RICO Part Four
Big Tobacco won’t have to pay $280 billion DAVID RESS AND JOHN REID BLACKWELL June 29, 2010 Richmond, Va. – The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday put an end to Washington’s bid to fine Big Tobacco more than a quarter of a trillion dollars for violating federal racketeering law. But the high court also rejected cigarette-makers’ request to review a lower court’s ruling that the companies had violated federal anti-gang laws over several decades by denying the health risks of smoking, marketing to young people and making defective products. The ruling yesterday means a lower court can order Big Tobacco to take steps – such as not labeling cigarettes as light or low tar – already required by last year’s law that gives the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco products. Brushing aside appeals from the Justice Department and the tobacco industry, the court left both Big Tobacco and public-health advocates saying they had won some key points and lost some in the decade-old legal battle. Washington lost its argument that the tobacco companies should pay $280 billion in penalties for violating racketeering law — basically, their profits since the 1970s. Tobacco companies, including Henrico County-based Altria Group and its Philip Morris USA cigarette unit, lost their argument that a law meant to crack down on mobsters was applied wrongly to their actions over the decades. “The takeaway point is that there will be no monetary judgment. A possible disgorgement has now been completely put to bed,” said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general counsel. Tobacco-control advocates said the key point was that U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler’s 2006 racketeering finding stands. “It is now established, and will not be overturned, that the major tobacco companies have been adjudicated to be racketeers,” said Edward L. Sweda, a tobacco-control activist and senior attorney for the Tobacco Control Resource Center at Northeastern University. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids said it was disappointed that the Supreme Court won’t consider whether to reinstate the $280 billion in penalties, along with demands that tobacco companies pay for programs to teach people about the risks of tobacco and to help them quit smoking. But, it added, “Today’s decision upholds the trial court’s historic verdict that the cigarette manufacturers are racketeers and have engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public and target children with their deadly and addictive products.” On Wall Street, shares of Altria rose 3 percent to close at $20.34, while Reynolds American ended 4 percent higher at $53.45 and Lorillard Inc. gained 2.5 percent to $73.54. “While the 2006 ruling stands, the government will not be able to seek any monetary damages from the cigarette makers. This is favorable news,” said Craig Hutson, senior analyst at Gimme Credit, an independent corporate bond research firm. The Supreme Court did not explain why it decided against considering appeals on the lawsuit. “My best guess is the majority of the [Supreme] Court was relatively satisfied with what the D.C. Circuit Court found,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. The Department of Justice wanted the high court to overturn a lower-court ruling that the section of the racketeering act it used to prosecute the tobacco companies did not provide for the surrender of profits from past actions. That particular section, which governs the issue of court orders for future behavior, was what allowed the government to prosecute its case before a single judge, instead of before a jury. Tobacco companies argued that it was wrong to apply racketeering law to a group of companies that compete with one another, and that many of the actions called racketeering were expressions of opinion about what was for many years a matter of heated public debate — the degree of harm from smoking and second-hand smoke. Garnick said he believes Kessler’s racketeering finding is unlikely to affect individuals’ lawsuits against tobacco companies. He said juries and judges in several states had rejected many of the arguments the Justice Department made in its case. The case now returns to the U.S. District Court in Washington, which is considering how to mesh its ordered remedies with last year’s FDA tobacco law. Also on the table may be its requirements about signs in stores, which some retailers feel unfairly punish them for the actions of the tobacco companies. Read
High court turns down both sides in tobacco fight June 28th, 2010
by The Associated Press, Washington
The Supreme Court has rejected appeals by the Obama administration and the nation's largest tobacco companies to get involved in a legal fight about the dangers of cigarette smoking that has stretched more than 10 years. The court's action, issued without comment Monday, leaves in place court rulings that the tobacco industry illegally concealed the dangers of smoking for decades. But it also prevents the administration from trying to extract billions of dollars from the industry either in past profits or to fund a national campaign to curb smoking. In asking the court to hear its appeal, the administration said the industry's half-century of deception "has cost the lives and damaged the health of untold millions of Americans." The appeal was signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, a couple of months before President Barack Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court. Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco maker, its parent company Altria Group Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. filed separate but related appeals that took issue with a federal judge's 1,600-page opinion and an appeals court ruling that found the industry engaged in racketeering and fraud over several decades. