http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/org/doj.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us https://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=07-5103&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y http://tobacco.org/news/266878.html 06/11/2008 CLERK'S ORDER filed [1121098] scheduling oral argument before Judges SENTELLE, TATEL, BROWN 10/14/2008 AM US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080131084647.ztvmh0ff&show_article=1&catnum=4 http://tobacco.org/news/258945.html The new group, based in the Swiss city of Lausanne, would be free from litigation and public relations problems in the United States over tobacco marketing. The announcement of the details of the spinoff cheered financial markets but outraged anti-tobacco groups, which accuse Altria of seeking to shelter itself from lawsuits and potentially more-restrictive tobacco laws in its home market. The ratings agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor's underscored the financial advantages of the spinoff for the new independent PMI. . . . The PMI move has drawn criticism from Essential Action, a corporate accountability organization based in Washington, which is working with groups in 70 countries, asking governments to mitigate the negative health effects it sees in the sale. "The breakup of Philip Morris will unleash a Philip Morris International that will be even more predatory in pushing its toxic products worldwide," said Robert Weissman, director of Essential Action. "An independent Philip Morris International ... will no longer feel constrained by public opinion in its home country and most important market, the United States," he added. Anna White of Essential Action pointed to a recent case in which a US judge ordered tobacco companies to stop using misleading terms like "light" and "mild" to describe their products. "If an independent PMI had no connection to the United States, the judge would not have been able to issue this order," she said. Agence France Presse Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:00:00 GMT http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-04-2007/0004716860&EDATE= http://tobacco.org/news/256254.html Premier Manufacturing, Inc., a South Carolina cigarette importer, has agreed to pay an additional $3.1 million to settle civil claims that between 1995 and 2002, it deliberately understated the weights of cigarettes that it imported, the Justice Department announced today. The company had previously agreed to pay $7.16 million in restitution as part of a criminal guilty plea that it entered in 2005. The settlement announced today covers civil claims the government had under the False Claims Act and two customs statutes. Since the amount of customs duties owed on imported cigarettes is based in part on their weight, Premier avoided millions of dollars in customs duties. Under the False Claims Act, the United States is entitled to recover treble damages and penalties from those who knowingly submit false claims for payment to the government or who knowingly fail to pay money owed to the government. PR Newswire Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:00:00 GMT http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1917&Witness_ID=6798 http://tobacco.org/news/255485.html The principal allegation in light cigarette lawsuits is that cigarette manufacturers have misled consumers by marketing light and low tar cigarettes as having less tar and nicotine than other brands, even though the actual exposure levels are no different. Those who smoked (and continue to smoke) light cigarettes, reasonably believing they were being exposed to less tar or nicotine, are seeking court-ordered damages for their losses. I believe that there have been about 40 lawsuits filed in 22 different states on the light cigarette issue. Certified class actions are pending in Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York at this time. In fact, there is good reason to believe so called, “light, smooth, mild” cigarettes are potentially more dangerous to ones health than “full flavor” cigarettes. ? An important key to uncovering the light cigarette fraud was Monograph 13 released by the National Cancer Institute in 2001.2 That monograph concludes that “cigarette manufacturers recognized the inherent deception of advertising that offered cigarettes as light [and]…as having the lowest tar and nicotine yields…” but went ahead anyway with that advertising. Shortly after the release of the monograph, it was announced that the FTC asked for guidance from DHHS to determine whether the FTC testing method could be improved and a working group was to convene in 2002, but I am unaware of any outcomes from this request for guidance.3 The FTC appears to have gone to sleep as Rip Van Winkle did in the famous children’s story and clearly needs congress to wake them up. What has been happening in these lawsuits is that the cigarette companies have been using the lack of clarity around regulation of testing accuracy and the regulatory role of the FTC in two distinct and important ways . . . Ultimately, this argument was defeated by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 11 of this year in a unanimous decision5 that echoed the conclusion of the Solicitor General that the FTC has not asserted control over the marketing of light cigarettes. Court Remedies The courts in many jurisdictions either refuse to certify a class, or reverse the certification of a class in the appellate courts, thereby sanctifying the tobacco industry’s misconduct and allowing them to continue this misconduct as we sit here. A solution is to consider legislation requiring that these cases be handled and certified as class actions, to encourage attorneys to take on what would ordinarily be a lawsuit on behalf of one individual with a very small damage claim. The tobacco industry knows that if a lawsuit cannot go forward as a class this will be the death knell of consumer claims. In addition, any money