Profoundly depressing: “A Manhattan appeals court [last week] reinstated a $1.3 billion fee award for attorneys who helped to settle tobacco litigation in California, saying the arbitrators who awarded the fee did not exceed their authority and should not have been second-guessed by a state judge.” A year and a half ago Manhattan judge Nicholas Figueroa (Sept. 27-29, 2002) struck down as “irrational” the $1.25 billion fee award to the so-called Castano Group of lawyers, who had filed many different legal actions including one under a California private attorney general statute. As we commented at the time, the lawyers in question “didn’t actually represent California — the state’s own lawyers did that — and were in fact rivals, rather than allies, of the Scruggs-Moore team of lawyers who did manage to pull off the settlement. The Castano lawyers, however, repositioned themselves as somehow a catalyst for the national settlement and thus entitled to fees”. With an appellate panel’s quashing last August of Judge Charles Ramos’s inquiry into tobacco fees (see Aug. 10), the tobacconeers have now compiled a well-nigh perfect record of rolling over judicial opposition, with the notable exception of the Freedom Holdings v. Spitzer case in the Second Circuit (see Jan. 12). (Tom Perrotta, “$1.3 Billion Fee Upheld in California Tobacco Case”, New York Law Journal, May 19).
Posts Tagged ‘tobacco settlement’
Great Tobacco Robbery developments
In March Moody’s lowered its rating of New York City’s tobacco settlement bonds (which securitize the future flow of booty to the city from the great 1998 robbery) in light of the Second Circuit’s highly significant decision in Freedom Holdings v. Spitzer (see Jan. 12) exposing the settlement to antitrust challenge (Reuters/Forbes, Mar. 23). The Second Circuit itself denied a petition for rehearing (opinion Mar. 25 in PDF format). The General Accounting Office published a report confirming that states are spending most of the proceeds on their general budgets rather than on anything related to the weed or its effects (March report in PDF format, via the University of Tennessee’s AgPolicy.org page on tobacco litigation, which has a number of useful resources), which in turn touched off a number of caustic commentaries (“States Spend Mega-Billion Tobacco Settlement On Budget Shortfalls”, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mar. 23; Christine Hall, “States Spend Tobacco Settlement on Budget Shortfalls”, Heartland Institute, May 1; see Nancy Zuckerbrod, “States rely on tobacco settlement to fix budgets”, AP/Louisville Courier-Journal, Mar. 23). Also check out the debate between CEI’s Sam Kazman and ever-blustering Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on CNNfN (Mar. 18). Vice Squad (Mar. 27) has further updates on the efforts of state governments to curtail small and independent cigarette producers by way of protecting the anticompetitive arrangements established in the 1998 settlement (see Feb. 28). And the Clinton-initiated federal racketeering lawsuit against the tobacco industry, the continued prosecution of which must surely count as among the low points of the Bush Administration’s domestic record, is apparently headed toward trial in September or thereabouts (“Federal suit against tobacco moves toward trial”, AP/Helena Independent Record, Mar. 22).
“Lawyers Shift Focus From Big Tobacco to Big Food”
People may have laughed 16 months ago when obese teenagers unsuccessfully sued McDonald’s, saying its food made them fat. But a well-honed army of familiar lawyers who waged war against the tobacco companies for decades and won megamillion-dollar settlements is preparing a new wave of food fights, and no one is laughing.
[…]
“I think it’s a mistake, and I’ve told clients this, to underestimate the creativity and the imagination and very frankly the aggressiveness of the plaintiffs’ bar,” said Joseph McMenamin, a defense lawyer and doctor in Richmond, Va. “They have a hell of a track record, frankly. They kept slogging away on tobacco and eventually they prevailed, and the sums of money companies had to pay exceed the gross national product of some third-world countries.”
(Kate Zernike, New York Times, Apr. 9) (via Bainbridge).
States stomp on substitute smokes, cont’d
As we noted Jan. 13 and Jan. 23, the structure of the great 1998 tobacco robbery puts state governments under financial pressure to restrict or suppress the activities of maverick cigarette makers that do not participate in the settlement fund. Vice Squad, which has been following this issue, has recent posts detailing how this is happening in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida (Feb. 23) and Pennsylvania again (Feb. 26)(Florida is one of four states with their own settlements with the tobacco majors paralleling the 46-state main settlement).