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the companies engaged in a scheme to defraud the public by falsely denying the adverse health effects of smoking, concealing evidence that nicotine is addictive and lying about their manipulation of nicotine in cigarettes to create addiction. A federal appeals court in Washington upheld the findings. At the same time, however, the courts have said the government is not entitled to collect $280 billion in past profits or $14 billion for a national campaign to curb smoking. The high court previously denied the government's appeal on that issue. The companies argue that the government improperly used the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO law, against them. The racketeering law often is employed against the Mafia and other criminal organizations. The companies also say the courts' decision to brand their statements about smoking as fraudulent unfairly denied them their First Amendment rights to engage in the public-health debate about smoking. The administration said the money it seeks from the industry is commensurate with the harm it has caused. The public health groups in the case are: American Cancer Society; American Heart Association; American Lung Association; Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights; National African American Tobacco Prevention Network and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund. The groups are most interested in forcing the tobacco companies to pay for a wide-ranging education campaign to discourage people from taking up smoking and helping others quit. Read
National tobacco case to be heard in Bangor 10/22/09
By Judy Harrison BANGOR, Maine— Attorneys from around the country descended Wednesday on the federal courthouse in Bangor for a conference on a class-action lawsuit against the makers of light cigarettes. It is the first multidistrict litigation case ever assigned to U.S. District Court in Bangor. Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is the label the federal judiciary gives cases filed against the same party or parties in federal courts around the nation. Once cases have been combined, a three-judge panel assigns them to one federal judge. At least 20 lawsuits from around the country have been combined in Bangor. The MDL has been assigned to U.S. District Judge John Woodcock, who has not handled one since his appointment to the federal bench in 2003. Moreover, the original Maine case that led to the 20-case MDL is once again in the hands of Woodcock, whom the U.S. Supreme Court reversed last year. In a 5-4 a split won by the court’s liberals, the justices ruled in December that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote “light” and “low tar” brands. The Altria Group Inc. argued on behalf of its Philip Morris USA subsidiary that the lawsuits are barred by the federal ciga-rette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health. Tobacco litigation in federal court is not unusual. Cigarette cases regularly are filed in state and federal courts around the country. It is unusual for the first case in the nation against a particular tobacco company to be filed in Maine. Bangor lawyer Samuel W. Lanham Jr. filed the lawsuit in August 2005 on behalf of Lori A. Spellman of Levant and Stephanie Good and Allain L. Thibodeau, both of Bangor. Each smoked Marlboro Lights for 15 years or more. The plaintiffs are not seeking damages for personal injuries or health problems caused from cigarette smoking. Instead, the lawsuit alleges that they were hoodwinked into thinking that “light” cigarettes contained less tar and nicotine than full-flavor cigarettes. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. Woodcock granted summary judgment in the cigarette makers’ favor in 2006. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling the next year and attorneys for the tobacco firm appealed to the nation’s highest court. It was the first case argued during the U.S. Supreme Court’s term last year. The meeting Wednesday was purely about scheduling — which motions the judge will hear first, when briefs must be filed, how often Woodcock will hold conferences with attorneys, and which attorneys on both sides will act as liaisons from the court to the more than 25 attorneys scattered throughout the country. The case is not expected to be decided anytime soon. No hearings in the case will be held until January or February. Once Woodcock rules on whether the facts in a landmark case upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit can be applied to the MDL case, his decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. That decision also could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorneys appeared visibly relieved when Woodcock, a Bangor native, said he would conduct monthly conferences via telephone and they would not have to fly to Bangor. “I’m sure it would be helpful to the Bangor economy to have you all come her once a month, but I don’t think that’s the most efficient use of your clients’ money,” he said. Read
Appeals Court Says Cigarette Makers Are Racketeers May 22, 2009
