Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

December, 2011:

Managers warn of windfall targets

Dec. 4, 2011

By Steve Johnson

European fund managers are warning of the dangers of investing in energy, telecoms and tobacco stocks amid fears these sectors could be hit with windfall taxes by increasingly cash-strapped governments.

Such moves, mirroring a tax raid by the UK government on the oil and gas industry in March, “should be a major concern for investors”, according to Chris Bowie, head of credit at Ignis Asset Management. “If this can happen in the UK then it could happen across the globe.”

Clive Beagles, co-manager of the JO Hambro UK Equity fund, similarly warned: “If austerity really bites in the western world what are the easiest targets? Tobacco, utilities, etc. The classically defensive stocks may actually be quite dangerous in the next 18 months.”

Mr Bowie feared potential windfall taxes could “severely dent” the earnings of companies in the oil, gas and telecoms sectors.

“Consumers and governments do not have cash but companies do.

“There are a number of market leaders that are generating strong cashflow, for example, Telefónica and Santander in Spain and Telecom Italia in Italy,” he said. “This [windfall tax] scenario is not pure conjecture, this has happened in the recent past.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/589b8722-1ce5-11e1-a134-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gHnqxqkD

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools.
Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Tougher penalties to curb tobacco smuggling

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_737094.html

Description: http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20111122/ST_IMAGES_YCBURN.jpg

Contractors dumping cartons of contraband cigarettes seized by Singapore Customs into a refuse truck before taking them for incineration. — ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN

By Tessa Wong

Tobacco and cigarette smugglers now face stiffer penalties, including mandatory jail time and increased fines.

These were among several changes made in Parliament on Tuesday to laws on Customs, goods and services tax (GST), and stamp duty.

Minister of State for Finance Josephine Teo explained the need to increase Customs enforcement.

She noted that from 2005 to last year, the number of tobacco-related Customs offences went up by 24 per cent. These offences range from smuggling and buying to selling and possessing cigarettes and tobacco products which have not had their duties paid.

Tobacco sponsorship of sports could doom Japan’s Olympic bid

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/1/tobacco-sponsorship-of-sports-could-doom-olympic-b/

Opposition includes U.N., activists and doctors

Japan Tobacco's ties to professional volleyball teams and the ongoing World Cup tournament for women have prompted local and international opposition and a call to stop the association. (Christopher Johnson/Special to The Washington Times)

Japan Tobacco’s ties to professional volleyball teams and the ongoing World Cup tournament for women have prompted local and international opposition and a call to stop the association. (Christopher Johnson/Special to The Washington Times)

Tex

Login to Vote

View results

TOKYO —Japan risks losing its bid to host the 2020 Olympic Games because of growing local and international opposition to the national tobacco corporation’s sponsorship of World Cup volleyball, which attracts millions of women and schoolgirls.

Australia Bans Distinctive Cigarette Packaging — Should Others Follow?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2100987,00.html?iid=ent-main-mostpop2

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2011/1111/intl_aus_cig_package_1201.jpg

An artist’s impression of what cigarette packaging will look like under a new Australian law, due to be implemented by December 2012

A year from now, Australian smokers will have to look a whole lot harder to find their favorite brand of smokes. Thanks to a first-of-its-kind law to be implemented by December 2012, when they glance across the counter they’ll be staring at rows of nearly identical, olive green cartons. In place of symbols or slogans, there will be graphic health warnings covering much of each pack.

On Nov. 21, Australia announced that it will be the first country in the world to introduce plain cigarette packaging. It’s a controversial move that will be closely watched by countries like Canada, New Zealand and the U.K., all of which are considering similar legislation. Australia already has some of the strictest antismoking laws in the world. Smoking is banned in enclosed public spaces as well as many outdoor areas with laws varying from state to state. Tobacco companies cannot sponsor events in Australia, and cigarettes can only be sold behind closed doors. Still, some 15,000 people die from smoking related illness every year and 15% of Australians smoke. The government wants to reduce that figure to 10% by 2018. (See photos of vintage cigarette-smoking ads.)

Health campaigners welcomed the decision. “This has been a really important campaign for us,” says Ian Olver, the CEO of Cancer Council Australia. “It was one of the last opportunities that the tobacco companies have had to advertise their product.” Olver believes the new rules will make smoking less alluring. “Young people get attracted to cigarette packets because of the way they represent their lifestyles. A sportier person might buy what they consider a sportier brand, and every time they take that packet out, they advertise that brand to their peers.”

