And then from there, there's a deductible. Now I can afford my deductible, but if there is an individual getting that hip replacement who can't afford the deductible, now all of a sudden you're still going to be required to do that hip replacement, most likely.Mark Cuban (25:00):Because in most of these contracts that self-insured employers sign, Medicare Advantage has, Medicare has, it says that between the insurance company and the provider, in this case, the hospital, you have to do the operation even if the deductibles not paid. So now the point of all this is you have the hospital in this case potentially accumulating who knows how much bad debt. And it's not just the lost amount of millions and millions and billions across the entire healthcare spectrum that's there. It's all the incremental administrative costs. The lawyers, the benefits for those people, the real estate, the desk, the office space, all that stuff adds up to $10 billion plus just because the hospitals take on that credit default risk. But wait, there's more. So now the surgery happens, you send the bill to the insurance company. The insurance company says, well, we're not going to pay you. Well, we have a contract. This is what it says, hip replacement's $34,000. Well, we don't care first, we're going to wait. So we get the time value of money, and then we're going to short pay you.Mark Cuban (26:11):So the hospital gets short paid. So what do they have to do? They have to sue them or send letters or whatever it is to try to get their money. When we talk to the big hospital systems, they say that's 2%. That's 2% of their revenue. So you have all these associated credit loss dollars, you've got the 2% of, in a lot of cases, billions and billions of dollars. And so, when you add all those things up, what happens? Well, what happens is because the providers are losing all that money and having to spend all those incremental dollars for the administration of all that, they have to jack up prices.Eric Topol (26:51):Yeah. Right.Mark Cuban (26:53):So what we have done, we've said, look for my companies, we're going to pay you cash. We're going to pay you cash day one. When Mark gets that hip replacement, that checks in the bank before the operation starts, if that's the way you want it. Great, they're not going to have pre-authorizations. We're going to trust you until you give us a reason not to trust you. We're not short paying, obviously, because we're paying cash right there then.Mark Cuban (27:19):But in a response for all that, because we're cutting out all those ancillary costs and credit risk, I want Medicare pricing. Now the initial response is, well, Medicare prices, that's awful. We can't do it. Well, when you really think about the cost and operating costs of a hospital, it's not the doctors, it's not the facilities, it's all the administration that cost all the money. It's all the credit risks that cost all the money. And so, if you remove that credit risk and all the administration, all those people, all that real estate, all those benefits and overhead associated with them, now all of a sudden selling at a Medicare price for that hip replacement is really profitable.Eric Topol (28:03):Now, is that a new entity Cost Plus healthcare?Mark Cuban (28:07):Well, it's called Cost Plus Wellness. It's not an entity. What we're going to do, so the part I didn't mention is all the direct contracts that we do that have all these pieces, as part of them that I just mentioned, we're going to publish them.Eric Topol (28:22):Ah, okay.Mark Cuban (28:23):And you can see exactly what we've done. And if you think about the real role of the big insurances companies for hospitals, it's a sales funnel.Getting Rid of Insurance CompaniesEric Topol (28:33):Yeah, yeah. Well, in fact, I really was intrigued because you did a podcast interview with Andrew Beam and the New England Journal of Medicine AI, and in that they talked about getting rid of the insurers, the insurance industry, just getting rid of it and just make it a means test for people. So it's not universal healthcare, it's a different model that you described. Can you go over that? I thought it was fantastic.Mark Cuban (29:00):Two pieces there. Let's talk about universal healthcare first. So for my companies, for our project dog food for the Mark Cuban companies, if for any employee or any of the lives we cover, if they work within network, anybody we have the direct contract with its single-payer. They pay their premiums, but they pay nothing else out of pocket. That's the definition of single-payer.Eric Topol (29:24):Yeah.Mark Cuban (29:25):So if we can get all this done, then the initial single-payers will be self-insured employers because it'll be more cost effective to them to do this approach. We hope, we still have to play it all through. So that's part one. In terms of everybody else, then you can say, why do we need insurance companies if they're not even truly acting as insurance companies? You're not taking full risk because even if it's Medicare Advantage, they're getting a capitated amount per month. And then that's getting risk adjusted because of the population you have, and then there's also an index depending on the location, so there's more or less money that occurs then. So let's just do what we need to do in this particular case, because the government is effectively eliminating the risk for the insurance company for the most part. And if you look at the margins for Medicare Advantage, I was just reading yesterday, it's like $1,700 a year for the average Medicare Advantage plan. So it's not like they're taking a lot of risk. All they're doing is trying to deny as many claims as they can.Eric Topol (30:35):Deny, Deny. Yeah.Mark Cuban (30:37):So instead, let's just get somebody who's a TPA, somebody who does the transaction, the claims processing, and whoever's in charge. It could be CMS, can set the terms for what's accepted and what's denied, and you can have a procedure for people that get denied that want to challenge it. And that's great, there's one in place now, but you make it a little simpler. But you take out the economics for the insurance company to just deny, deny, deny. There's no capitation. There's no nothing.Mark Cuban (31:10):The government just says, okay, we're hiring this TPA to handle the claims processing. It is your job. We're paying you per transaction.Mark Cuban (31:18):You don't get paid more if you deny. You don't get paid less if you deny. There's no bonuses if you keep it under a certain amount, there's no penalties If you go above a certain amount. We want you just to make sure that the patient involved is getting the best care, end of story. And if there's fraud involved as the government, because we have access to all that claims data, we're going to introduce AI that reviews that continuously.Mark Cuban (31:44):So that we can see things that are outliers or things that we question, and there's going to mean mistakes, but the bet was, if you will, where we save more and get better outcomes that way versus the current system and I think we will. Now, what ends up happening on top of that, once you have all that claims data and all that information and everybody's interest is aligned, best care at the best price, no denials unless it's necessary, reduce and eliminate fraud. Once everybody's in alignment, then as long as that's transparent. If the city of Dallas decides for all the lives they cover the 300,000 lives they cover between pharmacy and healthcare, we can usually in actuarial tables and some statistical analysis, we can say, you know what, even with a 15% tolerance, it's cheaper for us just to pay upfront and do this single-pay program, all our employees in the lives we cover, because we know what it's going to take.Mark Cuban (32:45):If the government decides, well, instead of Medicare Advantage the way it was, we know all the costs. Now we can say for all Medicare patients, we'll do Medicare for