NAAG enforces tobacco cartel
Who’s serving as muscle to enforce a cartel that costs American consumers billions of dollars a year? Why, the National Association of Attorneys General, that’s who. As reported in our Jan. 13 item, the Big Four tobacco companies are starting to lose significant market share to small, regional and foreign cigarette companies that either do not contribute to the MSA (multistate settlement agreement) or do not contribute as much as the majors proportionally. Now AP confirms that NAAG sees this as a big problem and is urging states to pass laws closing the supposed “loophole” (which loophole appears to consist simply of the smaller companies’ not having to pay for past sins absent any showing that they’ve committed such sins). AP also obtained a confidential September memo from NAAG that’s a bit of a smoking gun, we’d say, as far as illuminating the true motives behind the plan. The memo “warned states to expect a $2.5 billion decrease in settlement payments due April 15, down from a projected $9.3 billion. It says about $600 million of that decrease, or 25 percent, is the result ‘not of a decline in smoking but rather of NPM (nonparticipating manufacturer) sales displacing sales by Participating Manufacturers.’ ‘NPM sales confer no benefits on the States,’ reads the memo…. ‘All States have an interest in reducing NPM sales in every State.'” (“Small cigarette makers cut into Big Tobacco’s markets, states’ pockets”, AP/Raleigh News & Observer, Jan. 16). (via Vice Squad).
Mavericks eroding settlement tobacco share
More trouble (besides the trouble described yesterday) for states financially dependent on the spoils of the great 1998 tobacco robbery: the market share of companies that signed the agreement is eroding at a surprisingly rapid clip, despite the passage of harsh state laws aimed at protecting the loot by discouraging the rise of new, small or foreign cigarette companies. “In four years, the market share of the small cigarette companies has multiplied more than tenfold, from 0.5 percent of cigarettes sold in the United States in 1998 to 6.5 percent in 2002, according to the National Association of Attorneys General. The group said the numbers for 2003 will be more startling.” (“Small Cigarette Companies Whittle Away At Big Tobacco’s Sales”, AP/WRAL, Jan. 5) (via Vice Squad)(& see Jan. 23)
2nd Circuit: tobacco deal may have violated Sherman Act
We’ve been saying it for years (here and here, for instance), and now we can cite authority from one of the nation’s most distinguished jurists, Judge Ralph Winter of the Second Circuit: the 1998 tobacco settlement was skillfully designed to create the sort of cartel among cigarette manufacturers that would have gotten tobacco executives packed off to jail had not state attorneys general been on hand to bestow their blessing. In a case called Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer (yes, the New York AG, a vocal defender of the 1998 travesty, continues to be on the wrong side), a three-judge panel headed by Winter reinstated a lawsuit by a cigarette importer challenging the deal’s anticompetitive provisions.
Democratic candidates and tort reform
A reader asks, in the wake of our discussion of Dr. Dean’s 1988 letter, whether other candidates have spoken out on tort reform.
Morales: sealed papers could show tobacco-suit misconduct
“Dan Morales, the former attorney general jailed for scheming to steal millions of dollars from Texas’ tobacco settlement, says sealed court documents could show wrongdoing on the part of private lawyers who represented the state.” (see Nov. 2 and links from there). Morales said a year ago that he believed the Big Five tobacco lawyers he hired may have breached their loyalty to the state in the course of taking home $3.3 billion in fees, and now says documents sealed as part of his criminal case would show such misconduct if made public. The documents were sealed by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks at the request of attorney Mike Tigar, representing the Five. “Also Friday, Marc Murr, a former Houston lawyer charged as a co-defendant to Morales, was sentenced to six months in federal prison. In October, Murr pleaded guilty to mail fraud.” (Janet Elliott, “Morales urges probe of tobacco attorneys”, Houston Chronicle, Dec. 20).
Tobacco lawyers to Mass.: we’ll sue for the whole $2 billion
Law firms Brown Rudnick Berlack & Israels and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein now say they’ll sue the state of Massachusetts for the whole $2 billion they say they’re entitled to — a 25 percent contingency share of the state’s $8 billion tobacco-settlement booty — rather than accept the measly $775 million they’ve been awarded in arbitration. The Associated Press says the firms “risk becoming poster children for attorney greed at a time when the profession is already under attack for high damage awards. ‘This lawsuit is about greed and it’s about selfishness. They should be ashamed of themselves,’ said former Maine Attorney General James Tierney, who worked with attorneys general from around the country to help negotiate the $246 billion master settlement.” (“Law firms go to court to make Massachusetts pay full tobacco legal fee”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 3; Steve Bailey, “Pigs at the trough”, Boston Globe, Oct. 10) For earlier coverage of the Massachusetts fees, see May 19; Jan. 2-3, 2002; Aug. 13-14, 2001; Dec. 22, 1999. (& see Dec. 17)