Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

Law Suits

Court upholds NT$5 million fine on British tobacco company

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201702020020.aspx

The Taipei High Administrative Court on Thursday upheld a NT$5 million (US$160,800) fine imposed by Taipei City government on a U.K.-based tobacco company.

Imperial Tobacco received the fine in 2015 for violating the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act, after the company was found to have invited consumers to try out one of its cigarette products, as part of a marketing survey.

Imperial Tobacco filed a case with the Taipei High Administrative Court challenging the fine.

The court on Thursday ruled in favor of Taipei City government, after determining that Imperial Tobacco did indeed violate the provisions of the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act.

The case can be appealed.

(By Liu Shih-yi and Y.F. Low)
ENDITEM/AW

Berlin woman faces €250,000 fine if she smokes on balcony past 8pm

A woman in Berlin has been banned from smoking on her balcony past 8pm – a violation the ban could lead to a fine of up to €250,000, or six months in prison.

https://www.thelocal.de/20170131/woman-faces-250000-fine-or-jail-if-she-smokes-on-balcony-past-8pm

Uta F., 52, has lived in her Berlin-Hellersdorf apartment for the past nine years, but now her occasional nightly routine of having an evening cigarette has been halted by a court, according to B.Z..

Her upstairs neighbour took her to court because he said the smoke coming from her balcony was blowing into his apartment and bothering him.

Uta F. told B.Z. that she enjoyed having her evening cigarette on her balcony in her fourth floor apartment.

“I don’t smoke a lot – in the evening with wine or sometimes when I cannot sleep at night,” she said.

But a local court ruled that Uta F. may no longer smoke on her balcony between 8pm and 6am. The two parties ultimately agreed to the conditions of the judgement, and Uta F. may therefore not appeal, a civil court spokeswoman told broadcaster rbb on Monday evening.

The judge further stated that if the woman were to violate the conditions, she would face a fine of up to €250,000, or six months in prison.

“This punishment is, however, very unlikely,” the court spokeswoman said.

The judgement had been based on a federal court ruling in 2015 that said smoking tenants are only guaranteed to be able to smoke on their balconies during limited time periods, because the smoke presents a significant disturbance to others.

In that case, two married couples had battled it out for years over one couple’s smoking habits. After the federal court ruling, the case was sent back to a lower court for further review, but was ultimately thrown out because the wife in the pair of smokers had died.

Last year, one of Germany’s ‘most famous smokers’ won a years-long legal battle against eviction before a Düsseldorf court. The court found that there was not sufficient evidence to show that he was disturbing the peace.

One liberal politician from the Free Democratic Party (FDP) condemned the latest ruling in Berlin. The Berlin state parliament representative and FDP spokesman for legal and constitutional protection said that he could only shake his head at the ruling.

“Forbidding an occasional smoker from having an evening cigarette on her own balcony constitutes a very big encroachment on her personal sphere,” said the FDP’s Holger Krestel.

Florida attorney general goes after 2 tobacco companies

CTA says:

Why has the insipid Hong Kong Govt not sued Big Tobacco for the massive costs of health care treatment caused by their tobacco consumer product which kills 2 in every 3 of its users ? http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0281-z

Yet again in Legco on 17th January 2016 the tobacco company representatives tried their bully-boy tactics, threat to sue all and sundry etc, the same tactics which have already failed miserably in high court and subsequent legal appeals overseas, regarding plain packaging and Health Graphic warnings, claimed loss of tobacco trademarks and intellectual property rights caused by Govts changing the packaging of their ‘Silent Salesman’ advertising carton packaging.

————————————

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday sued two tobacco companies that she says are failing to pay millions owed to the state as part of a landmark settlement.

http://staugustine.com/2017-01-19/florida-attorney-general-goes-after-2-tobacco-companies

Bondi’s office, which filed the lawsuit in Palm Beach County, asserts that the state is already owed US$45 million and could lose $30 million a year going forward.

Nearly two decades ago, several of the nation’s largest tobacco companies negotiated a multibillion-dollar settlement with Florida to compensate the state for treating sick smokers. The state is projected to receive nearly US$356 million this current budget year in settlement payments.

The lawsuit contends that after R.J. Reynolds sold the cigarette brands of Winston, Kool and Salem to ITG Brands, both companies refused to make payments related to those brands. ITG Brands, the U.S. subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco, acquired the brands when Reynolds and Lorillard merged in 2015.