all, simply because we have definitive and deterministic pricing. Great. Now, there's still going to be outlier issues like all the therapies that cost a million dollars or whatever. But my attitude there is if CMS goes to Lilly, Novo, whoever for their cure for blindness that's $3.4 million. Well, that's great, but what we'll say is, okay, give us access to your books. We want to know what your breakeven point is. What is that breakeven point annually? We'll write you a check for that.Eric Topol (33:26):Yeah.Mark Cuban (33:27):If we have fewer patients than need that, okay, you win. If we have more patients than need that, it's like a Netflix subscription with unlimited subscribers, then we will have whatever it is, because then the manufacturer doesn't lose money, so they can't complain about R&D and not being able to make money. And that's for the CMS covered population. You can do a Netflix type subscription for self-insured employers. Hey, it's 25 cents per month per employee or per life covered for the life of the patent, and we'll commit to that. And so, now all of a sudden you get to a point where healthcare starts becoming not only transparent but deterministic.Eric Topol (34:08):Yeah. What you outline here in these themes are extraordinary. And one of the other issues that you are really advocating is patient empowerment, but one of the problems we have in the US is that people don't own their data. They don't even have all their data. I expect you'd be a champion of that as well.Mark Cuban (34:27):Well, of course. Yeah. I mean, look, I've got into arguments with doctors and public health officials about things like getting your own blood tested. I've been an advocate of getting my own blood tested for 15 years, and it helped me find out that I needed thyroid medication and all of these things. So I'm a big advocate. There's some people that think that too much data gives you a lot of false positives, and people get excited in this day and age to get more care when it should only be done if there are symptoms. I'm not a believer in that at all. I think now, particularly as AI becomes more applicable and available, you'll be able to be smarter about the data you capture. And that was always my final argument. Either you trust doctors, or you don't. Because even if there's an aberrational TSH reading and minus 4.4 and it's a little bit high, well the doctor's going to say, well, let's do another blood test in a month or two. The doctor is still the one that has to write the prescription. There's no downside to trusting your doctor in my mind.Eric Topol (35:32):And what you're bringing up is that we're already seeing how AI can pick up things even in the normal range, the trends long before a clinician physician would pick it up. Now, last thing I want to say is you are re-imagining healthcare like no one. I mean, there's what you're doing here. It started with some pills and it's going in a lot of different directions. You are rocking it here. I didn't even know some of the latest things that you're up to. This seems to be the biggest thing you've ever done.Mark Cuban (36:00):I hope so.Mark Cuban (36:01):I mean, like we said earlier, what could be better than people saying our healthcare system is good. What changed? That Cuban guy.Eric Topol (36:10):Well, did you give up Shark Tank so you could put more energy into this?Mark Cuban (36:16):Not really. It was more for my kids.Eric Topol (36:19):Okay, okay.Mark Cuban (36:20):They go hand in hand, obviously. I can do this stuff at home as opposed to sitting on a set wondering if I should invest in Dude Wipes again.Eric Topol (36:28):Well, look, we're cheering for you. This is, I've not seen a shakeup in my life in American healthcare like this. You are just rocking. It's fantastic.Mark Cuban (36:37):Everybody out there that's watching, check out www.costplusdrugs.com, check out Cost Plus Marketplace, which is business.costplusdrugs.com and just audit everything. What I'm trying to do is say, okay, if it's 1955 and we're starting healthcare all over again, how would we do it? And really just keep it simple. Look to where the risk is and remove the risk where possible. And then it comes down to who do you trust and make sure you trust but verify. Making sure there aren't doctors or systems that are outliers and making sure that there aren't companies that are outliers or patients rather that are outliers. And so, I think there's a path there. It's not nearly as difficult, it's just starting them with corporations, getting those CEOs to get educated and act in their own best interest.Eric Topol (37:32):Well, you're showing us the way. No question. So thanks so much for joining, and we'll be following this with really deep interest because you're moving at high velocity, and thank you.**************************************************Thank you for reading, listening and subscribing to Ground Truths.If you found this fun and informative please share it!All content on Ground Truths—its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts, are free, open-access.Paid subscriptions are voluntary. All proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years. I welcome all comments from paid subscribers and will do my best to respond to each of them and any questions.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and to Sinjun Balabanoff for audio and video support at Scripps Research.FootnoteThe PBMS (finally) are under fire—2 articles from the past week Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

For much of history, the word 'epidemic' applied to infectious diseases. Large numbers of cases of disease caused by organisms such as bacteria and viruses that spread through water, air, or other means, sometimes transmitted from person to person, or back and forth between people and animals. Then came epidemics of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease - diseases occurring in very large numbers and created not by infectious agents, but by drivers in our day to day lives, such as a bad food environment. A new paper was just published in the PLOS global health literature that I found fascinating. It focuses on another use of the concept of epidemics: market driven epidemics. Let's find out what these are and find out a little bit more about their implications for our health and wellbeing. Our guests today are two of the authors of that paper. Dr. Jonathan Quick is a physician and expert on global health and epidemics. He is an adjunct professor at Duke University's Global Health Institute. Eszter Rimanyi joins us as well. She works on chronic disease and addiction epidemiology at Duke university. Interview Summary Access the PLOS article “Dynamics of combatting market-driven epidemics: Insights from U.S. reduction of cigarette, sugar, and prescription opioid consumption.” So, Jono, let's start with you. Tell us what you mean by market driven epidemics. The pattern is familiar to people. There is a product that that humans like and the business community says we can make a lot of money on this unmet need. And so they do that and they start selling a lot of it. And then people start noticing that this thing that the humans like is killing some of them. And so, the scientists do the public health. And then the business community says these scientists are going to kill the golden goose. They buy up other scientists and try to defend themselves. And then it goes on and on before we really bend the epidemic curves. This pattern of consumer products that have harmful effects, those products are major contributors to the root causes of at least a million deaths a year in the US, and over 20 million deaths worldwide. So, to try to look at this from an epidemic point of view, we first established a case definition. Our definition of market driven epidemic is a significant increase in death, disability and other harmful effects on humans and human health and wellbeing. It's arising from a consumer product