Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
The tobacco sector provided more grist for the rumour mill yesterday as vague bid rumours spread about Gallaher.
After Imperial Tobacco was forced this week to deny rumours that it had held talks with Spanish rival Altadis, the speculative spotlight shifted to Gallaher and a revival of talk of a bid from Japan Tobacco.
Shares in Gallaher gained 2.1 per cent to 762p in above-average trading volumes.
However, the rumours were discounted by some analysts. Michael Smith, industry analyst at JP Morgan, sees no large-scale mergers and acquisition activity in Europe over the next 12 months.
Jump to full article »
During closing arguments Monday, Cruse argued Grinnell "led his life exactly as he wanted to" and at one point saying, "everybody's got to go sometime."
Edward Sweda, senior attorney with the Boston-based Tobacco Products Liability Project, said if the focus of a trial is generally on the conduct of tobacco companies, then there's a greater likelihood that juries will vote in favor of smokers.
"If, again, the jury is focusing primarily on the smoker's conduct then it's more likely that the jury will return a verdict similar to the one they did today," Sweda said.
The family's lawyer, Denman Heard, who has gained a sizable reputation as an asbestos litigator, said he respected the jury's decision and was considering whether to appeal. . .
Heard praised Jeannie Grinnell for following her late husband's dying request to continue with the lawsuit. "She is one of the most courageous and brave women I have known," he said. "She did this because her husband believed there is an entire generation of Americans deceived by tobacco companies." . .
Texas Supreme Court in 1997 agreed partially with Floyd and partially with the appeals court.
Writing for the 6-2 majority, then-Justice John Cornyn found that reports of the dangers of smoking had been well-known since the 19th century.
"We conclude that the general health dangers attributable to cigarettes were commonly known as a matter of law by the community when Grinnell began smoking," Cornyn wrote, agreeing with Floyd's ruling.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. isn't responsible for a long-time smoker's 1986 death from lung cancer, a Texas jury said today in the first individual tobacco trial in the state.
Following about 10 hours deliberations, the jury in rural Beaumont -- less than two hours drive from Houston and home to several oil and chemical refineries -- voted, 10-2, to deny damages Wiley Grinnell's family. The verdict is the latest in a string of victories for the industry.
``The area around Beaumont is considered plaintiff friendly, making this decision an even more important victory for B&W and the industry,'' said Salomon Smith Barney analyst Martin Feldman. He has a ``buy'' rating on British American Tobacco's American depositary shares. . .
Jurors said they agreed with the tobacco company that Grinnell had adequate warning about the dangers of cigarettes. ``He had opportunities to quit smoking if he wanted to,'' said juror Delcie Thomas.
Sam Cruse, attorney representing Brown & Williamson in the case said, "Today's verdict for the defense reflects recognition by the jury that the company acted responsibly. The jury's conclusions are consistent with the majority of court decisions, agreeing that smoking is a matter of personal choice."
The court victory is the sixth straight win for the tobacco company since Jan. 1.
Thomas Riley, also representing the company, noted that this was the third jury in as many months to find in favor of the company. "We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in these cases and we are confident in the wisdom of future jurors to favor common sense regarding personal responsibility," he said.
The plaintiffs had sought $10 million in compensatory damages and unspecified punitive damages, according to Salomon Smith Barney tobacco industry analyst Martin Feldman.
Ten jurors voted in favor of the defendants and two voted in favor of the plaintiff, Feldman said.
The court victory is the sixth straight win for the tobacco company since Jan. 1, Brown & Williamson noted in a press release.
According to closing arguments in a landmark tobacco lawsuit, Grinnell either killed himself by ignoring the obvious dangers of smoking three packs of unfiltered Pall Mall cigarettes daily or he was the victim of intentional deception by the American Tobacco Co., which hid from its customers the addictive effects of cigarette smoking.
Jurors will begin deliberations today in the $10 million civil lawsuit Grinnell filed in 1985 after being diagnosed with lung cancer.
A Texas jury will resume deliberating tomorrow morning in a lawsuit that seeks to hold Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. responsible for a longtime smoker's death. The jury began deliberations late this afternoon before recessing for the evening.
During closing arguments in the first individual smoker's suit against cigarette makers to go to trial in Texas, a lawyer for the deceased smoker's relatives said tobacco companies ``treated human life as just the price of doing business.''
``They knew that cigarettes caused lung cancer, they knew the danger of addiction,'' attorney Denman Heard told jurors in the Beaumont, Texas, courtoom. ``Every time they had a chance to share the truth with the American people, they lied.''
Brown & Williamson lawyers said Wiley Grinnell chose to smoke despite knowing that cigarettes were addictive and could cause lung cancer.
rown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. should be held responsible for a longtime smoker's death, his lawyers told a state court jury today in the first individual suit against cigarette makers to go to trial in Texas.
In closing arguments in Beaumont, Texas, a lawyer for the deceased smoker's relatives said tobacco companies ``treated human life as just the price of doing business.''
``They knew that cigarettes caused lung cancer, they knew the danger of addiction,'' attorney Denman Heard told jurors. ``Every time they had a chance to share the truth with the American people, they lied.''