“The sale of major, pre-existing tobacco brands to another company for billions of dollars does not cause the payment obligations to vanish like a puff of smoke,” said Bondi in a statement. “I look forward to the state obtaining prompt relief.”

Florida filed its lawsuit a day after British American Tobacco announced that it is taking over Reynolds American in a US$49 billion deal.

Neither Reynolds nor ITG Brands responded to phone calls requesting comment.

Pushed by then-Gov. Lawton Chiles, Florida was one of the first states in the U.S. to seek damages from tobacco companies. The state’s lawsuit sought reimbursement for Medicaid costs in the past and future and contended that tobacco companies had engaged in unlawful actions and misleading advertising.

Doctors help finance lawsuit against tobacco companies

Family doctors and medical specialists are lending financial support to the prosecution of four tobacco companies in what will be the first lawsuit of its kind in Europe, the Volkskrant writes.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/01/doctors-help-finance-lawsuit-against-tobacco-companies/

The Dutch Journal of Medicine NTvG , which has a membership of over 250 doctors, has decided to earmark ‘several hundreds of thousands of euros’ to support the case which is being brought by 1,300 (ex) smokers suffering from smoking-related illnesses.

According to Willem Mali, professor of radiology at UMC Utrecht, doctors should do more than simply supporting anti-smoking policies, writing reports and informing their patients about the consequences of smoking. ‘Doctors should become activists and really go for it,’ he told the paper.

The case is not about compensation but about prosecuting tobacco companies for ‘wilfully producing addictive cigarettes and prejudicing people’s health with premeditation’, the paper writes. Anti-smoking policy In the Netherlands 20,000 people die every year from smoking-related illnesses. A quarter of the population smokes.

In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom the number is much lower, which Mali blames on the less than stringent anti-smoking policy in this country. NTvG editor Yolanda van der Graaf feels doctors have the knowledge and authority to persuade politicians to adopt more restrictive measures.

‘All we talk about now is new, more expensive medicines against lung cancer which help make care unaffordable and only prolong life by a couple of months. But if no one smoked we wouldn’t have to have this debate at all,’ Van der Graaf told the paper. The Dutch association of tobacco producers VNK commented that it ‘remains confident that the sale of a legal product will not be labelled as a crime.’

CASHING IN ON 240 DAILY DEATHS: LAWYERING FOR BIG TOBACCO IN THE PHILIPPINES

Download (PDF, 122KB)

NDP give update on tobacco industry lawsuit

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/12/31/ndp-give-update-on-tobacco-industry-lawsuit

Justice Minister Kathleen Ganley says the NDP government is pleased with the progress being made on its legal action against the tobacco industry, though any resolution to the case is likely years away.

In 2012, the former Progressive Conservative government filed suit against 14 Canadian and international tobacco firms, seeking $10 billion to recover smoking-related health costs.

The process around the Tory government’s decision to hire the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers consortium as counsel on the case remains mired in controversy and under review, but Ganley said that the NDP is satisfied with the work done by the firm so far.

“The quality of the work itself has been very good,” she said in a recent interview.

“So at this point it would cause further delay and be quite costly to change counsel at this point. And so I don’t think it would be in the best interest of taxpayers to do that.”

British Columbia’s conflict of interest commissioner, Paul Fraser, is currently reviewing the actions of former premier Alison Redford in relation to questions of potential conflict of interest around her awarding of the tobacco lawsuit legal contract as justice minister in 2010. A key part of the consortium is Calgary-based JSS Barristers, a firm where her ex-husband is a partner.

Redford was cleared by then-ethics commissioner Neil Wilkinson when the matter was investigated in 2013, but a report this spring from former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci cited concerns that Wilkinson didn’t have all the relevant information. He recommended Alberta’s ethics commissioner take another look but a potential conflict led to the appointment of B.C.’s commissioner.

Ganley said she couldn’t comment on how that report may ultimately affect the government’s legal action against the tobacco companies but reiterated the NDP’s support for the case.

“We do believe in the merits and the cause of the case and I think it’s potentially worth an enormous amount of money to the taxpayers of Alberta, so it’s definitely worth pursuing,” she said.

Among the allegations in the government’s lawsuit, none of which have been proven in court, is that the companies deliberately designed tobacco products to be highly addictive, deceived Albertans by minimizing the products’ addictiveness and harm, and falsely denied the health risks of exposure to tobacco products.