whose use has been accelerated by aggressive marketing. Whose harmful effects have been denied or otherwise minimized by producers. And for which effective mitigation is possible but actively opposed by producers. So, we looked at the natural history of this, and we found five phases through which these epidemics pass. There's market development, either inventing a new product, developing a product like prescription opioids, or transforming an existing product like tobacco. Phase two is evidence of harm. First, there's suspicion, astute clinicians, whistleblowers, and then eventually proof of harm. Phase three is corporate resistance. Companies deny harm, seek to discredit accusers, commission counter science, manufacture doubt, mount legal challenges. All the while deaths and social upheaval and economic costs are mounting. And finally, our next phase four is mitigation. We get some regulatory efforts going, and there's a tipping point for the consumption and resulting deaths. And then finally, phase five of this is market adaptation. In a response to decreasing or threatened consumption, companies and consumers typically seek alternatives. Adaptations can be positive or negative. Some are healthier, some are equally or more harmful. Thanks very much for that description. It really helps explain what the concept is all about. You chose three areas of focus. You could have chosen others, but you chose cigarettes, sugar, and prescription opioid use. Why those in particular? We wanted to identify differences in these market driven epidemics in a few product categories. We wanted to look at distinctly different consumer experiences so we could see what worked and what didn't in terms of bending the epidemic curve. We picked nicotine delivery, food, and prescription medicine. And to choose within those categories we established five inclusion criteria. So, number one, the product had to have proven adverse health effects. Number two, there needed to be well documented histories of product development, marketing, mitigation efforts, and so forth. Number three, the product needed to meet the overall case definition. That is, companies knew they were doing harm, continued to do harm, and fought that harm. Number four, there needed to be long term data available for product consumption and associated impact. And number five, most important, we chose products for which mitigation efforts had already resulted in significant sustained reduction in product consumption. Based on these three criteria, cigarettes, sugar, and prescription opioids came out as the ones that we studied. Thanks. I really appreciate that description. And when we get to the punchline in a minute, it's going to be interesting to see whether the behavior of the industry in this natural history that you talked about is similar, given that the substances are so different. We'll get to that in a minute. So Eszter, I'd like to turn to you. What kind of information did you pull together to write this paper? I think I looked at over a thousand different documents. But there were two clear types that I interrogated to pull together all of our background data. The first category was publicly available data, so that could have been a clinical study, epidemiological study, advertisement by the company, CDC or other government reports, mortality data, etc. But then there was also a distinct different type of data that we really looked at and that was really useful for putting together these pictures of the natural history, which was internal documents. In some cases, these could have been leaked by an internal employee, which was the case with the so called 'brown documents' with tobacco. But it also came from sometimes court hearings or as a result of lawsuits that the companies had to release internal data. It was really interesting to compile together the different sides, of the outside look from CDC reports, and then the insider scoop from Purdue Pharma. So, it's a very well rounded, interesting way to find all this data. I admire your effort. It's a big job to do a normal scientific review where you might have 50 papers and you were looking at things that were much harder to obtain and a vast number of things that are really quite different in character. Boy, congratulations for just reading all those things. Tell us what you found. Gosh, so even though there's so many distinct differences between a lot of these epidemics, what we actually found was that there was a lot of narrative similarities. And because of that, we could really create this holistic, but also really well-fitting idea of market driven epidemics. A lot of the corporate strategies were either mirrored, imitated, or in some cases quite literally lifted over because of overlapping ownership between the companies. One of the things that we really wanted to hammer into our article was that producers not only created their product, but they also manufactured doubt. Which means that they created, on purpose, public hesitancy around their product even when they internally knew that it was harmful to health. They wanted the public to be on the fence about what the health impact of their product was. There was a lot of different ways that they achieved that goal. Sometimes it was through showing propaganda films in high schools. Which I still can't believe that happened and then that was legal. But also in different ways, like co-opting science, paying scientists to publish articles in their favor. I know a really famous example of this that has now been public is that two Harvard researchers in cardiovascular disease published saying that sugar was not harmful to health. So, there's a lot of different ways that they achieved it, but the goals overall were very similar by all the companies. You know, you mentioned overlapping ownership. And so, you might have been referring specifically to the ownership of the food companies by the tobacco companies. Correct. Because it happened a while ago, that's not something that was well known. But there's a fascinating history there about how the tobacco industry used its technology to maximize addiction and used that to develop food products and to change the DNA of the food companies in ways that still exist today, even though that ownership ended many years ago. I'm really glad you pointed that out. Yeah, exactly. I think there's this shared idea that there's a turning point for companies. Where they know internally that their product is causing harm. And what really tips them over into becoming market driven epidemics is not actually coming out and saying that there's an issue with their product or not improving it. But you know really digging that information into the dirt and saying no we're going to protect our product and keep giving this out to the public despite the harms. You know, maybe we can come back to this, but the fact that you're finding similarities between these areas suggests that there are contingencies that act on corporate executives that are similar no matter what they're selling. And that's helpful to know because in the future, you can predict what these companies will be doing because there are many more similarities than differences. Jono let me ask you this. You've talked about this appalling period of time between when there are known health consequences of use of some of these things and the time when meaningful action occurs to curb their consumption and to rein in the behavior of the companies. How long is this gap, and what explains it? Kelly, this is one of the most fascinating things about this study. And it really highlights the importance of taking an epidemiologic approach. This is a behavioral epidemic, not a viral one. But it has so many characteristics. One of the key points is that is how important time is. And we see that in any epidemic curve when things start going exponential. If we take cigarettes, okay, the harms of cigarettes had long been suspected. But the first credible