Re: Supreme Ct Rejects Big Tobacco~Fraud in Marketing

More | Report Post

Yep, that is going to hurt them badly. Right.

On 7/15/10, Sharon wrote:
> “Supreme Court rejects appeals of tobacco ruling”
>
> New York Times (06/28/2010) Duff Wilson
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/business/29tobacco.html?
> scp=1&sq=supreme&37;20court&37;20tobacco&37;20&st=cse
>
>
> The milestone racketeering verdict against cigarette
> companies will not be reviewed by the United States
Supreme
> Court, according to a decision to deny a writ of
certiorari
> which was issued without comment June 28, 2010.
>
> The decision appealed by both sides of the suit, tobacco
> companies and the U.S. Department of Justice, was ordered
> in 2006 by United States District Court for the District
of
> Columbia Judge Gladys Kessler. In appealing to the
Supreme
> Court, the last option available for the case, tobacco
> companies sought to overturn a civil racketeering judgment
> on free speech grounds. Conversely, the federal government
> appealed to force tobacco companies to return up to $280
> billion in profits from advertising campaigns which were
> judged to be untruthful about the health risks associated
> with smoking.
>
>
> The decision comes as a relief to tobacco investors,
> according to Thilo Wrede, an industry analyst for Credit
> Suisse; “If the decision would have been the other way,
you
> would have seen a headline saying a $280 billion case is
> open again.”
>
>
> Antismoking advocates’ reactions to the denial are mixed,
> says Edward L. Sweda, a senior lawyer with the Tobacco
> Products Liability Project. “Obviously we’re
disappointed,
> because we would have liked to force the companies to
> disgorge their ill-gotten gains… but we’re delighted with
> the upholding of the judge’s basic finding that the major
> tobacco companies are in fact adjudicated racketeers. Now
> that is established historical fact.”
>
>
> While portions of Judge Kessler’s 2006 ruling have been
> subsequently imposed through federal legislation, the case
> will now return to her court in order to discern remedies
> other than disgorgement, such as possible corrective
> advertising.
>
> [Editor’s Note: The appealed decision is United States v.
> Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006)
> and is available at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-
> bin/show_public_doc?1999cv2496-5732.]
>
> http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/truth-out-
> sharon-kramer-letter-to-andrew-saxon-mold-issue/