ONGOING STAND-OFF BETWEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE
LEGISLATURE.
WISCONSIN WAS NOT AMONG THE
MORE THAN 20 STATES THAT
REACHED A SETTLEMENT WITH THE
OPIOID MANUFACTURER PURDUE
PHARMA THIS WEEK.
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL
SAYING WE'RE COMMITTED TO
GETTING JUSTICE AND IN MY VIEW
PURDUE'S CURRENT POSITION
DOESN'T ACHIEVE THAT.
IT COMES IN THE MIDST OF AN
IMPASSE WITH REPUBLICANS ON THE
JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE WHETHER
THEY SHOULD SIGN
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS TO
SEE AND APPROVE CASE
RESOLUTIONS UNDER THE SO-CALLED
LAME DUCK LAWS LIMITING KAUL'S
AUTHORITY.
THE CO-CHAIRS OF JFC STATED
THROUGH MEDIA REPORTS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED
WISCONSIN IS NOT ONE OF THE
STATES AGREEING TO SETTLE THE
PURDUE PHARMA CASE AT THIS TIME.
WE HOPE THOSE REPORTERS HAVE
SIGNED NON-DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE
GETTING CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL THAT HE REFUSED TO
SHARE WITH MEMBERS OF THE JOINT
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THEY SAY,
SHOULD STOP PLAYING GAMES.
JFC COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP
DECLINED OUR INVITATION TO
APPEAR ON TONIGHT'S PROGRAM AS
THE HIGH STAKES DISPUTE
CONTINUES, WE SAT DOWN WITH
ATTORNEY GENERAL KAUL JUST
AHEAD OF THE ANNOUNCED
SETTLEMENTS AMONG OTHER STATES.
WE STARTED BY ASKING ABOUT THE
NEED FOR THOSE SECRECY
AGREEMENTS.
>> WHEN YOU ARE LITIGATING A
CASE, THERE IS CERTAIN
INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE
KEPT CONFIDENTIAL IN A LOT OF
CIRCUMSTANCES AND SO TO PRESENT
POTENTIAL SETTLEMENTS TO THE
LEGISLATURE, WE REACHED OUT AND
SAID WE NEED TO REACH A PROCESS
THAT WILL ALLOW US TO DISCUSS
THESE MATTERS CONFIDENTIALLY SO
THE STATE'S INTEREST AND THE
INTEREST OF TAXPAYERS ISN'T
UNDERMINED BY HAVING
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION MADE
PUBLIC AND AVAILABLE TO THE
OTHER SIDE IN LITIGATION.
WE'VE OFFERED A COUPLE OPTIONS
BUT THE PRIMARY ONE WE OFFERED
A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT FOR
THE LEGISLATURE TO SIGN AND
THEY HAVE DECLINED TO SIGN THAT
AND THE PROBLEM IS THE
SOLUTIONS THEY HAVE OFFERED
DON'T ACTUALLY PROTECT
CONFIDENTIALITY.
SO WE NEED THEM TO FIGURE OUT
SOME SORT OF SOLUTION TO THIS
MESS THAT THEY'VE CREATED SO
THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH
RESOLUTIONS FOR THE STATE.
>> ONE OF THOSE SOLUTIONS THAT
THEY OFFERED A COUPLE OF WEEKS
AGO WAS TO HAVE A LAWYER SIGN
IT ON THEIR BEHALF.
IS THAT STILL WHAT THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT?
>> IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.
THEY'VE OFFERED A COUPLE
SOLUTIONS THAT THEY SAID WOULD
MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY.
FIRST THEY SAID THEY WOULD GO
INTO CLOSED SESSION.
THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
BUREAU SAYS IT DOESN'T PROTECT
CONFIDENTIALITY.
THEY WOULD HAVE A LAWYER SIGN A
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
AGAIN THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
BUREAU SAID IT DOESN'T BIND
INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS.
THEY HAVEN'T COME UP WITH
OPTIONS TO MAINTAIN
CONFIDENTIALITY.