scientific publication was by a US physician, Isaac Adler, in a 400-page 1912 book where he first associated cigarettes with cancers. Fast forward over 40 years to British scientists Doll and Hill, and they did the epidemiology which definitively and convincingly links cigarette cancer with smoking deaths. So that gap was incredible and so that's one of the first examples. Once those articles were published, others followed the initial one. It took about a decade until the 1964 Surgeon General's report on smoking and health. And that was quickly followed by a series of federal actions. So, 1964, '63, '64 was the tipping point. Five decades after the initial suspicion. For sugar, the journey from suspicion to compelling evidence was more complex. There was a big debate between researchers, clinicians, scientific journalists, that began in the '50s. A diabetologist from Britain John Yudkin, argued in the 1957 Lancet piece, it's sugar that's equal or larger than fats. An American physiologist, Enzo Keyes, says au contraire. He said it on the cover of Time Magazine. From 1950 to 2000, there was this debate back and forth. Finally, sugar consumption in the US peaked in '99 when a sugar wary group of researchers, journalists, and advocacy groups began becoming really vocal. And that was the tipping point. The actual compelling science, it came a few years after the preponderance of folks engaged said, no, it's sugar. You got to do something. And finally, with prescription opioids: 1997, rural doctors Art Van Zee and another fellow, alerted Purdue Pharma, the producer of OxyContin, about rising overdoses. A year later, there was a publication that said the sustained release version of OxyContin, which was a hydrocodone that was sustained release, that they first tried it with morphine, and they had evidence from there that the sustained release drugs were a problem. And again, it was over a decade later that mounting prescription opioid deaths in the US convinced CDC to declare an epidemic of [00:14:00] opioid prescribing. This gap, if you look at it, to summarize, for cigarettes, the journey from credible suspicion of harm to consumption tipping point, five decades. Sugar, four decades. Prescription opioids, fourteen years. But the key thing is that the power of collective action, because today, only one in eight Americans smoke, and it was nearly 50 percent at the peak. The US consumption of sugar, which increased by 30 pounds between the year 1950 and the year 2000, when all this debate was going on. We picked up an extra 30 pounds of sugar consumption per person per year, but within two decades, that was cut back. We gave back 15 pounds of that. And now prescription opioids have gone back to a medically defendable level, having risen to 8 to 10 times that in the peak of the prescription opioid epidemic. Hearing you talk about that, it's nice that there's sometimes light at the end of the tunnel. But boy, it's a long tunnel. And that you can count the, the number of deaths during that tunnel period of time in the millions. It's just unspeakable how much damage, preventable damage gets caused. Now, and I'd like to, when I come back to wind up this podcast, I'd like to ask each of you, what do you think might be done to help narrow that or shrink that time gap and to prevent these long delays and to help address these corporate determinants of health. But before I get there, Eszter, you know, I'd like to follow up on the conversation we had earlier. You know where it's clear that sugar and tobacco and opioids are all quite different substances, but the companies, the natural history of these things looks quite similar. And you mentioned in particular the industry attempt to plant doubt. To create doubt in the minds of people about the stories they were hearing of the dangers of these things, whether they were true or not. And were there other things that the industry was doing during that time that you noticed might have similarities across these areas? Oh my gosh, so many. I have to go through all the examples in my head and make sure that I have a very crisp message out of all of them One of the ones that is interestingly being employed today in a very different epidemic with firearms and guns, is this idea of whose choice is the consumer product in its use. And today there's a lot of ideas that were initially created by tobacco, and then used by food, that are currently being used by gun lobbyists talking about individual freedoms. So with some of the previous market driven epidemics, like tobacco and prescription opioids, it's a way easier argument to make that the individual at some level does not choose to use the product. Maybe in the beginning, the first couple uses were their individual choice, but then there's on purpose, a really strong withdrawal response in the body and socially. The individual kind of had to continue using the product. But some of those ideas are being used today with firearms. The idea that somebody has the liberty to use this product or to purchase this product, which undoubtedly causes harm. You know, it's probably not really good for public health if this argument exists. And, in the cases with firearms, which I think is a little bit ironic and sad, a lot of the people that buy guns for their own self-defense actually experience those guns turned around and used on them, usually by the perpetrators of aggression. These ideas of individual freedoms usually backfire to the people that are consuming the products. It's interesting to me that a lot of these ideas were initially created for very different products, but are being used in the current day. So interesting to hear you say that because here we have yet another area where there are similarities with the firearms. And the companion argument to that idea that it's your personal liberty to use these things is the argument that there's overreach by government, big brother, things like that. When government wants to, you know. Yeah. It's so interesting. So one point on that. The market economy was never meant to be a free for all. Because the reality is that the market economy has brought billions of people out of poverty and saved more lives than most health interventions. But the problem is, as I said, it wasn't meant to be a free for all. And it depends on having good consumer information and when companies are distorting it, they're basically taking away the informed choice, which is critical. The other part of it is, when they are purposely engineering their products for maximal addictiveness, which is done with clicks and social media, and was done purposefully with the nicotine content in cigarettes, then you don't have a real informed choice. The freedom of choice. You've had your brain pleasure center hijacked by, by purposely addictive products. Right, and you didn't mention food, but there's another example of substances that are created to hijack the reward pathway in the brain. Absolutely. I'd like to ask each of you, what in the heck can we do about this? I mean, you've pointed out a massive problem. Where the number of lives that are sacrificed because of corporate behavior, just enormous numbers. What can we do about it? Jono, I will start with you. And, you know, you've written this very highly regarded book called The End of Epidemics. And you've talked about things like bending epidemic curves and accelerating shifts. But tell us more. What do you think can be done in the case of these market driven epidemics like we're talking about? Well, I think it's important to realize that both kinds of epidemics, viral and behavioral, are communicable. Both involve a lot of rumor, blame, uncertainty. And as we've talked about both cause deaths in the thousands or millions. And we haven't talked so much about the significant social disruption, and the cost. Trillions of dollars in economic losses and additional health burdens. So let me focus on four kinds of key actors because when it