Jacob Sullum Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the main thrust of a 2006 ruling in which U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler found the leading American tobacco companies guilty of a conspiracy to mislead the public about the hazards of cigarettes. The case, brought by the Justice Department during the Clinton administration, accuses the cigarette manufacturers of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act through a pattern of mail and wire fraud, consisting of public statements aimed at minimizing the risks involved in smoking. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld most of the remedies ordered by Kessler, including a prohibition on future false statements, a ban on descriptors (such as "low-tar" and "light") that imply reduced health risk, and "corrective statements" on cigarette labels and in TV and print ads regarding the health hazards of smoking, the failure of "low-yield" cigarettes to substantaily reduce those hazards, the addictiveness of nicotine, and the dangers of secondhand smoke. Although there is strong evidence that the tobacco companies lied, or at least omitted material facts, on those first three topics, Kessler erred in portraying the debate about secondhand smoke as a fake controversy invented by cigarette manufacturers. Because nonsmoking bystanders are exposed to much lower doses of toxins and carcinogens than smokers are, measuring the hazards of secondhand smoke pushes the limits of epidemiology. There is a substantial, irreducible amount of uncertainty about the meaning of studies that find an association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer or heart disease. Many people (including me) have expressed honest doubts about whether these associations, which are weak and usually not statistically significant, signify causal relationships. Tobacco company officials say they too have criticized the case against secondhand smoke in good faith, and the evidence to the contrary cited by the appeals court is pretty weak: In 1980 a Philip Morris scientist reviewed a paper concluding that secondhand smoke caused "significant damage to airway function" in exposed nonsmokers, and found "little to criticize," deeming the paper "an excellent piece of work which could be very damaging" to the industry....In 1982, a Philip Morris-sponsored research facility concluded that the "side stream" smoke composing the bulk of secondhand smoke is "more irritating and/or toxic" than the "main stream" smoke inhaled by smokers....And several TI [Tobacco Institute] advertisements and press releases claimed that an independent 1981 study showing "a significant correlation between lung cancer and secondhand smoke" suffered from a statistical flaw, yet the district court found that industry consultants told TI, Reynolds, and Brown & Williamson that TI knew at the time not only that the statistical error did not exist, but also that the study was in fact correct. None of this shows that tobacco company executives privately conceded secondhand smoke causes lung cancer or heart disease. Forcing people to remedy an unproven fraud by saying something they do not believe raises clear First Amendment problems, no matter how many times the D.C. Circuit inserts the word commercial before speech. A mandatory "corrective statement" regarding secondhand smoke is akin to forcing an oil or car company that raises questions about the impact of global warming to announce that Al Gore is right, or telling a chemical company that suggests you shouldn't worry too much about pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables that it has to start running ads promoting organic produce. If advertising and public relations become racketeering once a judge declares that a scientific controversy has ended, any company that comments on alleged risks associated with its product could be violating RICO without realizing it. Despite the compelled speech provisions, Kessler's injunctions fall far short of the $289 billion in disgorged profits the DOJ originally sought (nixed by a D.C. Circuit ruling that said civil RICO remedies have to be forward-looking and corrective, not backward-looking and punitive) or even the scaled-back demand for $14 billion toward a "counter-marketing campaign, national smoking cessation program, youth smoking reduction plan, and monitoring scheme." It's also significant that none of Kessler's racketeering findings required a showing that anyone actually was injured by relying on false or misleading statements by tobacco companies—something that is tough to prove, given all the countervailing information about the hazards of smoking and the difficulty of quitting that was available to consumers from the government, the media, private health organizations, and medical professionals. As I've said before, it is impossible to conceal matters of common knowledge, which is why smokers and their relatives historically had a hard time recovering damages from tobacco companies. Lately they've had more success, but it's not because they've been able to demonstrate that Big Tobacco fooled them into believing smoking was safe. I think it's mainly because the industry has acquired such a reputation for bald-faced dishonesty (precisely because of its long history of contradicting common knowledge) that jurors have started to overlook the fact that smokers voluntarily assume the risks associated with their habit. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133679.htmlThe Final Opinion
On August 17, 2006, after 6 years of litigation, 9 months of trial, hundreds of depositions and thousands of exhibits, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the Government had proven its case and found that the tobacco company defendants have violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Specific remedies were ordered.
The Executive Summary is 37 pages (and with full table of contents totals 68 pages, 463 KB). The full document totals 2,454 pages and has Adobe Acrobat bookmarks (redacted for public viewing, and incorporating errata as of August 16, 2005, the full document in non-Section 508 compliant form is 15.6 MB; the full document in Section 508 accessible form is 41.4 MB.)
Our Publication
The Verdict Is In: Findings from United States v. Philip Morris is a compilation of select quotes from 1,259 pages of Findings in a legal document over 1,700 pages long. Our goal in preparing this compilation has been to extract highlights of the Court's Findings that help tell the story in a direct and easily understandable way.
