The exclusions stem from sharp changes made between Purdue’s initial bankruptcy proposal and a revised plan approved in November 2024. The Supreme Court had rejected the first settlement in 2024 because it shielded the Sackler family, Purdue’s multibillionaire owners, from future lawsuits. In the revised plan, settlement amounts for fatally overdosed family members dropped dramatically—from $48,000 under the previous proposal to as little as $8,000.

Most critically, the new plan eliminated a provision allowing victims to submit sworn affidavits in place of prescription records or medical documentation. That removal has made it impossible for thousands of people to qualify. Purdue sold painkillers for decades, and under most state laws, doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies retain prescription records for only a few years.

“I can’t turn up prescriptions for my son back when he was young, years ago,” said Ellen Isaacs of Michigan, whose son Ryan died from an overdose at 33 in 2018. “They’re not available anymore.” Ryan’s addiction began after he was prescribed OxyContin following a high school injury, Isaacs said.

Mary Jannotta, a Philadelphia-area deli worker, illustrates the human cost. After a botched 2008 back surgery, her doctor repeatedly prescribed OxyContin. She became dependent and eventually found her way to Kensington’s open-air drug market. She lost her car, her home, and her grandson, Tyler Cordeiro, who died of an overdose at 24 after pilfering her prescription pills as a teenager.

Of approximately 140,000 people who met the final claim deadline, about 63,000 filed evidence by late July 2025, according to a November court filing from settlement trust administrator Edward Gentle. A judge approved Purdue’s motion Tuesday to formally expunge roughly 80,000 individuals who missed that deadline from any payout under this settlement plan. The changes were negotiated out of public view for months and have received no prior media scrutiny.

Purdue’s attorneys said the company played no role in designing the claims process. The victims’ representatives at major law firm Akin endorsed the plan despite tighter criteria and reduced benefits.

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/purdue-settlement-leaves-opioid-victims-behind

The trial, which represents Diamantis‘s second corruption case, has been extended from its original timeline. No additional details about the specific charges, dollar amounts involved, or the nature of the alleged misconduct appear in the available source material.

The continuance suggests ongoing complexity in the prosecution’s case or defense preparation. Court scheduling decisions of this nature typically indicate either substantial discovery remaining to be reviewed, witness availability issues, or legal motions still pending before the court.

Diamantis‘s previous involvement in corruption matters underscores a pattern that warranted a second prosecution. The fact that he faces multiple trials on corruption-related charges indicates separate incidents or distinct legal violations across different time periods or conduct categories.

The extension into at least September gives both the prosecution and defense additional time to prepare arguments, though it delays resolution of the case. Trials involving public officials typically draw scrutiny from watchdog organizations and media outlets focused on government accountability.

No information was provided regarding bail status, whether Diamantis remains free pending trial, or conditions of release. Similarly, the source material does not indicate whether jury selection has begun, trial testimony has commenced, or if the case remains in pre-trial motions phase.

The Connecticut court system’s decision to extend the trial date suggests the judge determined that proceeding on the original schedule would compromise either the right to adequate preparation or the integrity of the judicial process.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMipAFBVV95cUxObHlxSVlDalJ5VFAyZ2x1SVpCX3c0MGhOUllyNzZ1TXBZNDUtdnFBaVhUSFJoN1ZhcnJ5LVV5TmV3Vno2UGpLVGJSSzFUbDlWRlRHNEpVYk1HZXVnd0dDa0xmTzZqZU0zYjZNWHRBaDRST21SVTc3VmpBNnV0VjJRbGVYc1Y5a05QSHJ0OUR4a2pId1FIWngweHh3eTN4ZFZ2cEtOdw?oc=5

Five days after an ICE agent fatally shot activist Renee Good, federal immigration agents in Minneapolis surrounded and questioned a U.S. citizen named Christian Molina, whose car they had stopped. When residents poured out of their homes to watch, someone threw a snowball — and federal agents responded with tear gas, pepper spray, and impact munitions, according to a joint investigation by ProPublica and FRONTLINE.

Molina told ProPublica reporter A.C. Thompson that the agents had followed him and rammed his car: “They looked at me and they decided to pull me over for no reason.”

After the snowball was thrown, an agent tossed a tear gas canister into the crowd. As the toxic haze rose, another agent pepper-sprayed protesters and a news photographer at close range, while a third fired pepper balls into the crowd — hitting Thompson three times, including once above the right eye. Federal use of force guidelines generally instruct agents not to target people’s heads and faces with these weapons.

As the agents drove away, one shot pepper spray from a car window, striking FRONTLINE director Gabrielle Schonder and director of photography Tim Grucza in the face.

The commander overseeing the operations, Greg Bovino, then-commander-at-large for Border Patrol, was unapologetic. “We’re here to conduct that Title 8 mission,” he told a local TV station. “It won’t stop despite rioters, agitators, and vast amounts of violence against federal officers. We’re not going to stop.”

Former law enforcement officials who reviewed the footage were less measured. “We see, just, use of excessive force after use of excess force,” said Christy Lopez, who spent years investigating law enforcement misconduct for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “In no scenario is it OK to be pepper-spraying people as you’re leaving the scene.”

Chris Magnus, a former head of Customs and Border Protection who once oversaw Bovino, invoked the principle of proportionality: “People may well get under your skin under a lot of circumstances. You don’t like it, but professionals don’t react to it.”

The investigation found that legal cases against many protesters have been falling apart, with accusations contradicted by video evidence and witness testimony. Bovino was eventually moved out of his role after federal agents killed a second Minneapolis protester, Alex Pretti. He has since retired.

“Even if Gregory Bovino is gone, I wonder if his imprint will last through all the federal agencies that are continuing to go out on the street,” said journalist Sergio Olmos. “I wonder if anything will change, really.”

Source: ProPublica