Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves first-reading settlements with opioid manufacturers and distributors
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on ordinances to accept multi-year abatement payments from major opioid distributors and a manufacturer; closed-session briefings preceded the vote.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Nov. 2 to pass, on first reading, ordinances accepting multi‑year settlement agreements with major opioid distributors AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson and with Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
The board convened a Committee of the Whole and held a closed session with the City Attorney’s Office before taking the votes. Supervisor Ahsha Safaie presided over roll call on the ordinances, which the clerk read as authorizing abatement payments to the city: an agreed range of approximately $27 million to $50 million payable over 18 years from the three distributors, and approximately $6 million to $11 million payable over nine years from Johnson & Johnson.
The measures stem from lawsuits alleging the companies engaged in deceptive marketing and failed to prevent and report suspicious opioid orders, creating a public nuisance and violating consumer protection laws. Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson briefed the board in open session before the closed‑session discussion and said staff would provide additional details in closed session because of timing and negotiation sensitivities. Supervisor Dean Preston, who called the Committee of the Whole, said the board’s full consideration reflected the city’s sustained interest in addressing the local harms of the opioid crisis.
Public comment before the closed session included a caller urging the board to consider whether the settlements left wealthy individuals, including Sackler family members named in media accounts, with disproportionate retained wealth. The public commenter referenced national coverage but did not provide a legal claim specific to the city’s settlements.
After the closed session, the board voted 11–0 on the ordinances at first reading. The ordinances were reported out of closed session and introduced for first reading with unanimous support; the clerk recorded “11 ayes.” The measures were advanced pursuant to the city’s legislative process and will return for second reading and final adoption according to standard timelines.
Board members did not provide additional public details about the precise allocation formula for abatement funds in open session; the City Attorney’s Office and relevant departments retain responsibility for implementation details and reporting back to the board.
