A jury in the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida has ruled in favor of Mary Faricy Pardue in a case against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris USA.
Faricy Pardue’s husband, University of Florida Professor Jack Faricy, passed away from heart disease and COPD in Oct. 1998 at age 67.
The $19.38 million judgement includes nearly $6 million in compensatory damages and $13.5 million in punitive damages in the Engle progeny tobacco-related case.
A battle that has been waged in the UK against the government’s standardized tobacco-packaging legislation has suffered a reverse after a second manufacturer dropped plans to take its case to the Supreme Court, according to a story by Jillian Ambrose for the Electronic Telegraph.
The decision by Imperial leaves two of the big four tobacco companies still considering whether to take the government to the Supreme Court over the regulations, which came into force in May.
Since then, manufacturers have been required to produce all their cigarettes in standardised packaging, and, from May 2017, all tobacco products sold in the UK must comply with the regulations.
Imperial joins Philip Morris International in accepting the tobacco branding crackdown after a failed court challenge in May and an unsuccessful appeal last month.
A spokesman for Imperial was said to have told the Sunday Telegraph: “We maintain our firmly held view that plain packaging is not an effective tobacco control policy but we have chosen not to seek permission to escalate our legal challenge in the UK to the Supreme Court”.
British American Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International are expected to decide soon whether to continue to fight the regulations.
The full story is at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/17/imperial-stubs-plans-supreme-court-battle-tobacco-packaging/
British American Tobacco has described as disappointing a decision by the UK High Court to reject an appeal against a law introducing standardized packaging for cigarettes.
The company said it was considering its options, which include an appeal to the Supreme Court.
“Despite today’s decision, we remain firm in our belief that plain packaging is an ineffective policy that doesn’t work to reduce smoking levels – and it’s important to remember this decision by the Court of Appeal is not an endorsement of the effectiveness of this measure,” a BAT spokesperson said.
BAT said that it remained concerned that, in upholding the original decision, the Court of Appeal had made many of the same fundamental errors of law as the original judge. “These are issues of significant constitutional and commercial importance which, if left unchallenged, would have serious implications for other legitimate businesses and for the ability of the government to act first and justify later when it comes to regulation,” the spokesperson said.
“Today’s decision is disappointing. However, it does not necessarily mark the end of the challenge and given the importance of this issue, we are considering our options carefully.
“It’s important to point out that this decision is not a green light for governments to introduce plain packaging, and those considering it must first ensure that the measure complies with the fundamental rights of businesses in their country, as well as with their international law obligations. Governments should also take note that the World Trade Organization dispute on plain packaging is still ongoing.”
The appeal was brought by BAT, Imperial Brands, Japan Tobacco International, and Philip Morris International.
An investment disputes tribunal on Friday issued a binding ruling in favor of Uruguay in a case brought against the country by Philip Morris, according to a press note issued by the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.
Philip Morris first brought its case in 2010 before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) claiming that the country’s tobacco control policies interfered with its investments. Specifically, the company claimed it had ‘already sustained, and will continue to sustain, substantial losses’.
Public health law expert Oscar A. Cabrera, who is the executive director of the O’Neill Institute and an expert in international and domestic laws related to tobacco control, was quoted as saying that Friday’s ruling was an historic and significant victory for tobacco control worldwide.
“This decision is the right one to protect people from the death and harms caused by tobacco products,” said Cabrera, who has worked on tobacco control in Latin America, and has supported tobacco control initiatives in Uruguay.
“We hope the ruling will encourage countries to consider implementing more effective tobacco control policies without the fear of international investment litigation from big tobacco. Philip Morris used this arbitration not only to try to pressure Uruguay to reform its tobacco control regulations, but also to intimidate other countries that wanted to pursue similar measures.”
In fact, Philip Morris International expressed respect for the ruling, which it described in a press note posted on its website as having been made in respect of ‘arbitration between PMI and Uruguay regarding two regulations that Uruguay implemented in 2009’. The arbitration had been brought under ‘Uruguay’s 1988 investment protection treaty with Switzerland, which provides a neutral forum for dispute resolution’.
Although PMI did not spell out the two regulations, they largely concerned the requirement that graphic health warnings be included on 80 percent of the front and back panels of cigarette packs, and restrictions that in effect limited the sale of cigarette brands to only one variant.
“For the last seven years, we have already been complying with the regulations at issue in the case, so today’s outcome doesn’t change the status quo,” said Marc Firestone, PMI’s senior vice president and general counsel.
“We’ve never questioned Uruguay’s authority to protect public health, and this case wasn’t about broad issues of tobacco policy. The arbitration concerned an important, but unusual, set of facts that called for clarification under international law, which the parties have now received. We thank the tribunal for its assessment and respect its decision.
“More broadly, we continue to believe that thoughtful diplomacy is important to resolving complex social phenomena. We reiterate our willingness to meet with representatives of the Uruguayan government, especially to explore regulatory frameworks that would enable the hundreds of thousands of adult smokers in the county to have informed access to reduced-risk alternatives to smoking.”
PMI added that, with this case now over, it was no longer a party to any investment protection claims.
Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court yesterday issued a ruling preventing the Swedish Medical Products Agency (SMPA) from asserting full control over electronic cigarettes in the country, according to a story by the tobacco policy commentator Atakan Befrits.
Befrits had warned earlier there was a danger that classifying these devices as pharmaceutical products and placing them under the SMPA would lead to a de facto ban on e-liquids and electronic cigarettes containing and delivering nicotine.
According to Befrits, the prohibitive costs of the SMPA regulatory process necessary to register electronic cigarettes on a small market such as Sweden would have resulted in a de facto ban for the foreseeable future.