comes down to it, it's groups that that really start acting against these things. The first is the research community and its funders. You won't be surprised given the time it takes to get the evidence because what's clear is without clear evidence of product associated harm, we're not going to move the political agendas. We're not going to get public support for epidemic curves. So, we have really good researchers working in these areas. They need to guard against groupthink. That's what happened with our salt sugar 50 years of chaos discussion. And conflict of interest because companies do try to undermine the database. The second is the funders of research, foundations and all, and national health services need to have an early warning system and an annual research roadmap in this area. I think Eszter will probably talk about the importance of public health leaders, because she's looked a lot at that. Another community though is the different civil society groups that are active. Because there's Mothers Against Drunk Driving, there's the Sandy Hook group on gun shooting, and there are a variety of interest groups. But what we realize is that there are lots of different strategies for how you move decision makers and all. So, more information sharing from those groups, civil society groups and all across. And finally, companies. It's actually in their interest to be more forthcoming earlier on. With tobacco, with prescription opioids, and now with baby powder, with talc, what we're seeing is companies at risk of bankruptcy paying billions of dollars. And if their CEOs aren't looking at that, then their board needs to be. Can I ask you a quick question about that? When the chickens come home to roost, and those bad things befall a company, you know, really seriously damaging lawsuits, or the possibility that perhaps sometime the executives will go to jail for corporate malfeasance. You know, the behavior that caused all the millions of deaths occurred 15 CEOs before them. So, if you're a CEO and you know you have a certain shelf life as CEO, you want to maximize profit during that time. And by the time anything happens negatively to the company, you're on vacation, you're retired, or you're gone. So how do you deal with that? Here's the thing, it's having criminal and civil liability that can go back to the individuals involved. From a different sector, an example. The German executive who was head of Volkswagen over a decade ago when they cheated on their environmental issues. He's been criminally charged today, a decade later. And I think that sort of personal accountability, it'll be hard to get, but that's the kind of thing that will make CEOs and their boards, if their boards also become responsible for hiding information in a way that it resulted in deaths. I think that, unfortunately, that kind of hammer, although it's going to be hard to get, that's probably what's needed. Okay, that makes good sense to me, and I'm glad I asked you that question. And I appreciate the answer. Eszter, anything you'd like to add to what Jono said about what could be done. Yes. One of the amazing things about market driven epidemics was when we were creating the paper, we created a table of all the different types of actors that could have very successful mitigation. And that table actually ended up being cut from the paper because it was so long that the editor said that it might distract from the rest of the paper. But that's actually a very positive message because there are so many actors that can have positive change, I'm going to highlight a couple of them because I think there's a few things here that are fairly good core messages that we can take away. One of the ones is the need for a trusted public health authoritative voice. I think nowadays there's a lot of commotion over how much we trust the government. And how much we trust, for example, the head of the CDC and the types of data they're talking about in terms of public health. But in the past, when we had a very trusted public health voice, that was really crucial in getting consumers to change their behavior. For example, in the 1964 Surgeon General's report, seemingly overnight changed people's behavior. Before then, smoking was a common, everyday social event. And after that, people started viewing it as a deadly, bad habit that some people had. And that type of change was really hard to get in the modern day. When we were talking about public health crises that were viral. So, I think one of the things that we really need to get again in the modern day is this trust between the people and public health voices so that when we have such good forthcoming information those statements actually mean something. So much so that the consumers change their behavior. Another thing is with us individuals who maybe aren't part of public health, we actually play a pretty big role in how much other people consume these different products. I remember when I was researching cigarettes in particular and the intersection with social media. I think if somebody under 18 saw a peer smoking and posted that to Instagram, that doubled their likelihood of trying out smoking for the first time. You have to be really careful with how you show yourself in the presence of others, and online too with a new digital age. Because you might tip the scale in somebody trying out a product for the first time. Which then if it has a very strong withdrawal effect, you know that person might have to might feel that they have to continue using that product to avoid withdrawal. I think as an individual, you can be more mindful about if you have a certain product use that you don't want others to also pick up, to maybe not do it or not show it as much so that other people aren't interested in doing that. Okay, the last really positive message I have is that I think as my generation gets into higher positions of power, even within corporations, I think Gen Z and Gen Alpha and other young people have the sense of responsibility for others and for the planet. And I think if there was a young person in power in a corporation and saw that oh no this product that we've had is now there's evidence that's harmful. I think there would be more accountability and more of a want to do something that's good for the planet and for people. I'm hopeful that, maybe 50, 60 years ago, if people were more in favor of kind of brushing things under the rug, then maybe the young generation won't be as into those ideas. And we'll actually want to be accountable and do what's right. BIOS Jonathan D. Quick, MD, MPH (“Jono”) is adjunct Professor of Global Health at the Duke Global Health Institute, where he teaches global health policy, serves on foundation grant advisory boards, and mentors students. Dr. Quick's current research and writing focuses on market-driven epidemics, from tobacco to opioids to social media.  He is also Affiliated Faculty in Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Global Health & Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Quick is the author of The End of Epidemics: The Looming Threat to Humanity and How to Stop It  (Australian, Italian, Korean, South Asia, U.K. and U.S. 2018/2020/2021 editions), creator of MDS-3: Managing Access to Medicines and Health Technologies and an author of  The Financial Times Guide to Executive Health, Preventive Stress Management in Organizations, as well as more than 100 other books, chapters, and articles in leading medical journals.  Eszter Rimanyi is a chronic disease epidemiologist working with Dr. Jonathan D. Quick at the Duke Global Health Institute. Her research interest centers around Market-Driven Epidemics, including tobacco, sugar, opioids, and breastmilk substitute/infant formula. She is currently working on applying the market-driven epidemics approach to new epidemics, such as social media and firearms. Rimanyi has authored scientific papers in journals such as PloS Global Public Health and MDPI.