not claimed by consumers that is paid as part of a class action award by the tobacco industry, should be contributed to a cy pres fund. This enormous fraud on the American people must stop. Federal legislation is needed to protect consumers from the cigarette industry’s practices with their “light” brands and defrauded consumers should have the right to be compensated for their loss. I think that U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler got it right when she ruled last year that the cigarette companies were racketeers in U.S. v. Philip Morris. About the light cigarette fraud, she said: Even as they engaged in a campaign to market and promote filtered and low tar cigarettes as less harmful than conventional ones, Defendants either lacked evidence to substantiate their claims or knew them to be false.6 She goes on to say: There is an overwhelming consensus in the public health and scientific community, both here and abroad, that low tar cigarettes offer no health benefit to smokers, have not reduced the risk of lung cancer and heart disease for smokers using them, and have not produced any decrease in the incidence of lung cancer. Moreover, because of the misleading nature of the advertising for low tar cigarettes, smokers who might have quit have refrained from doing so in the belief that such cigarettes reduced their health risks. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:00:00 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/opinion/11thu3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://tobacco.org/news/253585.html Paul Minor is the son of Bill Minor, a legendary Mississippi journalist and chronicler of the civil rights movement. He is also a wealthy trial lawyer and a mainstay of Mississippi's embattled Democratic Party. Mr. Minor has contributed $500,000 to Democrats over the years, including more than $100,000 to John Edwards, a fellow trial lawyer. He fought hard to stop the Mississippi Supreme Court from being taken over by pro-business Republicans. Mr. Minor's political activity may have cost him dearly. He is serving an 11-year sentence, convicted of a crime that does not look much like a crime at all. . . . Mr. Minor’s prosecution, like the others in this scandal, gave a big boost to the Republican Party. The case intimidated trial lawyers into stopping their political activity. “The disappearance of the trial-lawyer money all but wiped out the Democratic Party in Mississippi,” Stephanie Mencimer reports in her book, “Blocking the Courthouse Door.” There also appears to have been pro-Republican favoritism. Mr. Minor’s lawyers say prosecutors were not interested in going after similar activity by trial lawyers who contributed to Republicans. Time magazine recently reported that in Alabama, one of the main witnesses against Mr. Siegelman also told prosecutors of possible corruption involving Jeff Sessions, a Republican senator from Alabama, but they did not pursue it. And there is the matter of timing. The prosecution of Mr. Minor and Justice Diaz came just as Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat, was running for re-election against Republican Haley Barbour. The Republicans spent heavily to tie Mr. Musgrove to Mr. Minor, and Mr. Musgrove was defeated. New York Times Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:00:00 GMT http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758838.ece http://tobacco.org/news/249799.html For generations of Americans, the surgeon general has been the "nation's doctor", the person they turned to for unbiased advice on everything from smoking to obesity and HIV/Aids. But not under President George Bush, it now emerges. Damning testimony of Dr Richard Carmona, the surgeon general from 2002 until last year, has revealed that the Bush administration frequently censored him and tried to mould his public statements to fit political goals. He was even ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. . . . During a nine-month trial of the US tobacco industry, Dr Carmona was heavily leant upon not to testify. The same went for sex education: "However, there was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to preach abstinence only, but I felt that was scientifically incorrect," he said. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalised or simply buried," Dr Carmona said. "There is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalising the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds." The Independent Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:00:00 GMT http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/files/20060613roscoe-indictmt.PDF http://tobacco.org/news/248718.html COUNT ONE: Title 18, United States Code, Section 371- Conspiracy COUNT TWO THROUGH SIX Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344(2) - Bank Fraud Tobacco On Trial Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:00:00 GMT http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/2007/2007_06_22_roscoe.roscoe.arraignment.press.html http://tobacco.org/news/248717.html United States Attorney Scott N. Schools announced that Ned Roscoe, vice-president of Cigarettes Cheaper!, and his father John Roscoe, president of the company, were arraigned yesterday on an indictment charging them with conspiracy and five counts of bank fraud. Ned Roscoe, age 46, and John Roscoe, age 76, were also owners of the company, located in Benicia, California. The indictment alleges that between late 2002 and November 2003, the Company was suffering financial difficulties. In an effort to continue operations, the defendants conspired to fraudulently inflate the value of the company's current inventory in order to increase the amount that the company could borrow from Comerica Bank on a revolving line of credit. The defendants misrepresented the company's inventory in weekly reports to the bank, thus causing the bank to over extend approximately $10.6 million of loans in excess of the amount the bank would have lent to the company. US