Troubled Rollout of 'Reduced-Risk' Product Prompts Philip Morris Shareholder Lawsuits
Philip Morris is accused of misleading stockholders about the status of its development of so-called reduced-risk tobacco products.
February 20, 2019 at 04:07 PM
4 minute read
Philip Morris is facing securities class actions on both sides of the Hudson over problems in its efforts to develop a less-harmful alternative to cigarettes.
In Newark before U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, Philip Morris is accused of misleading stockholders about the status of its development of so-called reduced-risk tobacco products. In the Southern District of New York, three lawsuits claim Philip Morris gave investors an overly rosy assessment of its introduction of a reduced-risk smoking product called iQOS.
Efforts are underway to bring the New Jersey and Southern District of New York lawsuits into a single forum.
Some of the shareholder suits cite a December 2017 report from Reuters describing problems in clinical research that underpins Philip Morris' efforts to obtain approval from the Food and Drug Administration for iQOS. Others focus on the sale in February 2018 of 49,000 shares of company stock by its chief executive officer, Andre Calantzoupoulos, at $103.66 per share, and an April 2018 announcement that its sales of iQOS in various overseas markets were struggling. That announcement prompted a one-day, 15 percent decline of the company's share price.
In Newark, plaintiff Union Asset Management Holding AG, an institutional investor, won the role of lead plaintiff on Feb. 13. Salas also appointed the firm representing Union Asset Management, Pomerantz of New York, as lead counsel and made Lite DePalma Greenberg of Newark liaison counsel.
On Monday, Pomerantz attorney Jonathan Lindenfeld asked Salas to adjourn the deadlines for filing a consolidated amended complaint, the defendants' response, and briefing for any motion to dismiss.
Union Asset Management told Salas it considers the New Jersey case and the three New York cases to be related, and believes that the claims against Philip Morris should be prosecuted on a unified basis in one forum. The three New York cases were consolidated in November by Judge Ronnie Abrams, and motions for lead plaintiff appointment in that consolidated case are now pending. If chosen as lead plaintiff in that case, Union Asset Management will take the necessary steps to bring the cases together in one forum, Lindenfeld said in the letter.
Counsel for Philip Morris has consented to Union Asset Management's request to put the New Jersey case on hold, Lindenfeld said. In addition to Union Asset Management, two other plaintiffs—Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund and Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund—have moved for appointment as lead plaintiff. But Union Asset Management “has alleged a significantly greater loss than either of the two other movants, having incurred tens of millions of dollars in losses in connection with its purchases of Philip Morris securities,” he said.
The New Jersey plaintiffs claim the company failed to disclose to shareholders that problems arose in its research into so-called reduced-risk products. The suit cites a series of articles published by Reuters in December 2017 that described irregularities in the clinical experiments underpinning Philip Morris International's application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of iQOS.
Company filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had described the highly qualified scientists around the world who were conducting studies on iQOS in preparation for an application for FDA approval. But citing the Reuters report, the lawsuit said one investigator failed to obtain informed consent from test participants, while another submitted urine samples in volumes greater than humans are capable of producing.
The iQOS product is a heating device into which a consumer inserts a specially designed tobacco product that the company would sell under brand names that include Marlboro and Parliament. The tobacco generates an aerosol when heated.
Lindenfeld of the Pomerantz firm did not return a call seeking comment. A Philip Morris spokesman, Corey Henry, declined to comment.
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
© 2025 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 AllVolkswagen Hit With Consumer Class Action Alleging Defective SUV Engines
3 minute read'The Tobacco Industry of This Decade': Slew of Class Actions Accuse DraftKings of Creating Addicts
5 minute readSeton Hall Escapes COVID-19 Wrongful Death Suit After Student Found Dead in Dorm
4 minute readNJ Manufacturing Company Sues Insurer to Recoup PFAS Remediation Losses
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1President-Elect Donald Trump Sentenced to Unconditional Discharge
- 2JCPenney Customer's Slip-and-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left for a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules
- 3Products Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
- 4529 Accounts Are Not Your Divorce Piggybank
- 5Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
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