Ganley said the defendants in the case filed statements of defence in the spring.

The next step will be the exchange of documents, then the questioning phase.

“These things typically take a while,” said Ganley.

“There’s going to be an enormous amount of documents.”

It has been slow going for legal action against the tobacco industry by Canadian provinces since British Columbia filed the first lawsuit in 1998, said Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society in Ottawa.

There are 12 provinces and territories that have enabling legislation allowing them to launch lawsuits and 10 have legal action already underway.

“There are no trial dates set for any of the cases. The cases that are the most advanced it seems are B.C. and New Brunswick, in terms of the pre-trial discovery process,” said Cunningham, noting that he has no indication the controversy around Alberta’s legal contract has affected its case.

“It’s incumbent for provincial governments to get these cases to trial.”

In 1999, the U.S. tobacco industry settled with 46 U.S. states by agreeing to pay almost $250 billion over 25 years. That deal featured restrictions on how tobacco products were marketed and sold.

Cunningham said a case to watch in Canada is a Quebec class action lawsuit that awarded C$15.5 billion in damages to plaintiffs from tobacco companies.

The case was appealed and heard at the Quebec Court of Appeal in November, with a decision expected in 2017.

Cunningham noted many of the same documents and issues that were in play in the class action trial will be at issue in the provincial cases.

“The Quebec case demonstrates overwhelmingly the tobacco industry can be beaten,” he said.

E-cig patent lawsuits heading to mediation

http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/e-cig-patent-lawsuits-heading-to-mediation/article_92efcac8-a014-5aa6-bacd-34eb1e22be55.html

One set of patent-infringement lawsuits addressing electronic cigarette technology is heading to mediation, according to legal filings Thursday.

Fontem Ventures BV and Fontem Holdings BV, owned by Imperial Brands Plc of England, is suing NuMark LLC, a subsidiary of Altria Group Inc. of Richmond. NuMark has filed a counter suit.

Fontem and NuMark have chosen Lex Brainerd of San Francisco as the mediator.

Fontem has filed at least three similar lawsuits against R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which makes top-selling e-cig Vuse.

In a separate filing Thursday, Reynolds Vapor Co. and the Fontem companies have asked to have until Jan. 12 to agree on a mediator.

Other leading U.S. e-cig companies sued by Fontem include: ITG Brands LLC, which makes blu eCigs; NJoy Inc., Ballantyne Brands LLC of Charlotte, maker of the Mistic brand; and Vapor Corp.

A federal judge in the Central Circuit of California agreed Aug. 8 to R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.’s request to transfer the lawsuits to the Middle District of North Carolina so that the cases can be heard closer to the defendants. The transfer was completed Oct. 26.

Reynolds Vapor manufactures Vuse, which owns a 37.3 percent market share, at its Tobaccoville plant.

The Fontem companies are suing for what they call unlawful use of seven patented technologies. They focus their claims on patents for rechargeable e-cigs, cartridge refill packs, batteries and disposable e-cigs. Fontem said it obtained patents on its technology in February 2013.

Reynolds claims it has developed internal e-cig technology.

Fontem accuses Reynolds of patent infringement in its Vuse solo rechargeable digital vapor cigarettes and its Connect power units.

For example, Fontem repeats the legal accusation it made against Lorillard Inc. that Reynolds Vapor is in infringement with its cartridge technology, in particular when it says it does not allow another e-cig product to be used with Vuse products.

Fontem is suing for an undisclosed amount of damages because of “irreparable harm” done to the companies, including lost market share and lost profits on infringing sales.

Altogether, the Fontem companies have been a party in 89 complaints just in the Central Circuit court, including 15 that are open. The filings began March 5, 2014, with undisclosed settlements reached in some lawsuits.

Imperial stubs out plans for Supreme Court battle on tobacco packaging rules

Big Tobacco’s battle against the Government’s crackdown on cigarette packaging has taken a blow after a second company stubbed out plans to take its case to the Supreme Court.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/17/imperial-stubs-plans-supreme-court-battle-tobacco-packaging/

The decision by Imperial, the ­maker of Gauloises and Lambert & Butler cigarettes, leaves just two of the big four tobacco companies still considering whether to take the Government to the Supreme Court over the rules, which came into force in May.

Since then, cigarette firms have been required to manufacture products in standardised “plain” khaki packaging sporting prominent health warnings. All tobacco products sold in the UK from next May must comply with the rules.