THEY GAVE THEMSELVES THIS
SIGNIFICANT POWER BUT THEY NOW
NEED TO TAKE ON THE
RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMES WITH
THE POWER OR NEED TO CHANGE THE
LAW.
>> THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
SCOTT FITZGERALD SAID THIS.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALREADY
KNOWS OF NUMEROUS WAYS HE CAN
PRESENT CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
INFORMATION TO THE JOINT
FINANCE COMMITTEE AND HE
CONTINUES TO DRAG HIS FEET.
HE CONTINUES TO SAY HE CAN WORK
WITH US OR BE PART OF THE
PROBLEM.
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
>> WELL, HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG
ABOUT THAT.
AS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THERE
ARE OPTIONS THAT THEY PRESENTED
THAT DON'T WORK.
WE HAVE PRESENTED A WORKABLE
OPTION.
THIS IS A REALLY BAD SITUATION
AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE
BEST OF IT.
FOR MONTHS WE'VE TRIED TO WORK
WITH THE LEGISLATURE.
SO FAR THEY HAVEN'T BEEN
WILLING TO TAKE ON THE
RESPONSIBILITY THEY'VE GIVEN
THEMSELVES.
>> YOU SAY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS COULD BE AT STAKE.
HOW SO?
>> THE STATE IS INVOLVED IN
SETTLING LOTS OF LITIGATION.
THERE ARE CASES THAT HAVE
SIGNIFICANT DOLLAR VALUES AT
STAKE.
OVER TIME IF THIS PROBLEM ISN'T
RESOLVED, THERE IS GOING TO BE
SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE STATE.
IF WE HAVE CASES, FOR EXAMPLE,
MULTI-STATE CASE WHERE MANY
STATES JOIN IN A SETTLEMENT BUT
WE AREN'T ABLE TO BE PART OF
THAT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE OUR
JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE CAN'T
GET ITS ACT TOGETHER AND FIGURE
OUT HOW TO REVIEW SETTLEMENTS,
IT'S THE TAXPAYERS IN WISCONSIN
WHO WILL BE HARMED BY THAT AND
IT WILL BE HARDER TO GET
JUSTICE WHEN CONSUMERS ARE
DEFRAUDED BY SOMEBODY AND WE
BROUGHT A CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACTION OR IF A POLLUTEOR
COMMITS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
VIOLATION WE'LL HAVE A HARDER
TIME RESOLVING THOSE CASES
BECAUSE THE JOINT FINANCE
COMMITTEE HAS CREATED THIS
SITUATION.
>> WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE
PURDUE PHARMA CASE?
>> I CAN ONLY COMMENT GENERALLY
ON PENDING LITIGATION.
WE HAVE BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST
TWO PURDUE PHARMA ENTITY AND
RICHARD SACKLER THE FORMER
PRESIDENT AND CO-CHAIR OF THE
BOARD OF PURDUE PHARMA AND
JOINED A MULTI-STATE
INVESTIGATION INTO OPIOID
MANUFACTURERS.
MY PREDECESSOR JOINED
MULTI-STATE INVESTIGATIONS INTO
DISTRIBUTORS AND WE'RE
COMMITTED TO RECOVERING TO THE
FULLEST EXTENT WE CAN ON BEHALF
OF WISCONSINITES SO WE CAN
START PUTTING THOSE RESOURCES
TO ADDRESS THE EPIDEMIC TO
THINGS LIKE TREATMENT AND
PREVENTION AND ENFORCEMENT.
>> WERE EARLIER SETTLEMENT
TALKS IN CONNECTION WITH THAT
CASE OR THOSE CASES PART OF
WHAT BROUGHT YOU BEFORE JOINT
FINANCE SAYING YOU HAD AN
URGENT MATTER?
>> I CAN'T COMMENT ON THE
SPECIFICS OF THAT NEGOTIATION.
BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT ANY
CASE WHERE THERE ARE URGENT
SETTLEMENT TALKS COULD LEAD TO
A SITUATION WHERE WE MIGHT NEED
A DECISION VERY QUICKLY FROM
THE JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE.
SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO MAKE A
DECISION IN A LIMITED WINDOW
AND THE JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE
NEEDS TO HAVE A PROCESS IN
PLACE OR THE STATE IS GOING TO
BE AT RISK AT LAONGZ OUT ON
BEING PART OF A LARGE
SETTLEMENT.
>> WHAT WOULD IT MEAN IF THE
MANUFACTURER OF OXYCONTIN
DECLARED BANKRUPTCY?
>> IF THERE IS BANKRUPTCY
DECLARED WISCONSIN AND A NUMBER
OF OTHER STATES, I'M CONFIDENT
A NUMBER OF OTHER STATES WILL
CONTINUE TO PURSUE THEIR CLAIMS
BOTH AGAINST THE BANKRUPTCY
ESTATE.
WE ALSO HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST
ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
SACKLER FAMILY AND THOSE CLAIMS
WILL BE CLAIMS THAT WE CONTINUE
TO PURSUE EITHER IN A
BANKRUPTCY FORUM OR IN THE FORM
WHERE THEY CURRENTLY ARE.
>> IN TERMS OF THE SITUATION
WITH THE JOINT FINANCE
COMMITTEE, IF JUSTICE HAS TO
TRY CASES RATHER THAN SETTLE
THEM, IS YOUR OFFICE PREPARED
TO DO THAT IN EVERY INSTANCE?
>> WE'RE PREPARED TO TRY THE
CASES WE'VE BROUGHT BUT A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS NEW
PROCEDURE THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN
PLACE HARMS WISCONSINITES
BECAUSE WE HAVE LIMITED
RESOURCES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE ALLOCATING THOSE
RESOURCES AS EFFECTIVELY AS
POSSIBLE.
ONE WAY IS BY SETTLING SOME
CASES SO THAT THE RESOURCES WE
DO HAVE AREN'T USED IN LARGE
VOLUME ON SINGLE CASES.
BUT RATHER WE CAN MAKE SURE
WE'RE GETTING JUSTICE IN A LOT
MORE CASES.
IF NOT WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE
POSSIBILITY THAT MANY MORE
CASES ARE GOING TO TRIAL.
THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE
NUMBER OF CASES WE CAN BRING
AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE
ABLE TO GET JUSTICE.
>> SOME DANGER OF WORSE
OUTCOMES IF YOU GO TO TRIAL
RATHER THAN ENTER INTO A
SETTLEMENT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THE REASON YOU ENTER INTO A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS YOU
IT'S A FAIR RESOLUTION OF A
CASE.
RISK COMES WITH PROCEEDING TO
TRIAL.
YOU MIGHT LOSE A CASE AND YOU
HAVE TO SPEND RESOURCES THAT
YOU WOULDN'T OTHERWISE HAVE TO
SPEND.
>> ARE YOU PUSHING THIS BECAUSE
YOU JUST DON'T APPROVE OF THIS
LAW OR IS IT A PARTISAN
SITUATION FOR YOU?
>> WE BEGAN IN FEBRUARY TRYING
TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
CO-CHAIRS OF THE JOINT FINANCE
COMMITTEE TO TRY TO PUT IN
PLACE A PROCESS THAT WOULD
ALLOW US TO RESOLVE CASES.
THIS IS NOT A GOOD SITUATION NO
MATTER WHAT PROCESS WE PUT IN
PLACE.
BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT
WORK BECAUSE MY INTEREST IS IN
GETTING THE BEST OUTCOME
POSSIBLE FOR WISCONSINITES IN
THESE CASES.
UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVEN'T BEEN
ABLE TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH
THE JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THEY KEEP INSISTING ON
SOLUTIONS THAT DON'T WORK.
AND THEY'VE REFUSED TO TAKE ON
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
MAINTAINING THE CONFIDENTIALITY
OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS.
SO WHILE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THIS LAW OVERTURNED, WE'RE
DOING OUR BEST TO MAKE IT WORK
AND WE UNFORTUNATELY HAVEN'T
HAD COOPERATION FROM THE JOINT
FINANCE COMMITTEE TO MAKE THAT
A REALITY.
>> AGAIN, THE REPUBLICAN
CO-CHAIR