Brown & Williamson attorneys are scheduled to make closing arguments after a lunch break.
Attorneys for the family of a longtime Texas smoker are expected to present closing arguments Monday to a jury that will decide whether Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. is responsible for his 1986 death.
The state court trial, the first individual suit against the tobacco industry in Texas, could serve as a preview of how the individual smoker suits will fare in the state's courts, experts have said.
Wiley Grinnell and his family originally brought the suit in 1985 shortly before his death from lung cancer. . .
Beaumont ``is known as being more pro-plaintiff than other areas,'' said David Crump, a law professor at the University of Houston. However, ``these cases really do tend to defy prediction.''
Grinnell, who worked an assortment of jobs as a laborer, smoked mostly Lucky Strikes and Pall Malls. He started in 1952, before warning labels were placed on cigarette packages.
But if there was one thing Grinnell could not quit, it was smoking Pall Mall cigarettes.
That compulsion is at the center of the lawsuit he filed against the American Tobacco Co. before his death from lung cancer in 1986.
His family is pursuing his complaint, and the case finally made it to trial Monday in state District Judge Donald Floyd's courtroom.
In opening statements, Grinnell's lawyers characterized American Tobacco as a greedy company that refused to warn smokers of the dangers of addiction, even though it knew the cigarettes it made were deadly.
"If you become addicted to cigarettes, you have a 2,000 percent greater chance of getting cancer than nonsmokers," attorney Denman Heard said in his opening statement.
Before he died, Grinnell said in a deposition that he never would have started smoking if he had known it would be so difficult to quit. Heard said he still had to have cigarettes, even after he was treated for cancer.
"Why didn't they warn of the danger of addiction before Wiley Grinnell was hooked?" Heard asked.
"When a person is addicted to nicotine, the warning needs to be all the clearer," he said.
Lawyers for American Tobacco characterized Grinnell as a person who would rather shoot pool than work and probably wouldn't have heeded a warning about the addictive nature of cigarettes if he had gotten one.
Defense attorney Sam Cruse pointed out that before 1969 tobacco companies were not required to warn smokers of the dangers of cigarettes and that before the late 1980s health officials didn't call cigarettes addictive, only habit-forming.
It was a different kind of jury panel. Last week more than 200 prospective jurors, about six times the usual number, were called to state District Judge Donald Floyd's court.
There were so many people it created a parking crunch in the Jefferson County Courthouse parking lots. . .
Fourteen jurors and alternates are needed for the case. The judge moved the jury pool to a large auditorium one floor below his small courtroom.
"This doesn't even feel like a courtroom," Floyd said. For one thing, the prospective jurors sometimes broke out in applause -- maybe inspired by the theaterlike setting.
Or maybe it was because Floyd announced a coffee break or told them they could go home for the day.
A jury will soon hear claims that Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. should be held responsible for the 1986 death of a long-time Texas smoker.
Lawyers began choosing a jury this week in state court in Beaumont, Texas, where the family of deceased smoker Wiley Grinnell seeks to hold Brown & Williamson, a unit of U.K.-based British American Tobacco Plc., responsible for his death. Opening statements are expected to begin early next week.
As the first known individual suit against the tobacco industry to go to trial in Texas, the Grinnell case could serve as a warning of how the industry will fare in the state's courts, said David Crump, a University of Houston law professor. . .
While cigarette makers have consistently told juries that the smokers should be held responsible for their own actions, Edward Sweda, a senior attorney at the Tobacco Products Liability Project, an anti-smoking group at Northeastern University's School of Law, said the tobacco industry needs to take responsibility for their own actions as well.
``This is about whether the plaintiffs will be successful getting the jury's attention (to) what was happening at the time (Grinnell) started smoking,'' Sweda said.
Tobacco's addictive nature will be on trial soon in a case that experts believe may set the standards for how lawsuits against tobacco companies are handled in Texas state courts.
Wiley Grinnell, a Beaumont furniture salesman who started smoking Lucky Strikes at age 19, sued the American Tobacco Co. in 1985 after being diagnosed with lung cancer. In less than a year, he was dead at age 53.
Now his widow and other family members are still waiting for resolution of his case.
What the jury decides in Beaumont may have a far bigger influence than just deciding if Grinnell's family is due any damages. "It will be the bellwether of how they settle other cases," predicted University of Houston law Professor David Crump, a civil litigation specialist.
The case has already gone to the Texas Supreme Court and back, and may well go there again. . .
It may be a long trial. Each side has more than 3,000 exhibits, and Floyd predicted that testimony will take at least a month.
Just picking a jury will be extraordinary. Last week, Floyd called a panel of 200 prospective jurors -- almost six times as many as are called for the usual civil trial in state district court. Floyd had to impanel the pool of jurors in an auditorium of the . .
Before he died, Grinnell testified in a deposition that he would have never started smoking if he had known how hard it would be for him to quit.
He began smoking, his original lawsuit said, because he associated cigarette smoking with "youth, sports, love, success, health, glamour and the wholesome outdoors." The cigarette company, he said, "failed to communicate the real symbols of smoking as being addictive."