Category: Litigation

  • RJR Ordered to Pay $3 Million to Sick Smoker

    RJR Ordered to Pay $3 Million to Sick Smoker

    Photo: Alex

    A Florida jury on May 24 ordered R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (RJR) to pay roughly $3 million to a man suffering from chronic lung disease after decades of smoking, reports Courtroom View Network.

    Plaintiff Roosevelt Gordon, who suffers from emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, will receive $447,000 for medical expenses and $2,522,880 for past and future pain and suffering.

    Gordon blames his illness on the Winston cigarettes he began smoking as a teenager. RJR countered that Gordon chose to smoke despite knowing the risks to his health.

    The plaintiff’s attorney argued that Gordon never saw the messages RJR put out about the health risks associated with smoking and that consumer expectations in decades past were very different than today.

    The case, which is unrelated to the historic Engle class action, relied on only two claims—defective product and negligence—and demanded no punitive damages, which allowed it to reach a conclusion relatively quickly.

    These two trials come on the heels of an April trial in Miami, where a jury cleared Philip Morris of any liability for a longtime smoker’s stroke.

    In February, an Oregon jury returned a defense verdict for RJR over responsibility for a smoker’s fatal lung cancer.

  • Request to Drop Malawi Exploitation Case

    Request to Drop Malawi Exploitation Case

    Photo: AA+W

    British American Tobacco (BAT) and Imperial Brands will ask the high court in London on Wednesday to throw out a case against them alleging the exploitation of Malawian farmers and their children, reports The Guardian.

    Denying the allegations, the companies are asking that the case be dismissed on the grounds that lawyers for the farming families cannot prove the tobacco they grew ended up in their cigarettes and other products.

    “BAT believes that there is no legal or factual basis to bring these claims, therefore BAT has made an application for the claims to be struck out or stayed,” a BAT spokesperson told The Guardian.

    The case was brought after investigations by The Guardian suggested the companies employed child labor and subjected farmers to poor working conditions.

    Leigh Day lawyers argue that the farmers’ conditions of work breach the definition of forced labor, unlawful compulsory labor and exploitation under Malawian law.

    They also say that they breach the U.K. Modern Slavery Act, article 14 of the European convention on human rights and the International Labor Organization definition of forced labor.

    The heart of the claim is that two of the largest tobacco companies cynically exploited impoverished tobacco farmers from Malawi and their children.

    “The heart of the claim is that two of the largest tobacco companies in the world cynically exploited impoverished tobacco farmers from Malawi and their children,” said Martyn Day, senior partner at Leigh Day.

    “Fortunately, the two defendant companies are based here in Britain, giving our courts jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims.” He said he was optimistic the judge would allow the claims to progress toward a full trial.

    Several thousand of Malawi’s poorest tobacco tenant farmers have joined the claim. They sell their crop to a leaf-buying company in Malawi, which they say supplies BAT and Imperial.

  • Altria, Juul Likely to Face Suit Over Deal

    Altria, Juul Likely to Face Suit Over Deal

    Photo: jessica45 | Pixabay

    Altria Group and Juul Labs will likely face a proposed antitrust action seeking to unwind a $12.8 billion deal that gave the tobacco giant a 35 percent stake in the vapor company, reports Bloomberg Law, citing a “tentative” ruling by a federal judge in San Francisco.

    Judge William H. Orrick indicated Wednesday that he’s inclined to let most of the lawsuit move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it was consolidated after dozens of antitrust plaintiffs sued over deal clauses calling for Altria’s exit from the vaping market.

    The Federal Trade Commission has also sued over the Altria-Juul transaction.

  • Competition Watchdog Fines Distributor

    Competition Watchdog Fines Distributor

    Photo: Taco Tuinstra

    Ukraine’s Anti-Monopoly Committee (AMCU) on March 17 fined Ukraine’s largest tobacco distribution company, Tedis, $9.8 million for noncompliance with an earlier ruling, reports the Kyiv Post.

    In December 2016, the AMCU fined Tedis $16 million for abusing its monopoly position in 2013–2015, when the distributor’s market share reached 99.4 percent. The company was also instructed to restore competition in the tobacco market.

    Tedis plans to appeal, calling the decision “absolutely groundless.” The company says it paid $11.5 million in 2017 and $4.5 million in 2020 and complied with all the other requirements of the committee.

    Tedis’s monopoly first caught the eye of AMCU in 2014, when cigarette retailers started to complain about the lack of competition in the tobacco distribution market. A report by the Redcliffe Partners law firm published in January 2020 showed that by 2015, there were 22 tobacco products distributors on the market, but only one was actually selling them—Tedis.

    Tedis entered Ukraine in 2010, when the market had more than 50 cigarette distributors. Gradually, Tedis began to acquire other distributors, taking a bigger share of the market. At the time, AMCU approved the acquisitions.