Happy Monday! Sam and Emma speak with Stefania Barca, distinguished researcher at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, to discuss her recent book Workers Of The Earth: Labour, Ecology and Reproduction in the Age of Climate Change. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on the GOP's government shutdown, ABC's inauguration plans, Social Security, Trump's cabinet, Trump's plan to privatize the post office, Syria's changing political landscape, Gaza's massive death toll, and McKinsey's liability in Purdue Pharma's opioid case, also touching on preparations for Trump's authoritarianism and the centrist “No Labels” party's struggles to not capitulate to the right. Dr. Stefania Barca, PhD, then joins, diving right into work on the broadening of “reproductive work” – a form of labor regarding social reproduction and the socializing, educational, and care work required for it – to include the need to cultivate and maintain a healthy environment for society to flourish sustainably. Stepping back, Barca unpacks the historical tension between labor and environmental movements, with the two being seen as in conflict between the interests of blue- and white-collar workers, respectively, despite that very tension being very prevalent within these specific movements themselves, expanding on that latter point by walking through the myriad strains of environmentalism – be it green capitalism, environmental justice, ecomodernism or degrowth – and how they approach concepts like consumption, labor transitions, production, and wealth inequality, with each taking on a different approach to the relationship between capitalism and the environment.  After expanding on the true alignment of the crises of care and the environment, Stefania parses through the value of understanding this reproductive work – in both social and environmental contexts – as one worthy of financial compensation, from the value it directly provides society in its immediate provisions to the central role it can play in pushing a necessary labor shift away from industries directly associated with environmental decay toward ones that can build to a sustainable future. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma tackle the growing call for Biden to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, unpack the coalescence of the GOP around alleged islamophobe, predator, abuser, and alcoholic Pete Hegseth's nomination, and look to history in their response to Marc Andreessen's call for an antithesis to FDR. Jimmy Dore responds to Peter Hotez's critique of RFK Jr. by… blaming the existence of polio on the polio vaccine, plus, your calls and IMs! Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 20% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Cozy Earth: You can still get expedited shipping until December 20 to ensure it arrives in time. Don't wait—head to https://cozyearth.com/MAJORITYREPORT now and use my exclusive code MAJORITYREPORT for up to 40% off. Give the gift of luxury this holiday season.  That's https://cozyearth.com/MAJORITYREPORT If you get a post-purchase survey, say you heard about Cozy Earth from The Majority Report with Sam Seder podcast! Select Quote: Get the RIGHT life insurance for YOU, for LESS, at https://SelectQuote.com/Majority. Go to https://SelectQuote.com/Majority TODAY to get started. Aura Frames: Save on the perfect gift by visiting https://auraframes.com to get $35-off Aura's best-selling Carver Mat frames by using promo code MAJORITY at checkout. That's https://auraframes.com promo code MAJORITY. This deal is exclusive to listeners, so get yours now in time for the holidays! Terms and conditions apply. Sunset Lake CBD: Head over to https://SunsetLakeCBD.com and use code HOLIDAY to save 25% and get some freebies. This sale ends December 22nd. See their site for terms and conditions. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Today's Headlines: The source of mysterious drones over the Northeast remains unknown, though Homeland Security promises transparency if foreign actors are involved. Two arrests on Long Island may or may not be linked. Meanwhile, South Korea's President Yoon has been impeached after declaring martial law, with a court deciding his fate in the coming months. Texas AG Ken Paxton sued a New York doctor for mailing abortion pills to a Texas resident, challenging NY's protective laws. McKinsey settled for $650M over its role in Purdue Pharma's opioid crisis, avoiding criminal charges. Former OpenAI researcher Suchir Balaji, who alleged copyright violations by the company, was found dead in an apparent suicide. In Washington, Trump reportedly wants to privatize USPS over its financial losses, and Nancy Pelosi underwent hip surgery after a fall. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: Axios: Sunday snapshot: Drone debate rolls on following arrests  Axios: South Korean president impeached and suspended from duties  Texas Tribune: Ken Paxton sues New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to Texas woman  AP News: McKinsey & Company agrees to pay $650M for helping Purdue Pharma boost opioid sales  CNBC: Former OpenAI researcher and whistleblower found dead at age 26 WA Post: Trump eyes privatizing U.S. Postal Service, citing financial losses WA Post: Nancy Pelosi gets hip replacement after fall in Luxembourg Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In our news wrap Friday, consulting firm McKinsey and Company will pay $650 million to settle a federal investigation into its work for the opioids maker Purdue Pharma, the state of Texas has sued a doctor in New York for mailing abortion pills to a patient in the Dallas area and Russia launched a barrage today of 200 drones and nearly 100 cruise and ballistic missiles all across Ukraine. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports McKinsey & Company has agreed to pay $650 million for helping Purdue Pharma boost OxyContin sales.