Department of Justice Natalya.LaBauve@usdoj.gov Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:00:00 GMT http://dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=22668 http://tobacco.org/news/240655.html Citing concerns about infringement on academic freedom, the UC Board of Regents elected to postpone a vote on prohibiting faculty members from accepting research funds from tobacco companies. While being urged by some professors to abolish the funding, the regents chose to delay a vote until the May meeting due to fears of setting a precedent that some said could prevent faculty from having control over their research. “I think academic freedom and how much you believe in your faculty is more important than anything,” said Regent Sherry Lansing. “I really believe we should not be involved in anything that violates academic freedom and I think this does. I believe the faculty can do research without being corrupted.” . . . Proponents of the ban, like UCSF Professor of Medicine Stanton Glantz, pointed to an eight-year federal lawsuit that ruled in August 2006 that tobacco companies like Philip Morris USA, Inc. were guilty of fraudulent practices, including funding research at UC. Glantz pointed to UCLA professor James Enstrom as what he said was an example of how tobacco funds could tarnish the integrity of the university. Enstrom was revealed to have long misled colleagues by not disclosing a tobacco company as his funding source and ignoring problems with his data, according to John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society. “The university’s mission is about truth, light and enlightenment,” Glantz said. “The tobacco companies fund universities to confuse things and slow down the transmission of knowledge. There is no question that they have been very successful. The reason the regents should not be engaged is because (the companies) use universities against the university’s fundamental mission.” Daily Californian jszinai@dailycal.org (Julia Szinai Daily Cal Staff Writer) Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:00:00 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/health/19tobacco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://tobacco.org/news/240560.html A Harvard study concluding that cigarette makers have for years deliberately increased nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive led to renewed calls Thursday for greater federal oversight of the industry. “Given the harm that tobacco causes, it shouldn’t be a game of cat-and-mouse to figure out what the industry is doing to cigarettes,” said Dr. Josh Sharfstein, commissioner of health for the City of Baltimore. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is now chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, promised to reintroduce within weeks a bill that would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes. Mr. Kennedy said the Harvard study, which was released this week, “is dramatic new proof that Big Tobacco is addicted to addicting millions of young smokers.” . . . In August, in a racketeering suit brought by the Justice Department against the tobacco industry, a federal judge found that tobacco companies had for decades “manipulated the use of nicotine so as to increase and perpetuate addiction.” In ordering strict new limitations on tobacco marketing, the judge, Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, also said that for decades, tobacco companies had “lied, misrepresented and deceived the American public.” New York Times Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:00:00 GMT http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701040303 http://tobacco.org/news/239539.html So ask yourself. How happy would you be to discover the sausage on your plate contained a ground-up poisoned rat? And worse. . . . A hundred years ago, the outcry over filthy and spoiled food helped result in Congress passing the 1906 Food and Drug Act -- known more simply as the Wiley Act, after Harvey Wiley, the government's chief chemist. . . . Yes, it was government telling business owners how to run their private enterprises. But the public had come to recognize certain actions required for the common good lie beyond the power of individuals. . . . Wait. Did someone say it's not the same circumstance today, as far as smoking's concerned, because we have newspapers, TV, radio and the Internet? That anyone who smokes today grasps the consequences? That's not what a Greenville bar owner testified in court Tuesday afternoon. He and others were seeking an injunction to stop the city from enforcing its smoking ban. The bar owner said his smoking customers "don't understand the reason behind it." Tobacco companies have spent decades and millions to see to that, a federal judge ruled in August. Greenville News Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:00:00 GMT http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20061031/pl_usnw/statement_of_president__ceo_of_american_lung_association__study_critical_of_tobacco_industry_s_youth_prevention_campaigns114_xm http://tobacco.org/news/235042.html An important new study released today finds that the tobacco companies' youth prevention campaigns do nothing to reduce youth smoking rates and the industry's parent-focused ads may actually increase intention to smoke among older teens. The findings, published in the latest edition of the American Journal of Public Health, are further evidence that Big Tobacco cannot be the source for kids when it comes to learning about the dangers associated with tobacco use. Despite their assertions to the contrary, the tobacco companies are just blowing smoke when they say they've changed their ways. Ninety percent of smokers begin smoking before the age of 21. Tobacco companies know that unless they recruit replacement smokers from among our nation's youth, their profits will plummet. This study emphasizes the need for states to adequately fund comprehensive tobacco prevention programs. . . . It is also time