    Within a few years, Tedis dominated the market, selling products of Philip Morris International (PMI), Japan Tobacco International, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco (BAT). According to the Redcliffe Partners report, those tobacco companies, together with Tedis, restricted market access of other players.

    In 2019, AMCU fined Tedis and four tobacco producers $265 million for creating a monopoly—one of the biggest fines in Ukraine’s history. Tedis never paid because Ukraine’s Supreme Court in February 2021 exempted Tedis from paying the fine.

    Tobacco firms appealed the ruling but lost their initial cases. The American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine expressed concern about the fairness of the trial.

    In August 2020, PMI paid UAH1.18 billion ($66.07 million) for its share in the case. In February 2021, a Ukrainian court upheld BAT’s appeal of the fine.

  • Law Firm: Florida Ruling a Cautionary Tale

    Law Firm: Florida Ruling a Cautionary Tale

    Photo: Michal Kalasek | Dreamstime.com

    The recent Florida Supreme Court ruling that R.J. Reynolds must continue tobacco settlement payments to the state, despite having sold the cigarette brands in question, is a warning to settling parties that their agreements will be strictly construed, write Agustin Rodriguez and Dascher Pasco at Troutman Pepper.

    This cautionary tale is important as state attorneys general and other regulators continue to resolve disputes via individual or multistate settlement agreements.

    In December 2020, the Florida Supreme Court refused to take up R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s appeal of a ruling requiring the company to continue to make annual tobacco settlement payments to the state of Florida.

    The court’s refusal to hear the case leaves in place, in perpetuity, Reynolds’ obligations to make payments under Florida’s 1997 tobacco settlement agreement on the volumes of certain cigarette brands that Reynolds sold to ITG Brands after its acquisition of Lorillard in 2015.

    As a result, Reynolds’ parent company, British American Tobacco, took a $555 million charge and stands to owe more than $75 million per year in unanticipated settlement payments going forward.

    A settlement agreement is a binding contract between the parties with effects that may very well impact future business decisions.

    In their article, Rodriguez and Pasco explore the background of the case and the lessons that companies should draw from the episode.  

    “As demonstrated by the Reynolds case in Florida, a settlement agreement is a binding contract between the parties with effects that may very well impact future business decisions,” they write.

    “In order to ensure future contracts have the desired effect, parties should not only carefully consider any past settlement’s requirements but also ensure that the later contracts clearly and adequately express the parties’ desired outcome.”

  • VPR Brands Sues for Patent Infringement

    VPR Brands Sues for Patent Infringement

    Photo: VPR Brands

    VPR Brands has filed lawsuits against three more vapor companies for violating its “auto draw” patent. The cases are in addition to suits filed against three other companies in February.

    Granted in 2009, the patent covers vaping products containing an electric airflow sensor, including a sensor comprised of a diaphragm microphone. The sensor turns the battery on and off and covers auto-draw, buttonless e-cigarettes, cigalikes, pod devices and vaporizers using an airflow sensor.

    “Just this week, we have filed three additional lawsuits, which brings the total to six with many more expected and likely as almost every company in the vape space has at least one product which uses the patented ‘auto draw’ technology.” said Kevin Frija, CEO of VPR Brands, in a statement. “We will be aggressively pursuing every company infringing on our patent no matter how small or how large they may be.”

    VPR Brands and SRIPLAW, an intellectual property firm, have started to identify and notify companies they suspect of infringing on the VPR patent. Most recently, VPR Brands and SRIPLAW filed litigation against Mong, B&G Trading and Lightfire Holding. The three previous suits were filed against Jupiter Research, Cool Clouds Distribution and XL Vape.

    “We want to make sure VPR Brands’ patent, which is valid until 2030, is enforced and our intellectual property rights are protected,” said Frija. “We intend to send a clear message to the industry that we mean business and of course, as they say, ‘business is business,’ it’s nothing personal; in the end, its just business.”

  • Minister May Appeal Tobacco Ban Ruling

    Minister May Appeal Tobacco Ban Ruling

    Photo: Alexlmx | Dreamstime.com

    The Western Cape High Court has granted South African Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma permission to appeal the ruling that last year’s lockdown ban on tobacco sales was unconstitutional and invalid.

    However, the court indicated that the minister’s prospects of success are slim in terms of the applicants’ constitutional law arguments.

    From March to August 2020, the government prohibited sales of tobacco products and alcohol to help stem the spread of the coronavirus. Market leader British American Tobacco South Africa (BATSA) and smaller companies united in the Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association (FITA) challenged the ban, arguing that a short-term ban on a product whose health risks become evident only in the long run makes no sense.

    They also questioned the rationale of the argument around cigarette sharing. Tobacco shortages and high prices of black market cigarettes would only increase the likelihood of smokers sharing their “stompies,” the tobacco companies said.

    The government lifted the ban before the matter had been heard in court, but BATSA decided to proceed with the court action to prevent the ban from being reintroduced at a later stage of the pandemic.