Unsurprisingly, the tobacco industry isn’t pleased. Philip Morris, whose brands include Longbeach, Peter Jackson and Marlboro, took action three hours after the legislation passed. Philip Morris Asia Ltd. (PMA), owners of the Australian affiliate Philip Morris Ltd. (PML), served a notice of arbitration on the Australian government. “The Government has passed this legislation despite being unable to demonstrate that it will be effective at reducing smoking and has ignored the widespread concerns raised in Australia and internationally regarding the serious legal issues associated with plain packaging,” said Anne Edwards, a PMA spokesperson, in a statement. “Plain packaging turns tobacco products into a commodity, robbing PML of its ability to differentiate its products from competitor brands, and thereby substantially diminishing the value of PMA’s investments in Australia.”

British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) announced on Nov. 10 that they will take domestic legal action as soon as plain packaging passes into law. “BATA believes it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to remove a legal company’s valuable property without compensation and feels the High Court will agree,” said the company’s statement.

The government, though, seems confident about the new law, noting that they received “comprehensive” legal advice on the matter. Lawyers agree. Even though it’s unconstitutional for the government to acquire property (including intellectual property) without compensation, the government will not actually be taking the trademarks away from cigarette companies. “The government doesn’t get to use tobacco trademarks for itself. If it did, it would have to pay,” said Simon Evans, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Melbourne, on the Conversation, an academic website. (See how one cigarette can raise the risk of cancer and heart disease.)

Marketing experts believe the damage to cigarette brands could be significant. “It will take away any relationship that the consumer has with the brand,” says Andrew Hughes, a lecturer at the School of Management, Marketing and International Business at the Australian National University in Canberra. “The consumer won’t understand why they would pay more for one type of cigarette and not another. [Tobacco companies] will not go to the effort of making premium products as there’s no incentive.”

Craig Seitam, a marketing expert who used to work at Rothmans of Pall Mall from 1994 to ’98, says that there is not much difference between cigarettes apart from the packaging. “People buy certain brands to project a certain image,” he says. “If they have a packet of Dunhill, they might be communicating to others that they see themselves as sophisticated, another brand might say something else, but all that will soon go.” But regardless of the change, those who are already addicted are unlikely to quit. “As a social group, smokers have a strong bond,” says Hughes, the lecturer. “Because others are smoking, it reinforces your behavior, especially during an office break or outside a bar. That’s one thing the government can not do a lot about.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2100987,00.html#ixzz1fR706ZuV

The Associated Press Tobacco company sues Australia over packaging law.htm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5htimBjLJ5cOD19fVr8cE7cPxZWfw?docId=a02966e9fbd04820969394905d65b9c6

Tobacco company sues Australia over packaging law

By KRISTEN GELINEAU, Associated Press – 1 day ago

SYDNEY (AP) — British American Tobacco launched legal action against the Australian government on Thursday, challenging the country’s tough new law that ban logos from cigarette packs.

The move comes less than two weeks after Australia’s Parliament passed the legislation, which forces tobacco companies to remove their distinctive colors and logos and instead print their brand names in a tiny font on drab, olive-green packs. The packs will also feature graphic images highlighting the negative effects of smoking, such as cancer-riddled mouths.

Australia is the first country in the world to pass such a strict packaging law, which is meant to strip away any lingering glamour associated with smoking.

The legislation, which takes effect on Dec. 1, 2012, sparked immediate outrage from tobacco companies. Hong Kong-based Philip Morris Asia has also filed legal action against the government, and other cigarette makers have threatened to do the same.

British American Tobacco, the Australian market leader, filed its lawsuit in the nation’s High Court on Thursday, arguing that the legislation is unconstitutional and violates intellectual property rights.

“As a legal company selling a legal product we have consistently said we will defend our valuable intellectual property on behalf of our shareholders as any other company would,” company spokesman Scott McIntyre said in a statement. “If the same type of legislation was introduced for a beer brewing company or a fast food chain, then they’d be taking the government to court and we’re no different.”

Health Minister Nicola Roxon has vowed to fight the tobacco companies in court.

“Let there be no mistake, big tobacco is fighting against the government for one very simple reason — because it knows, as we do, that plain packaging will work,” Roxon said in a statement. “While it is fighting to protect its profits, we are fighting to protect lives.”

Tobacco companies are already banned from advertising on Australian billboards and in the country’s magazines, and smoking in many public places is restricted.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Related articles

US99 million award against PM

Oregon Supreme Court orders $99 million award against Philip Morris

Published: Friday, December 02, 2011, 6:18 PM     Updated: Friday, December 02, 2011, 6:28 PM

By Aimee Green, The Oregonian The Oregonian

The Oregon Supreme Court said Friday that Philip Morris USA must pay an additional $99 million, on top of the millions it has already paid after a 1999 jury penalized the tobacco maker for causing the death of a Portland smoker.

