Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Jump to full article »
I had an opportunity to work with Robert Fiske on the case, and he is universally regarded as one of the great lawyers of our time. . . . And the work on that case allowed me to do pro bono cases.NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand defends her work for Philip Morris in a NY Magazine article.
The evidence at trial demonstrated that the results of this research . . . were well known, acknowledged, and accepted throughout the corporations. These results established that cigarette smoking causes disease, that nicotine is addictive, that light cigarettes do not present lower health risks than regular cigarettes . . . and that secondhand smoke is hazardous to health.Judges' verdict on the DOJ suit from U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive. Thus, we are not dealing with accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade; Defendants' liability rests on deceits perpetrated with knowledge of their falsity.Verdict on the DOJ case from a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The government presented evidence from the 1950s and continuing through the following decades demonstrating that the defendant manufacturers were aware - increasingly so as they conducted more research - that smoking causes disease, including lung cancer. Evidence at trial revealed that at the same time defendants were disseminating advertisements, publications, and public statements denying any adverse health effects of smoking and promoting their 'open question' strategy of sowing doubt, they internally acknowledged as fact that smoking causes disease and other health hazards. Verdict on the DOJ case from a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The district court found -- permissibly in our view -- that the enterprise had the common purpose of obtaining cigarette proceeds by defrauding existing and potential smokers. We affirm the district court’s findings that an enterprise existed and that defendants participated in the conduct of its affairs and conspired to do so. Verdict on the DOJ case from the 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive. Thus, we are not dealing with accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade; Defendants' liability rests on deceits perpetrated with knowledge of their falsity.Verdict on the DOJ case from the 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The overwhelming indirect and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to allow the district court to reasonably infer that the high level executives, including 'CEOs, Vice Presidents, [and] Heads of Research & Development' for Defendants knew about their respective companies' 'internal research, public positions, and long term strategies,' that is, the 'internal knowledge and practice' of the company. These executives then made, caused to be made, and approved public statements contrary to this knowledge . . . Based on this sort of evidence and the inferences reasonably drawn from it, a factfinder could permissibly infer that the speaker harbored specific intent to defraud at the time he or she made the false or misleading statement. Moreover, such pervasive knowledge throughout the organizations demonstrates that Defendants’ executives at least acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of their statements. As the district court correctly held, such reckless disregard suffices to demonstrate the requisite intent. Appeals court decision on the DOJ case.
In addition to the health hazards of smoking, the government presented evidence that Defendants intimately understood the addictiveness of nicotine and manipulated nicotine delivery in cigarettes to create and sustain addiction. Evidence showed that Defendants undertook extensive research into the physiological impact of nicotine, how it operates within the human body, and how the physical and chemical design parameters of cigarettes influence the delivery of nicotine to smokers. As a result of this research, they recognized and internally acknowledged that smoking and nicotine are addictive and they engineered their products around creating and sustaining this addiction. Evidence at trial suggested that despite this internal knowledge, for decades Defendants publicly denied and distorted the truth about the addictive nature of their products, suppressed research revealing the addictiveness of nicotine, and denied their efforts to control nicotine levels and delivery. Verdict on the DOJ case from a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
[T]he government presented evidence suggesting that Defendants became aware that secondhand smoke poses a health risk to nonsmokers but made misleading public statements and advertisements about secondhand smoke in an attempt to cause the public to doubt the evidence of its harmfulness. . . . The evidence also showed that they 'created, controlled, used, or participated in' a vast array of foreign or international entities to conduct their sensitive secondhand smoke research, generate 'marketable science' to use for public relations purposes, and coordinate their shared objectives and message.Verdict on the DOJ case from a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
[A]dvocacy ads that bring desperately needed revenue to news organizations can pollute the well of public knowledge. Morton Mintz, in a scathing rebuke of the Washington Legal Foundation's May 4 anti-trial lawyer ad in the NYT.
Philip Morris Crime Fraud Issues CommitteeWhen she was with Davis Polk, NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was a member of this high-level group that worked to shield secret documents. The NY Times' in-depth investigation that reveals a much deeper tobacco role than Ms. Gillibrand has admitted to.