    On Dec. 11, the High Court ruled that South Africa’s ban on tobacco sales during the country’s hard lockdown earlier this year was unconstitutional.

    “BATSA and our nine co-applicants had a resounding success in December with a strong judgment delivered in our favor,” said Johnny Moloto, the general manager of BATSA, in a statement. “Based on the strength of the High Court’s findings, we are confident that the Supreme Court of Appeal will uphold the Western Cape’s judgment and rule in our favor.”

    BATSA said that, instead of taking futile challenges to the Supreme Court, the government should immediately ratify the global Illicit Trade Protocol that has been sitting on its desk for close to a decade and roll out a compliant tobacco track-and-trace system.

    “Despite our confidence in the success of our case, we think the government would be wiser allocating its resources to combating the illicit trade in cigarettes, which was fortified by the ban and is now running rampant across South Africa,” said Moloto.

    In a press note, BATSA said it supports a recent call by the FITA and the South African Tobacco Organization for an investigation into the illegal trade in cigarettes.

    “This is an issue of utmost national importance that is taking huge sums out of the pockets of South Africans and putting it in to the pockets of criminals every single day. It deserves a fully resourced investigation or Commission of Inquiry with real powers,” said Moloto.

    BATSA expects the investigation to pay for itself by identifying the culprits behind the illegal trade, prosecuting them and shutting down the illegal market to return billions in lost taxes to South African citizens.

  • Philip Morris Korea Wins Trademark Fee Battle

    Philip Morris Korea Wins Trademark Fee Battle

    Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive

    Philip Morris Korea (PMK) has won a legal battle against South Korea’s tax authority over trademark usage fees, reports The Korea Herald, citing legal sources.

    The Seoul Administrative Court on March 1 ruled in favor PMK, ordering Seoul Main Customs to cancel a KRW9.82 billion ($8.7 million) tax.

    The ruling comes four years after the Korea Customs Service ordered the company to pay KRW3.4 billion in customs duties, KRW3.7 billion in value added tax and KRW2.6 billion in penalty tax over royalties paid to its headquarters.

    PMK appealed the decision.

    PMK has been producing tobacco products in Korea with raw materials exported from its headquarters since 2012. The tax authorities moved against the firm, believing the Korean unit had been paying royalties to use the company’s trade secrets.

    According to Korea’s Customs Act, companies are subject to a levy when importers pay their business partners a low price and make the rest of the payment in royalties to evade taxation.

    The March 1 ruling dismissed the argument by the tax authorities, saying that the royalties paid by PMK include trademark fees as well as tobacco leaves and business secrets and that the tax needs to be recalculated.

  • Former EU Health Boss Loses Appeal in Scandal

    Former EU Health Boss Loses Appeal in Scandal

    Photo: janeb13 from Pixabay

    Former EU health commissioner John Dalli lost his final appeal before the bloc’s high court in a nearly decade-old bribery scandal, reports the Courthouse News Service.

    On Feb. 25, the European Court of Justice upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed the Maltese politician’s claim for €1 million ($1.2 million) in damages stemming from his resignation following accusations of fraud in 2012.

    In 2012, the EU anti-fraud office found that Silvio Zammit, an associate of Dalli, attempted to facilitate a €60 million bribe from a Swedish smokeless tobacco company in exchange for lifting an EU-wide ban on the product (the ban doesn’t apply in Sweden on cultural grounds). The snus company rejected the offer as improper and reported it to the European Commission.

    Denying knowledge of the bribe, Dalli claimed that he was illegally forced from his post. In 2015, a lower EU court found that Dalli resigned voluntarily, a decision that was upheld in a 2016 appeal. A second lawsuit, in which Dalli demanded financial compensation for what he alleged was his wrongful termination, was rebuffed by the lower court in 2017.

    The Court of Justice upheld that ruling Thursday.

  • Anti-Competition Fines Rejected in Ukraine

    Anti-Competition Fines Rejected in Ukraine

    Photo: Taco Tuinstra

    A Ukrainian court has upheld British American Tobacco’s (BAT) appeal of a UAH450 million ($16.1 million) fine imposed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU), reports Ukraine Open for Business.

    BAT welcomed the decision, saying it sent a strong positive signal to investors from around the world.

    In October 2019, the AMCU imposed a UAH6.5 billion fine on four international tobacco companies and Tedis Ukraine for alleged anti-competitive behavior. With 45,000 retail points and 2,300 employees, Tedis Ukraine is one of the largest distribution companies in Ukraine.

    The agency said the tobacco companies and Tedis had conspired to keep new businesses from entering the market. However, critics said the AMCU helped bring about the situation by permitting Tedis Ukraine to acquire several key distribution companies.

    In August 2020, the American Chamber of Commerce (ACC) in Ukraine expressed concern about the fairness of the trial, saying the defendants had not been given full access to the evidence on which the AMCU based its allegations.

    On Feb. 2, the Supreme Court of Ukraine threw out the fine against Tedis Ukraine.