MDL TrackerMiscellaneous

McKinsey & Company, Inc., National Prescription Opiate Consultant

MDL No. 2996  ·  U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
MDL No.
2996
Docket Type
Miscellaneous
Transferee Judge
Hon. Charles R. Breyer
Centralized
2021-06-07
Actions Pending
235
As Of
2026-09-01
Funding Considerations

This docket consolidates claims against a global consulting firm alleging it advised opioid manufacturers on strategies to boost prescription opioid sales while allegedly aware of the resulting public-health harm, a theory distinct from, though related to, the much larger National Prescription Opiate MDL against manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies. Centralized in the Northern District of California in 2021, the docket carries 235 pending actions brought by plaintiffs, largely school districts, hospital systems, individuals, and other entities, whose claims were not resolved by the consulting firm's separate 2021 settlement of roughly $573 million with a multistate coalition of state attorneys general addressing similar conduct outside this MDL.

For a funder, the prior state attorney-general settlement is a significant, sourced reference point rather than a bar to further recovery: it establishes that the consulting firm has already paid substantially to resolve conduct-based claims of this kind, which meaningfully de-risks the liability theory for the plaintiffs still pursuing claims in this MDL, largely institutional plaintiffs, school districts, hospitals, and other entities, that fell outside the state-level settlement's scope.

That profile supports commercial litigation finance for institutional plaintiffs and their counsel pursuing claims against the consulting firm in this docket, with underwriting benefiting from the established prior settlement as a liability benchmark, while damages for each remaining plaintiff still require individualized proof of harm attributable to the consulting firm's specific advisory conduct. A structure and litigation brief on the current claim population and its relationship to the prior state settlement is also available.

Frequently Asked Questions
How does the prior $573 million state attorney-general settlement affect this docket?
+
Who are the plaintiffs still active in this docket?
+
Why does damages proof remain individualized here despite the prior settlement?
+
What Criterica Capital product fits an institutional plaintiff in this docket?
+

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.

Litigation structure and resolution-risk brief on Criterica Intelligence →
Holding McKinsey & Company, Inc., National Prescription Opiate Consultant claims or inventory?
Send the details and our institutional team will respond within one business day.