The ruling could represent the end to a 14-year fight over damages in the death of retired Portland school custodian Jesse D. Williams. He smoked as many as three packs of Marlboros a day and died of lung cancer in 1997 at age 67.

In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court shot down Philip Morris’ appeal that the award of $79.5 million in punitive damages was unjust. The cigarette maker paid Jesse Williams’ widow, Mayola, economic and noneconomic damages — plus 40 percent of that punitive award, and 9 percent interest, as required by state law. That amounted to US$61 million.

But Philip Morris continued to dig in its heels when it came to paying the state the remaining 60 percent of the punitive damages award, plus interest. Today, that amounts to US$99 million.

The state was worried it would never collect on the US$99 million. So the state and Mayola Williams agreed to split any award, 55 percent to the state and 45 percent to Williams. If the state lost, the court could have awarded all $99 million to Williams.

If Friday’s ruling stands, Williams will get an additional US$45 million from Philip Morris. The state will get almost US$55 million.

More

The Oregonian’s continuing coverage of the case of the estate of Jesse Williams vs. R.J. Reynolds.

In arguments before the court in September, Philip Morris contended that the state of Oregon had already signed off on its right to the money because in 1998 – one year before the jury’s verdict – then-state Attorney General Hardy Myers had agreed not to pursue any more claims for injuries from tobacco exposure. The clause was part of a settlement brokered with Philip Morris, other tobacco companies and 46 states for the billions of dollars the states had paid and would continue to pay for health care for ailing, low-income smokers.

Under that deal, the tobacco companies agreed to pay Oregon $2.1 billion during the first 25 years and then about $81 million a year in perpetuity.

But attorneys for the state of Oregon and Mayola Williams argued the state was simply trying to collect on the 60 percent due to it under the state’s punitive-damages law. The type of case it was — in other words if it dealt with tobacco or something else — didn’t matter, said the attorneys for the state and Williams.

On Friday, the Oregon Supreme Court agreed.

“We’re happy with the result,” said Tony Green, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Justice. He declined to comment further because he’s not sure the case is really over.

Jim Coon, one of the Portland attorneys representing Williams, said it is possible that attorneys for Philip Morris could continue to fight, but their avenues to do so are severely limited.

“Will Philip Morris accept the judgment and actually pay what the jury said it needs to pay?” Coon said. “Or are they going to make up some other argument? They’ve got high-priced lawyers, the best that money can buy.”

Coon said Philip Morris could ask the Oregon Supreme Court to reconsider.

He says it’s unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would consider the issue because it deals with a state law, the Oregon punitive-damages statute.

Attorneys for the tobacco maker didn’t return a call seeking comment Friday. A Philip Morris spokesman emailed a news release. He said he couldn’t answer questions, including whether the company would appeal.

“We believe that the Oregon Supreme Court misapplied the law and reached an erroneous result,” Murray Garnick is quoted as saying in the news release. Garnick is client services senior vice president for Philip Morris USA’s parent company, Altria Group.

At the time of the 1999 award, it was the largest punitive damages award against a tobacco company in the United States.

The state’s $55 million would go into the Oregon crime victims’ compensation fund, which pays for everything from medical bills to funerals for victims of violent crime. The money, however, would likely flood the fund with more than it needs to meet current demand. State lawmakers, however, have the power to reallocate the money — and that’s likely given state’s budget shortfalls in schools, police, prisons and other programs.

Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control

Objective:
Over twenty experts on economics, epidemiology, public policy and tobacco control were asked
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to evaluate the strength of the available
evidence on the effects of tax and price policies to prevent and reduce tobacco use.

Objective:Over twenty experts on economics, epidemiology, public policy and tobacco control were askedby the International Agency for Research on Cancer to evaluate the strength of the availableevidence on the effects of tax and price policies to prevent and reduce tobacco use.

Download PDF : Chaloupka

Market Research to Determine Impact of Plain Packaging on other tobacco products

Download (PDF, 2.52MB)

Tobacco plain packaging—investor-state arbitration

https://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging

On 1 December 2011, the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (the Act) received Royal Assent and became law in Australia.

The Act forms part of a comprehensive range of tobacco control measures to reduce the rate of smoking in Australia and is an investment in the long term health of Australians. Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease in Australia.

Tobacco plain packaging is a legitimate public health measure which is based on a broad range of peer reviewed studies and reports, and supported by leading Australian and international public health experts. Further information regarding the implementation of tobacco plain packaging is available on the Department of Health website.

Philip Morris Asia is challenging the tobacco plain packaging legislation under the 1993 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Hong Kong for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (Hong Kong Agreement). This is the first investor-state dispute that has been brought against Australia.