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Bankruptcy Code authorize a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties, without the claimants' consent? The case was decided on June 27, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. Applying the ejusdem generis canon of statutory interpretation to Section 1123(b)(6), which is a catchall provision allowing "any other appropriate provision" in a bankruptcy plan, the Court reasoned that this provision should be read in light of the specific provisions that precede it, all of which concern the debtor's rights and responsibilities. Therefore, Section 1123(b)(6) cannot be fairly read to grant the radically different power to discharge debts of non-debtors without affected claimants' consent. The broader context of the Bankruptcy Code further supports this conclusion. Discharges are generally reserved for debtors who place their assets in the bankruptcy estate, and even then, certain types of claims (like fraud or willful injury) cannot be discharged. The Sacklers, as non-debtors, seek greater protection than the Code typically allows for actual debtors, without meeting the Code's usual requirements. Congress has only explicitly authorized third-party releases in asbestos-related bankruptcies, suggesting that such releases are not generally permissible in other contexts. Therefore, Section 1123(b)(6) does not authorize the nonconsensual release of claims against the Sacklers, who are non-debtors in Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Did you know that despite the Boy Scouts' settlement that was approved by the bankruptcy court and is now under appeal, the compensation currently offered to abuse survivors is only about 1.5% of the claim value? This shocking reality underscores the massive gap between proposed settlements and the actual needs of the victims. In this episode of Cut to the Chase: Podcast, we are joined by Curtis Garrison and Jason Joy to update us on where the Boy Scouts' settlement stands. Curtis, an advocate for sexual abuse survivors and survivor is collaborating with Gateway Church in Dallas to raise awareness about the Boy Scouts' abuse scandal and convince Texas to change it's statute of limitations for sexual abuse survivors. Jason Joy is a tenacious lawyer representing several of the Boy Scouts that were sexually abused over the past 5 decades. Both guests bring invaluable insights from their real-world and legal experiences to this critical discussion. Today, we hope to give you a deeper understanding of the legal complexities surrounding the Boy Scouts' settlement that is technically in effect but still under appeal. Tune in to learn about the tireless efforts and challenges of advocating for survivors, new legislative measures, and the evolving landscape of liability, restitution, and justice. What to expect in this episode: The push for statute of limitations reform and its importance for sexual abuse survivors. Analysis of the Boy Scouts' reparations plan and the shortfall in compensation funds Detailed explanation of "contra proferentem" and the insurance companies' resistance The role and responsibilities of local councils and other organizations in abuse cases Comparison of the Boy Scouts' settlement to Purdue Pharma's scenario Insights into the Boy Scouts' ongoing court proceedings and possible legal developments Key Actionable Takeaways for Law Firms: Stay informed about statute of limitations reforms and support legislative efforts that protect abuse survivors. Recognize the importance of clear and transparent insurance policy terms to avoid ambiguities in coverage. Advocate for fair and adequate compensation for abuse survivors through legal channels and reforms. Understand the significant exposure and responsibilities of insurers in coverage for abuse cases. Prepare for the potential influence of high-profile cases, like Purdue Pharma, on other litigation settlements. Stay tuned for more updates, and don't miss our next deep dive on Cut to The Chase: Podcast with Gregg Goldfarb! Subscribe, rate, review, and share this episode of the Cut to the Chase: Podcast to stay ahead in your legal practice!   Resources: Jason Joy & Associates: https://www.jasonjoylaw.com Connect with Jason on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-joy-595a3416 Listen to Breaking Down the Supreme Court's Double Take on Boy Scouts' Settlement w/ Jason Joy: https://gregggoldfarb.libsyn.com/breaking-down-the-supreme-courts-double-take-on-boy-scouts-settlement-w-jason-joy This episode was produced and brought to you by Reignite Media.

La segunda crisis de opioides en Estados Unidos se intensificó con la introducción de OxyContin en 1996, un analgésico basado en opioides promocionado por Purdue Pharma como una solución efectiva con una duración de 12 horas. Sin embargo, su alto potencial adictivo, sumado a la estrategia de marketing agresiva, resultó en una epidemia de abuso y dependencia que devastó comunidades enteras. Síguenos y visita nuestro sitio oficial: https://www.instagram.com/eldollop https://twitter.com/eldollop https://www.facebook.com/eldolloppodcast http://eldollop.com

Send us a textDoctors are people we often trust to make the best decisions for our health. While that's usually the case, it's not always true. Dr. Stan Li, a once-respected anesthesiologist, became known as "New York's deadliest pill pusher." Li wrote more than 21,000 prescriptions for drugs such as oxycodone and Xanax and was ultimately convicted of manslaughter in the overdose deaths of two patients.In this episode of “Grieving Out Loud,” we speak with Charlotte Bismuth, the former assistant district attorney who prosecuted Li. She's also the author of "Killer in a White Coat: The True Story of New York's Deadliest Pill Pusher and the Team that Brought Him to Justice." Join us as we examine the details of this case, the challenges of holding doctors accountable, and the fight to seek justice for overdose victims.You can find the manual Bismuth helped create for prosecutors working on overdose homicide cases through the Prosecutor's Center for Excellence. Click here: https://pceinc.org/Listen to Episode 161: Prince's cousin's efforts to expose the truth behind the musician's fentanyl deathListen to Episode 162: Grieving father takes on Purdue Pharma after son dies from OxyContinThe Emily's Hope Substance Use Prevention Curriculum has been carefully designed to address growing concerns surrounding substance use and overdose in our communities. Our curriculum focuses on age-appropriate and evidence-based content that educates children about the risks of substance use while empowering them to make healthy choices. Support the showFor more episodes and to read Angela's blog, just go to our website, emilyshope.charityWishing you faith, hope and courage! Podcast producers: Casey Wonnenberg & Kayli Fitz

In the wake of the incredible harm caused by the opioid crisis, the outcome of the Purdue Pharma case argued in the United States Supreme Court garnered national attention. What impacts might this case have in bankruptcy court proceedings in the future? To unpack the details and gain understanding of the bankruptcy issues at play, Rocky Dhir talks with attorneys Elias Yazbeck and Michael Wombacher. They discuss the backstory of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, the journey of the case through the courts, and insights into the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision, with a particular focus on the conflict over nonconsensual third-party releases.   Learn more about the case here: 23-124 Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (06/27/24)   Elias M. Yazbeck is an associate attorney in the Houston office of McGinnis Lochridge, LLP.   Michael Wombacher is an associate attorney at McDermott Will & Emery in Dallas, Texas.   Michael represented the Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Robertshaw case:  Case number: 8:23-bk-80004 - Ebix, Inc. - Texas Northern Bankruptcy Court.