Gonzales and Tobacco New York Sun Staff Editorial
March 23, 2007 The latest allegations that President Bush and his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, "politicized" the Justice Department concern a lawsuit that the federal government brought against the tobacco industry. The Washington Post aired the charges on its front page yesterday, reporting, "The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case." The Washington Post quoted the leader of the Justice Department team, Sharon Y. Eubanks, as charging that "Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers." Let us just say that this is one allegation of politicization of the Justice Department on which these columns can speak with some authority, because we were urging it. In a March 22, 2004, editorial, we wrote, "the legal system in this country has gone so far off the rails that an industry can pay $246 billion in damages for marketing a legal product — and then still, a few years later, face more litigation, initiated by the federal government, seeking $280 billion." We called it "regulation by litigation." One of the things we warned of is that the government's theory of the case — "that it constitutes racketeering to make public statements that are out of step with prevailing medical views" — flies in the face of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, not to mention scientific innovation. We wrote, "The president talks a good game about tort reform. He makes it sound like he really understands the way this kind of costly litigation has a detrimental effect on jobs. But if he really wants to do something about it, the place to start is telling his attorney general to shut down this racket." We returned to the topic again on September 20, 2004, the day before Judge Gladys Kessler was scheduled to begin hearing United States of America v. Philip Morris, Inc. We noted that the federal complaint was "brought in part under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, a law passed in 1970 that was intended for use against gangsters, not businesses. The complaint, nevertheless, dwells on actions that took place in 1953, 1954, and 1964. The companies thus stand accused of violating a law that did not exist at the time they are alleged to have violated it." We noted that the complaint accused the companies of maximizing their profits. Yet had they failed to do so, they'd no doubt be facing shareholder lawsuits, some of them from the tobacco-stock-holding pension funds of the same state governments that sued the tobacco firms to recover health care costs. Most obnoxious, we wrote, was the Justice Department's idea that the tobacco companies, rather than the smokers or the federal government, should bear the entire cost of health care for smokers, even though there have been health warning labels on American cigarette packages since 1966, and the federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars over 70 years on crop subsidies to tobacco growers. The federal government earned revenue from taxes on cigarettes, and it sold cartons of them at military post exchanges. We concluded, "In his speech to the Republican National Convention in New York, President Bush spoke of the need to protect workers ‘from the explosion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.' One way for Mr. Bush to protect workers from such lawsuits is by telling his Justice Department to drop this one." In the event, Mr. Bush did not tell his Justice Department to drop this case. The "politicization" alleged in the Washington Post article is that the federal government's monetary demand in the case was dropped to $10 billion from $130 billion. After a lengthy trial, Judge Kessler, an anti-tobacco judge appointed by President Clinton, found no legal basis even for the $10 billion penalty. It strikes us that the most political action involving this case was the decision by Janet Reno in the Clinton administration, heavily supported by campaign contributions by anti-tobacco trial lawyers, to bring it in the first place. One of the reasons we have elections is to allow voters, rather than unelected career bureaucrats, to guide government policy. If the voters wanted a Justice Department inclined to regulate through litigation, they could have elected Senator Kerry — or any Democrat in thrall to the tort bar. Even under a Republican administration, the tobacco companies were forced to spend tens of millions of dollars defending this litigation. If there was any error in the handling of the tobacco case, it was that Mr. Bush failed to exercise sufficient political control over the Justice Department. He allowed a politicized Clinton administration racketeering prosecution of tobacco executives to go forward at great expense to the government and the economy even though it had little if any legal basis and even though it contradicted the president's compact with the voters at the polls. Read
Can a Federal Court Tell A Tobacco Company Not to Spin Off Its Subsidiary, In Order to Protect Smokers' Ability to Successfully Sue the Company for Damages? Dec. 05, 2006 By ANTHONY J. SEBOK Tobacco litigation has produced some of the most difficult problems in tort law that the nation has seen in the past twenty years. This may be partly a result of the incredible amounts of money at stake in the litigation: When enough money is at stake, lawyers tend to pursue every possible avenue in an effort to gain an advantage. Read
New York Lawsuit, Schwab
Altria, Reynolds Can Appeal U.S. `Lights' Case Ruling By Bob Van Voris Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA and other cigarette makers won the right to appeal a lower court decision authorizing a class-action claiming $200 billion in damages on behalf of light-cigarette smokers. A federal appeals court in New York agreed to review the grant of class-action status in a suit known as the Schwab case, for lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab. The decision, announced in an order today, delays any proceedings in the case, which a judge certified as a group suit in September. A trial of the claim had been scheduled for January. The suit represents the biggest potential legal liability for the tobacco industry since the U.S. government unsuccessfully sought $280 billion in a 1999 case against the companies. The appeals court's decision to review the case may clear the way for Altria's planned spinoff of its Kraft Foods unit. ``It's hugely positive,'' said Charles Norton, portfolio manager of the $64 million Vice Fund in Dallas, which owns Altria shares. ``Schwab is the last remaining significant