Imperial joins Philip Morris International in reluctantly accepting the tobacco branding crackdown after a failed court challenge in May lead to an unsuccessful legal appeal last month.

A spokesman for Imperial 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 (JTI) will reveal “any day now” whether they will continue to fight the rules which came into effect in April, an industry source said.

But Imperial’s decision to walk away from the fight despite relying on the UK for around 15pc of its total earnings raises questions over the commitment of BAT which earns less than 1pc of its takings from Britain.

JTI also has a 15pc exposure to the market and has been the most outspoken against the legislation which its UK boss Daniel Sciamma has branded “commercial vandalism” which “sets a dangerous precedent for other targeted industries”.

Imperial said it plans to focus on maintaining its market share in the face of rising legislation and will invest more heavily in its specialist brands such e-cigarettes and non-tobacco vaping products.

They took on the tobacco industry — and won

Miami Beach lawyers Robert Grover, Norman Ciment, Marvin Weinstein and Sherwin Stauber have accomplished much in their 53 years on both sides of the bench.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article121246018.html

As the four founding members of Grover, Ciment, Weinstein & Stauber, (now Grover & Weinstein, P.A.), they tried several groundbreaking multimillion-dollar personal injury cases. And as judges and mayors in Miami Beach and Surfside, they made an impact on their communities.

But it was their landmark courtroom victories against Big Tobacco, from which they secured more than $55 million in five separate cases (with more in the process), that cemented their place in history. In particular, one case was the first — and only — time that a jury awarded damages against a tobacco company for ailments stemming from secondhand smoke.

In my more than 50 years of practice, including the four years I served on the bench, I have never seen such egregious defendants [as Big Tobacco].

Miami Beach attorney Robert Grover, whose firm won the only secondhand smoke case against the tobacco industry

“In my more than 50 years of practice, including the four years I served on the bench, I have never seen such egregious defendants [as Big Tobacco],” said Grover, who with his three partners was honored recently by hundreds who gathered to commemorate the firm. “Back in 1959, they said, ‘Our deep research finds no connection between smoking and cancer, respiratory disease or anything else.’ They knew even back then, and they lied for half a century. [Weinstein] and I said, ‘These are bad people. Let’s go get them.’”

The firm’s first strike against the tobacco industry came in January 2002, when Marvin Weinstein and former firm partner Adam Trop co-counseled French v. Philip Morris. The case stemmed from a 1991 class-action lawsuit, Broin v. Philip Morris, in which Miami husband-and-wife lawyer team Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt initially represented seven nonsmoking flight attendants who developed lung cancer and other illnesses after inhaling tobacco smoke while working on airplanes.

Though the cigarette makers agreed to provide $349 million to set up a research foundation on behalf of the plaintiffs and pay the Rosenblatts $49 million, the flight attendants received no damages. They were, however, granted the right to sue individually.

Lynn French, who developed chronic sinusitis while working for Trans World Airlines for 14 years, was the first of several individual flight attendants to sue Big Tobacco.

The firm represented her. A six-person Miami jury awarded her $5.5 million in compensatory damages — five times the amount asked.

Three months later, 11th Circuit Court Judge Fredricka G. Smith cut the amount to $500,000 — a 91 percent reduction.

“It was the largest reduction remitted in the state’s history,” Grover said. “[Judge Smith’s] conscience, I think, was shocked by the size of that verdict and said, ‘Take it or we’re granting a new trial.’ [French] didn’t want to go through another trial, so she took the $500,000.”

Another groundbreaking case heard in Miami was Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the first smokers’ class action suit to come to trial in a U.S. courtroom, filed by the Rosenblatts in 1994. Dr. Howard Engle was a longtime Miami Beach pediatrician who had treated the children of both the Rosenblatts and the Grovers. Engle, who had been addicted to smoking since college, when tobacco companies doled out free cigarettes to students, lent his name to the suit, filed on behalf of about 700,000 smokers nationwide.

A Miami-Dade jury, after hearing 157 witnesses in two years, decided the tobacco companies intentionally misled smokers about the dangers of cigarettes. The jury awarded $145 billion in damages, the largest punitive damages award in U.S. history.

The tobacco companies immediately appealed the decision, which Florida’s 3rd District Court of Appeal set aside in 2003. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to reverse punitive damages, but allowed for 8,000 individual plaintiffs to pursue damages separately—4,000 at the state level and 4,000 at the federal level. The federal cases accepted a settlement en masse. The state-level cases, however, have only recently begun to reach the verdict stage.

