Litigating Subdivision Direct Share
Where do these monies live?
This share is distributed directly to counties, municipalities and towns.[1]
Some of Oklahoma’s state-local agreements applying to specific settlements, such as Teva, also rely on Exhibit B for the distribution of funds from this share.[3]
What can this share be spent on?
In general, and with limited exceptions,[4] this share must be spent on “approved purposes,” which for the state’s Distributors settlement proceeds is defined to mean the over 20 expenditures described in state law.[5] This state-specific list includes some of the categories in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E, Schedule B (“Approved Uses”), such as prevention, treatment, and targeted efforts to address the needs of those involved in the criminal legal system.[6] Oklahoma’s state-specific list also mentions decreasing the oversupply of licit and illicit opioids twice,[7] and notably limits harm reduction strategies to naloxone distribution.[8]
Though the state defines approved purposes to mean “evidence-based, forward-looking” strategies and programs,[9] two of the allowable uses in state law permit reimbursement uses of funds (law enforcement and attorneys’ fees).[10]
For funds deriving from most other settlements, this share must be spent on the uses described in the national settlement agreement’s more general (and non-exhaustive) Exhibit E.[11]
Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?
Localities decide autonomously. Decisionmakers for the counties, municipalities, and towns will ultimately decide for themselves how to spend their monies on approved uses.[12] Each may also choose to direct its shares to another political subdivision, “such as but not limited to the county or counties in which a municipality is located.”[13]
Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Oklahoma does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses settlement funds from the Litigating Subdivision Share. This means that the Litigating Subdivision Share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.
Can I see how this share has been spent?
Up to each locality (neither public nor intrastate reporting required). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share.
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
What else should I know?
Not applicable.
Citations
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Certain Opioid Litigation Proceeds (Distributor MOU) A.5 (defining “litigating political subdivision” as “counties, municipalities, or towns located within the geographical boundaries of the State”) and B.4. Exhibit B of this MOU provides a list of litigating political subdivisions and allocation percentages. See also Retailer-State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 3 (“The LPS Share of each Retailer Settlement shall be paid by the Retailers directly to into settlement funds for each respective settlement established for the [Litigating Political Subdivision]”) and Teva State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 4 (“The Teva Global Settlement shall be paid by Teva directly into a settlement fund established for the [Litigating Political Subdivision]”). ↑
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Certain Opioid Litigation Proceeds (Distributor MOU) B.1 (75% to “the State” and 25% to “Litigating Political Subdivisions”).The MOU defines “litigating political subdivision” to mean “counties, municipalities, or towns located within the geographical boundaries of the State listed on Exhibit A.” Distributor MOU A.5. Note that the state-local allocation varies across different settlements vary for Oklahoma. For settlements with retailers (encompassing CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart), the allocation is reversed with 25% going to the state and 75% going to litigating pollical subdivisions. See Retailer-State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 1. For the settlement with Teva, all of the funds are allocated to the litigating political subdivisions. See Teva State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 1. ↑
See, e.g., Teva State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 1. ↑
See, e.g., Distributor MOU B.7 (defining “Net Opioid Funds” to include settlement amounts “less any costs and expenses incurred by the State in the investigation, preparation, prosecution, mediation, arbitration, or settlement of the legal or equitable claims of the State against a Distributor, exclusive of attorneys’ fees), Distributor MOU D.1-2 (requiring Litigating Political Subdivisions’ and the state’s litigation costs related to settlements with Distributors to be deducted only from their respective shares), and Distributors Oklahoma Settlement Agreement Sec. V.B-C (describing state and participating litigating subdivisions’ attorneys’ fees and costs). ↑
Distributor MOU B.3 (requiring both the state’s and political subdivisions’ monies to be spent on “approved purposes … as set forth in Section 30.5”) and Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1) (listing over 20 approved purposes). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(a),(b), and (i). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(d) and (m). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(n) (“[S]upport efforts to prevent or reduce overdose deaths or other opioid-related harms including through increased availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses for use by first responders, persons who have experienced an overdose event, families, schools, community-based service providers, social workers and other members of the public”). Compare with the national settlements’ Exhibit E, Schedule B, Sec. H, titled “Prevention Overdose Deaths and Other Harms (Harm Reduction)” and inclusive of strategies such as naloxone training and distribution, but also support for syringe service programs, drug checking, and mobile outreach. ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1). ↑
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(u).
Okla. Stat. tit. 74, Sec. 30.5(1)(o)-(p). ↑
See, e.g., Retailer-State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 2 (“The State and [Litigating Political Subdivisions] agree that … all amounts received by the [Litigating Political Subdivisions] and the State from the Retailer Agreements will be used for Opioid Remediation (as defined in the respective Retailer Agreements), except as allowed by Section V.B.2”) (emphasis added) and Allergan State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 2 (“The State and [Litigating Political Subdivisions] agree that … all amounts received by the [Litigating Political Subdivisions] and the State from the Allergan Settlement will be used for Opioid Remediation (as defined in the Allergan Settlement), except as allowed by Section VIII.C”) (emphasis added). The exceptions in each pertain to the small percentage of “unrestricted” funds for each settlement that do not need to be spent on opioid remediation. Different settlements have different thresholds for required spending on opioid remediation. Teva State-Subdivision Agreement Sec. 4 (“The Teva Global Settlement shall be paid by Teva directly into a settlement fund established for the [Litigating Political Subdivisions]”). ↑
See, e.g., Distributor MOU B (describing Litigating Political Subdivisions’ direct receipt of funds and requirement to expend only on approved purposes). ↑
Distributor MOU B.4(b). Funds for litigating political subdivisions receiving less than $500 automatically go to the county for use at the county or regional level. Distributor MOU B.4(a). ↑
Last updated