for Congress to pass legislation that would grant the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over tobacco products. . . . In her opinion, Judge Gladys Kessler also found that the companies continue to target kids, stating: "The evidence in this case clearly establishes that (companies) have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity ... their continuing conduct misleads consumers in order to maximize (their) revenues by recruiting new smokers (the majority of whom are under the age of 18) ... and thereby sustaining the industry." U.S. Newswire Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:00:00 GMT http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061005.wxtobacco05/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20061005.wxtobacco05 http://tobacco.org/news/233503.html Anti-tobacco lobbyists are making another bid to force the federal Competition Bureau to explain why it has taken more than three years to determine whether the words light and mild are deceptive when printed on cigarette packages. The lobbyists -- a group of 11 health professionals including several public-health officers from across Canada -- say in documents filed recently with the Federal Court of Appeal that the delay amounts to "non-performance of statutory duty" on the part of Commissioner Sheridan Scott. It is a delay that they say has stranded them in a state of limbo and has harmed "the many thousands of Canadians who begin or continue to use tobacco products in the mistaken belief that the products designated 'light' and 'mild' have more benign impacts on human health." . . . The health professionals, meanwhile, are trying to remain optimistic and believe the case will be heard before the end of the year. They have been buoyed by court decisions like one in August in which U.S. Judge Gladys Kessler found that tobacco companies distorted the truth about low-tar and light cigarettes to discourage smokers from quitting. She ordered that the terms be removed from packaging. Globe and Mail Canada Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:00:00 GMT http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115918692186273003.html http://tobacco.org/news/232705.html At 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, Altria shares were down $5.26, or 6.4%, to $77.06. Reynolds shares fell $2.27, or 3.7%, to $59.75. . . . "Today's decision inevitably delays any restructuring," William Ohlemeyer, associate general counsel for Altria, said in a conference call with analysts and investors. "Today's decision, however isolated it is, is not a step toward clarity [regarding litigation]; it is a step back of sorts," Mr. Ohlemeyer said. Plaintiffs in the class-action suit could seek to block the restructuring with a court injunction by arguing that the breakup of Altria might jeopardize their ability to collect any damages they might win. As a result, some observers now believe the board might delay a spinoff until an appellate court reverses Judge Weinstein's class-certification decision, which might not happen for another year -- if at all. . . . "There is a real question of whether the ruling will hold up on appeal," says Robert L. Rabin, a professor at Stanford Law School. "Class actions in tobacco haven't fared well, and we have to see whether the Second Circuit will be receptive to Weinstein's action." The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition onlinejournal@wsj.com (VANESSA O'CONNELL) Tue, 26 Sep 2006 04:00:00 GMT http://www.nypress.com/19/36/news&columns/russsmith.cfm http://tobacco.org/news/231487.html It's only a matter of time, sooner rather than later, that an editorial will appear in The New York Times advocating the prohibition of tobacco products. At least that's what any rational reader would take away from the paper's two latest broadsides against the mammoth industry, which were pegged to the not so shocking revelation that "light" cigarettes are just as dangerous as "full-flavored" brands, and a study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health that found the amount of nicotine in a cigarette has increased an average of 10 percent since 1998. At this point in the early 21st century, any person who believes that smoking is a harmless habit is a moron. As with any addiction, whether it's alcohol, crack or heroin, gambling, fast food or speed-racing cars, it's up to the individual to make a decision about the risks and then proceed at will. As a longtime smoker, I'm certainly aware of the hazards to my health and yet I've foolishly continued the habit, knowing that even though my lungs are so far miraculously spotless, that could change as soon as next year's physical. It's a cross to bear, and hard to justify to my wife and kids, which is far more upsetting than the busybodies who wave their hands in the air even as I smoke outside. The Times, on August 28th ("The Safer Cigarette Delusion") and Aug. 31st ("Raising Nicotine Doses, on the Sly"), in a departure from the usual diatribes about President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Joe Lieberman and other perceived enemies of the United States, wastes space on the obvious. Still, no Times article would be complete without insulting its readers' intelligence. . . . I have no delusions about the tobacco companies, although I wouldn't echo the Times editorialists in labeling them as "rouges" or "rapacious," and realize that the advertising--that which still exists--is probably misleading and deceptive. . . . Pointing to Mass- achusetts' Department of Public Health study, the paper lamented that the tobacco industry could not, at least currently, be properly punished. An excerpt: "But hemmed in by an earlier decision, [federal Judge Gladys] Kessler concluded she could not order the industry to hand over billions in profits and instead prohibited it from using terms like 'low tar' or 'ultra light.'" New York Press mug1988@aol.com (MarkRuss Smith) Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:00:00 GMT