Big Tobacco’s claim against State of New York extinguished
The $800 million claim filed against New York asserted that in 2003 the state had erroneously collected payment on untaxed cigarettes sold on Indian reservations
September 12, 2013 at 05:09 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
An $800 million claim filed against the State of New York by Big Tobacco companies has been shot down, according to the Office of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman. The three-judge special panel presiding over the case also ruled that Big Tobacco is responsible for paying an additional $92 million in back payments for delaying repayment schedule.
New York was one of 52 states and territories that took legal action against cigarette makers in the mid 1990's in an attempt to recoup healthcare costs and stop a conspiracy to hide negative health effects. The result of this suit was the “Master Settlement Agreement” of 1998.
The MSA required Big Tobacco to make substantial escrow payments to the states involved in perpetuity. The amount of money owed would be based on the sales figures of taxable cigarettes within that state or province. The agreement also stated that Big Tobacco would be eligible to a discounted repayment schedule if several conditions were met; including if cigarette sales fell below a predetermined figure, or the litigation directly impacted sales figures.
The $800 million claim filed against New York asserted that in 2003, the state had erroneously collected payment on cigarettes sold at Indian reservations (which are not taxed), and owed them the money collected, plus a discount for unit sales dipping below a reasonable number as a result.
But the Sept. 11, 2013, ruling found that this was not the case, and ordered Big Tobacco to continue to repay the original agreed upon amount, plus interest on the money that had been withheld since 2003.
“Under New York's escrow statute, only sales of cigarettes on which New York state excise taxes have been paid trigger the escrow requirement. However, for well over 50 years, with the full knowledge of the participating manufacturers and specifically up to and including 2003, New York did not require state excise taxes to be paid on cigarette sales to or on Indian reservations,” a press release from Schneiderman's office said.
The ruling affects only cigarettes sold in the 2003, and cigarette manufacturers are expected to make similar claims on other years.
The New York Attorney General warned that cigarette manufacturers frequently attempted to falsify figures to exempt themselves from the payment plans issued with the MSA, and warned other settlement winners to remain vigilant.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250