Follow us!

    Re: Supreme Ct Rejects Big Tobacco~Fraud in Marketing

    Posted by Deborah on 7/16/10

    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
    > 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
    > Court, according to a decision to deny a writ of
    > 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
    > Columbia Judge Gladys Kessler. In appealing to the
    > 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,
    > 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
    > 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
    > bin/show_public_doc?1999cv2496-5732.]
    > sharon-kramer-letter-to-andrew-saxon-mold-issue/

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.