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls A prominent advocate, speaker, author, and media commentator, Ryan Hampton travels coast-to-coast to add solutions to our national addiction and drug overdose crisis. In recovery from a decade-long opioid addiction, Hampton is regarded as a forefront expert and thought leader in America's rising addiction recovery advocacy & drug policy reform movements. An alumnus of the Clinton White House, he's worked with multiple non-profits and addiction recovery organizing campaigns. He's now a prominent, leading face and voice of recovery advocacy and is working to change the longstanding negative narratives about those impacted by addiction, recovery, and overdose. Through his books and media, organizing campaigns, and social content that reaches millions, Ryan breaks down cultural barriers that have kept people suffering in silence and is helping to inspire a new generation of advocates recovering out loud, pushing for common-sense policy. He was part of the core team that released the first-ever U.S. Surgeon General's report on alcohol, drugs, and health in 2016 and was singled out by Forbes the following year as a top social entrepreneur in the recovery movement. Ryan connects a vast network of people passionate about ending the overdose crisis in America. He has been featured by—and is a contributor to—media outlets such as the Today Show, the Associated Press, USA Today, MSNBC, ABC News, Fox and Friends, the New York Times, NPR, HLN, Vice, Slate, The Hill, the Wall Street Journal, and others. Ryan has received praise from Democrats and Republicans alike for addressing addiction as a trans-political issue—crossing the political spectrum to build an inclusive coalition focused on solutions. He works closely with the White House, Senate Democrats, Republicans, U.S. House leadership, and state legislatures across the country. Notably, he helped craft binding provisions addressing substance use disorder in the historic SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, signed into federal law in October 2018. In 2016, he created the web series Addiction Across America, documenting his 30-day, 28-state, 8,000-mile cross-country trip visiting areas hit hardest by the addiction crisis. His first bestselling book, “American Fix — Inside the Opioid Addiction Crisis and How to End It,” was released by St. Martin's Press in August 2018. His second book, “Unsettled: How the Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Failed the Victims of the American Overdose Crisis,” was released in September 2021 and chronicled his behind-the-scenes efforts representing tens of thousands of victims in the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement litigation. Ryan is currently working on his third book, scheduled to be released in 2024. In 2019, Ryan was named by Facebook as an inaugural community leadership fellow and created the national advocacy initiative, Mobilize Recovery. Since its inception, Mobilize Recovery has recruited and trained over 8,000 new advocates from all 50 states focused on community-based solutions to end the addiction and overdose crisis. In 2022, Mobilize Recovery traveled to 25 states, hosting 35 organizing and advocacy training events throughout September and October, distributing 10,000 doses of free naloxone and over 11,000 fentanyl test strips. Through the Overdose Response Initiative, a not-for-profit coalition Ryan helped to form in 2019, over 625,000 free doses of naloxone have been distributed in 21 states as of December 2022. The alliance comprises nearly 40 organizational stakeholders nationally, including Direct Relief International, the Clinton Foundation, and Mobilize Recovery. He lives in Nevada with his husband, Sean, and their boxer puppy, Quincy. The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art   

Last week the Supreme Court ruled a $6 billion settlement between Purdue Pharma and victims of the opioid crisis could not move forward, because it granted immunity to the Sackler family, the principal owners of Purdue. For one of the litigants, a mother who has lost two sons to overdoses, the decision felt like “a sucker punch.” Guest: Cheryl Juaire, part of the bankruptcy settlement with Purdue Pharma and founder of the non-profit organization Team Sharing, a support group for parents who have lost kids to overdoses. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Slate Money goes to court. Felix Salmon, Emily Peck, and Elizabeth Spiers discuss two big Supreme Court rulings: One that stripped government agencies of regulatory power, and another that struck down Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers' bankruptcy plan. Also: Giant “megacap” companies rule the stock market. Is that good? In the Plus segment: the once-popular potato has fallen out of fashion, but the hosts make the case for a spud renaissance. If you enjoy this show, please consider signing up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get an ad-free experience across the network and an additional segment of our regular show every week. You'll also be supporting the work we do here on Slate Money. Sign up now at slate.com/moneyplus to help support our work. Podcast production by Jared Downing and Cheyna Roth. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Despite low expectations, President Biden delivers a shaky, halting performance in the first general election debate. The Supreme Court invalidates a landmark settlement between Purdue Pharma and the families of opioid overdose victims. And Boeing is sanctioned by the NTSB after inviting ABC to its facilities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

P.M. Edition for June 27. The Supreme Court has blocked a Purdue Pharma opioid settlement that would have shielded the wealthy Sackler family from civil lawsuits. WSJ's Alexander Gladstone discusses what the ruling means for patients and their families. And Walgreens plans to shutter many of its U.S. stores and move away from the primary-care business. WSJ health reporter Anna Mathews explains what is behind the shift in strategy. Plus, follow our live coverage of the first presidential debate of the 2024 campaign. Sabrina Siddiqui hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices