Unlock Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

A fired McKinsey partner who says he was made a “scapegoat” for the firm’s opioid work has expanded his demand for damages from the consulting firm following a $650 million legal settlement with the US government.

Arnab Ghatak claimed that McKinsey managing partner Bob Sternfels defamed him in a memo sent to staff and alumni after this month’s justice department settlement, compounding earlier defamation of Sternfels and the firm, according to court documents.

Ghatak was one of two colleagues fired in 2021 for violating the firm’s professional standards over an email exchange that discussed the deletion of documents.

A second colleague, Martin Elling, was found to have actually deleted more than 100 files related to his work at Purdue Pharmathe maker of OxyContin, and agreed this month to plead guilty to obstruction of justice.

The absence of any Justice Department action against Ghatak “vindicates” his position that he did nothing wrong, the former colleague said on the day of the hearing.

McKinsey agreed pay $650mn to avoid criminal and civil charges for its work advising Purdue and other opioid manufacturers, including aiding and abetting health care fraud and obstruction of justice.

The consulting firm has now agreed to pay more than $1.6bn to federal, state and local authorities that claimed its marketing advice contributed to a epidemic of addiction that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

McKinsey says it regrets the opioid job. In the statements since the first settlement with state authorities in 2021, said it stopped working for opioid manufacturers, introduced new animal consulting methods, and fired two senior partners “for talking about to delete the document”.

Ghatak sued the company earlier this year claiming that his termination was unlawful and that he was being used as a scapegoat during the 2021 settlement. McKinsey and Sternfels’ statements imply that he deleted the documents and are therefore defamatory, his suit claims.

According to court filings, Elling messaged Ghatak in 2018, when US authorities were investigating Purdue, saying: “The FT just saw that Judy Lewent was being sued by the attorneys-general of the state for his role on the Purdue Board. It might make sense to have a quick conversation with the risk committee to see if we should do anything but a(n) eliminate all of our documents and email. Don’t suspect but when things get tough, someone will turn to us.”

Ghatak replied: “Thanks for the heads up. Will do”

the lawsuit said Ghatak’s response was aimed at probing senior leadership about the risks of serving at Purdue.

Ghatak sought to add a new claim based on the events following the deferred prosecution agreement this month with the justice department.

“The DPA asserts that at no time did Dr Ghatak do anything wrong, including at any time improperly deleting the documents,” according to a proposed amended complaint.

“Despite this ambiguous finding, McKinsey continued to discredit Dr Ghatak, citing a memorandum distributed to current employees and alumni . . . to 100,000 people, who Dr Ghatak ‘discussed the removal of the document’ with another McKinsey colleague. This false statement by McKinsey is a known bold-faced lie, especially since McKinsey itself admitted. which hinders.

McKinsey responded: “We believe Dr Ghatak’s claims are without merit, and nothing in his proposed new allegations changes that.”

The company is seeking to settle the case in arbitration rather than in open court, and has signaled it will oppose Ghatak’s attempt to expand the case. The admissibility of the amended complaint will be decided by a New York judge after a hearing next month.