Philip Morris Asia is arguing that Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure constitutes an expropriation of its Australian investments in breach of Article 6 of the Hong Kong Agreement. Philip Morris Asia further argues that Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure is in breach of its commitment under Article 2(2) of the Hong Kong Agreement to accord fair and equitable treatment to Philip Morris Asia’s investments. Philip Morris Asia further asserts that tobacco plain packaging constitutes an unreasonable and discriminatory measure and that Philip Morris Asia’s investments have been deprived of full protection and security in breach of Article 2(2) of the Hong Kong Agreement. Australia rejects these claims.

This webpage will be updated regularly to provide information on relevant developments.

Publicly available arbitration documents
Conduct of the arbitration
Summary of procedural orders
World Trade Organization challenges to tobacco plain packaging
Constitutional challenges to tobacco plain packaging

Publicly available arbitration documents

On 27 June 2011, Philip Morris Asia served Australia with a written notification of claim pursuant to Article 10 of the Hong Kong Agreement.

Philip Morris Asia Limited Notice of Claim (27 June 2011) [PDF 708KB]
Philip Morris Asia Limited Notice of Claim (27 June 2011) [DOC 725KB]
On 21 November 2011, Australia received a formal Notice of Arbitration from Philip Morris Asia.

Philip Morris Asia Limited Notice of Arbitration (21 November 2011) [PDF 2.4MB]
Philip Morris Asia Limited Notice of Arbitration (21 November 2011) [DOC 1.8MB]
Australia formally responded to Philip Morris Asia’s claim on 21 December 2011. In its response, Australia rejected the claims made by Philip Morris Asia and outlined arguments Australia intended to make in defending its right to implement the tobacco plain packaging measure.

Australia’s response to the Notice of Arbitration (21 December 2001) [PDF 558KB]
Australia’s response to the Notice of Arbitration (21 December 2011) [DOC 141KB]
Back to contents

Conduct of the arbitration

The arbitration is being conducted under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules 2010. The tribunal hearing the case is composed of three arbitrators. Australia appointed Professor Don McRae of the University of Ottawa as an arbitrator. Philip Morris Asia appointed Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler as an arbitrator. The Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration appointed Professor Dr Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel as the presiding arbitrator.

The tribunal was constituted on 15 May 2012. The First Procedural Meeting was held on 30 July 2012 in Singapore. A hearing on Australia’s request for bifurcation of the proceedings—splitting the arbitration into jurisdiction and merits phases—was held on 20 and 21 February 2014. On 14 April 2014 the tribunal decided to bifurcate proceedings.

Summary of procedural orders

All publicly available procedural orders issued by the tribunal can be obtained from the Permanent Court of Arbitration website.

World Trade Organization challenges to tobacco plain packaging

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has primary responsibility for the Australian Government’s defence of the tobacco plain packaging measure in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Office of International Law within the Attorney-General’s Department is providing DFAT with additional support.

The WTO Dispute Settlement Body has established dispute settlement panels at the requests of Ukraine (on 28 September 2012), Honduras (on 25 September 2013), Indonesia (on 26 March 2014), Dominican Republic (on 25 April 2014) and Cuba (on 25 April 2014) in relation to Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure. The five complainants are arguing that the measure is inconsistent with Australia’s WTO obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.

To date, a record number of WTO members (in excess of 40) have joined those disputes as third parties.

On 5 May 2014, the WTO Director-General appointed Mr Alexander Erwin (Chair, South Africa), Professor François Dessemontet (Member, Switzerland) and Dame Billie Miller (Member, Barbados) as panelists to hear the disputes. All five disputes will be heard together, pursuant to a harmonised timetable.

In response to Australia’s request, the panel issued preliminary rulings on 19 August 2014 regarding the scope of the complainants’ claims. These rulings were published on 27 October 2014.

The Chair of the panel informed the Dispute Settlement Body on 10 October 2014 that the panel expects to issue its final report to the parties in the second half of 2016.

Information about the tobacco plain packaging disputes in the WTO, and the WTO and its dispute settlement processes more generally, is available from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. All enquiries relating to the WTO tobacco plain packaging disputes should be directed to DFAT.

Constitutional challenges to tobacco plain packaging

Two challenges to the tobacco plain packaging legislation were heard by the High Court of Australia between 17–19 April 2012: British American Tobacco Australasia Limited and Ors v. Commonwealth of Australia and J T International SA v. Commonwealth of Australia.

On 15 August 2012, the High Court handed down orders for these matters, and found that the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 is not contrary to s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. On 5 October 2012 the Court handed down its reasons for the decision. By a 6:1 majority (Heydon J in dissent) the Court held that there had been no acquisition of property that would have required provision of ‘just terms’ under s51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

The parties’ written submissions, the full transcript of proceedings and the High Court’s orders and reasons can be viewed on the High Court of Australia website.