“All the trial lawyers in Florida owe a debt of gratitude to the Rosenblatts,” said Trop, the co-counsel on the TWA case. “They really took down a giant and made it much easier for us to represent the little guy, these victims of tobacco. They may not have slain the dragon, but they certainly knocked it to its knees.”

In 2009, Grover & Weinstein was co-counsel in the first of the 4,000 cases at the state level to successfully recover damages, Hess v. Philip Morris. Since the verdict, the firm has recovered damages for four more state-level cases, more than $55 million in total.

Going after the big guys is what the four lawyers at Grover & Weinstein pride themselves on.

“What makes their story remarkable is the people they are,” said Jeannie Fernandez, the firm’s controller. “If they see a little guy come in and he has a problem, they’ll work days, weeks and months to help him. Even if they’re technically not going to get any money — even if they have to waive their fees — they didn’t deny anyone.’’

The firm opened for business in 1963 as Grover & Ciment, P.A. out of a small house purchased in Miami Beach by the two college roommates who had reunited after Ciment returned from a European backpacking trip. Two years later, Weinstein, their former University of Miami School of Law classmate, joined the practice.

As their caseloads increased, the partners agreed they needed to bring on an additional member and in 1967 they invited Stauber, another classmate who had become a rabbi shortly after graduation, to join the firm.

“In law school, we were all wet behind the ears and Stauber would give us the background on complicated tort and contract law,” Grover said. “Why was it so easy for him?

Because he knew the origins of the law, which was in the ancient Jewish law more than 3,000 years ago. That’s why we asked him to join our firm; we remembered how smart he was.”

Over the following half-century, the four founding members of the firm, all now over 80, indelibly impacted South Florida:

▪ After being appointed to a judgeship in 1969, Grover, a former Air Force serviceman, helped decriminalize alcoholism and assisted Florida in designing a plan to provide treatment to those suffering from alcohol addiction. As president of the Miami Beach chapter of B’nai B’rith, he founded a Big Brother program, in which he participated, and created a program that facilitated visits to the mentally and physically ill at Veteran’s Hospital.

▪ Weinstein, a former member of the U.S. Coast Guard who attained the rank of lieutenant commander during the Korean War, served as a judge in Surfside in 1969 and completed one term as mayor between 1970 and 1972.

▪ In 1967, Ciment became the youngest Miami Beach commissioner at age 31. He was elected Miami Beach mayor in 1981 and served a single term. During that brief period, he was instrumental in the creation of Miami Beach’s Art Deco District, the Miami Beach Boardwalk and the Miami Beach Eruv Council. In 2010, he and his wife founded the Norman and Joan Ciment Charitable Foundation, a program that sends refrigerators and ovens to poor Israeli families.

▪ Stauber, who served as a municipal judge in Surfside in 1971, was the first rabbi at Young Israel of North Miami Beach. He continues to work at Grover & Weinstein as a consultant.

Tobacco giants lose legal battle over plain-packaging rules as new rules means packets of 10 will disappear

Some of Britain’s biggest tobacco firms have lost a legal battle in the Court of Appeal against plans for new plain-packaging rules

The companies were appealing a high court decision which upheld new rules to force firms to use plain and standardised packing for all their products.

The new rules ban tobacco companies from prominently branding their cigarettes and require that picture health warnings take up 65 per cent of the front and back of every packet.

Packets of 10 cigarettes are no longer allowed, as they do not have enough room for health warnings.

Additionally, promotional messages on packets like “is less harmful than other brands” are also banned.

Firms and shops have a year to get rid of their old stock and implement changes – after that, they will face penalties for breaking the law.

In May, they suffered what anti-smoking campaigners described as a ”crushing defeat” at the High Court.

The day before new regulations come into force, a judge in London had declared that they were ”valid and lawful in all respects”.

Mr Justice Green rejected a judicial review action brought against Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Leading companies then took their case on to the Court of Appeal.

But on Wednesday, three judges in London rejected their challenge against the High Court’s decision.

A number of companies, including British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International, challenged the legality of the ”standardised packaging”
regulations.

They argued that the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 would destroy valuable property rights and render products indistinguishable from each other.

Dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Beatson and Sir Stephen Richards ruled that the Health Secretary had “lawfully exercised his powers”.