legal challenge.'' On Sept. 25, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein allowed the suit to proceed as a class action, which could give the U.S. smokers involved more leverage in any settlement or produce larger damages at a trial. In addition to Philip Morris, the defendants include Reynolds American Inc., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco Co., BAT Industries Plc, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. and Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group Inc. Shares Rose Shares of Altria rose $1.52 to $85.09 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 2:53 p.m. Reynolds American shares rose 38 cents to $65.26. Vector Group shares rose 10 cents to $17.45. Loews Corp. shares fell 9 cents to $39.44. Shares of British American Tobacco Plc fell 5 pence to 1,439 pence today on the London Stock Exchange. After Weinstein's September decision, tobacco stocks declined, and William Ohlemeyer, Altria's associate general counsel, said the ruling would delay the company's planned spinoff of its Kraft Foods unit. Michael Hausfeld, the lead attorney for the smokers, didn't immediately return a voicemail message today seeking comment. ``Philip Morris USA looks forward to presenting its arguments before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as to why the class certification in the Schwab case should be overturned,'' Ohlemeyer said today in a statement. There are too many differences among light-cigarette smokers to permit them to join in a single suit, said David Howard, a spokesman for Reynolds American's R.J. Reynolds unit. ``A class in this case cannot be maintained under the law,'' he said. The case is Schwab v. Philip Morris USA, 06-4666, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit (New York). Read
Appeals court blocks ruling against tobacco companies Oct 31, 2006 By MATT APUZZO, The Associated Press WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court blocked a landmark judgment against the tobacco industry Tuesday, clearing the way for the companies to continue selling "light" and "low tar" cigarettes until their appeals can be reviewed. The decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also allows the companies to continue for now the advertising campaigns that a federal judge in August ruled were misleading. Without comment, the appeals court granted the tobacco companies' request to put Judge Gladys Kessler's order on hold. The companies have argued that her far-reaching ruling could cost them millions of dollars and lead to a loss of customers. In mid-August, Kessler ruled that the companies, including Richmond, Va.-based Philip Morris USA, had violated racketeering laws and conspired for decades to mislead the public about the health hazards of smoking. The judge ordered the companies to publish in newspapers and on their Web sites "corrective statements" on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine. She also ordered tobacco companies to stop labeling cigarettes as "low tar," "light," "ultra light" or "mild," since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them. William V. Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the appeals court stay was not surprising. "Judge Kessler's finding was that these companies have lied to the American people for 50 years," Corr said. "We're confident that, if it means going all the way to the Supreme Court, the government's case will be vindicated and the industry will be held accountable." The Justice Department declined comment. ReadU.S. appeals court postpones 'light' cigarette case Oct 24, 2006 A federal appeals court granted a temporary stay on Tuesday while it hears arguments about whether a $200 billion tobacco trial can proceed as a class-action lawsuit. ReadTobacco companies appeal "light" cigarette ruling 11 Oct 2006 NEW YORK - Altria Group Inc. and other major tobacco companies have asked a U.S. federal appeals court to throw out a lower court's ruling that would allow smokers to sue en masse over claims that they were duped into believing light cigarettes were safer than regular ones, court papers showed on Tuesday. ReadTobacco companies challenge class status of 'lights' case By Christina Cheddar Berk Oct 10, 2006 NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Philip Morris USA and several other cigarette makers filed a motion late Friday with a federal appellate court, challenging a ruling that created one of the largest class-action lawsuits ever and requesting a stay of all proceedings. Read
Senators urge U.S. to appeal tobacco remedy ruling
September 20, 2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Senators urged the Bush Administration on Wednesday to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of a ruling that allowed cigarette makers to avoid major financial penalties in the government's racketeering case against them.
"If allowed to stand, the decision on remedies in this case will have the effect of allowing the major tobacco companies to escape any meaningful accountability for the enormous injury their misconduct has caused," 15 Democratic senators, including Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Richard Durbin of Illinois, said in a letter dated September 20.
At issue is an August 17 ruling by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler that found tobacco companies engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to hide the dangers of smoking.
Kessler imposed some remedies, including ordering the companies to make "corrective" public statements about the health effects and the addictive nature of smoking, and banning them from describing cigarettes in ways that convey health claims such as "low tar" and "light."
But Kessler said that because of a previous ruling by a federal appeals court she was barred from imposing stricter actions that had been sought by the Justice Department, such as forcing the companies to fund a 10-year, $14 billion anti-smoking program.
A spokesman for the Justice Department was not immediately available for comment.
Targeted in the 1999 lawsuit were Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA unit; Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit, which has a tracking stock, Carolina Group; Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit and British American Tobacco Plc unit British American Tobacco Investments Ltd.
Kessler exempted Liggett from the remedies because it withdrew from the conspiracy in the mid 1990s.
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court remedy ruling, but was turned down by the high court last October. Read
|
