State v. Philip Morris Inc.
Decision Date | 07 June 2007 |
Docket Number | 72. |
Citation | 869 N.E.2d 636,8 N.Y.3d 574 |
Parties | STATE of New York et al., Appellants, v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED et al., Defendants. Commonwealth Brands, Inc., et al., Nonparty Respondents. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
In 1998, the Attorneys General of 46 states (including New York) and five island territories and the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia signed a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with counsel for the largest tobacco manufacturers in the United States. The MSA was approved, as to New York State, by Supreme Court. The claims brought against the tobacco manufacturers included wrongful marketing and advertising of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Various states sought damages based on the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses. In exchange for a release of liability, the tobacco manufacturers agreed to make annual payments, to be allocated among the Settling States. They also agreed to extensive marketing and advertising restrictions. The Original Participating Manufacturers, as they are known, were later joined by more than 40 smaller tobacco companies, referred to as the Subsequent Participating Manufacturers (SPMs), including movants Commonwealth Brands, Inc. (Commonwealth) King Maker Marketing, Inc. (King Maker), and Sherman 1400 Broadway N.Y.C., Inc. (Sherman).
Lengthy and careful negotiations preceded execution of the MSA.
Not all U.S. tobacco manufacturers have joined the MSA. In order to neutralize cost disadvantages suffered by the Participating Manufacturers (PMs) relative to Non-Participating Manufacturers (NPMs), the MSA provides the Settling States with a strong incentive to enact statutes requiring NPMs to make annual payments toward the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses equivalent to those made by the PMs. The MSA sets out a Model Statute, which, if appropriately enacted, "shall constitute a Qualifying Statute."1 If a Settling State fails to enact, or does not diligently enforce, a Qualifying Statute, PM payments to that state may be subject to the Non-Participating Manufacturer adjustment (NPM adjustment).
Settling States that have diligently enforced their respective Qualifying Statutes are not subject to the NPM adjustment; instead, the adjustment is to be reallocated pro rata among Settling States that are subject to the NPM adjustment, reducing the payments they receive. A decision regarding one Settling State's enforcement of its Qualifying Statute could therefore potentially affect the calculation of amounts due to all other Settling States.
The Independent Auditor "shall be a major, nationally recognized, certified public accounting firm." PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is currently the Independent Auditor.
The Independent Auditor is responsible for determining whether or not PMs collectively lost market share to NPMs. If there is such a loss, "a nationally recognized firm of economic consultants (the `Firm')" will determine whether disadvantages resulting from the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the loss; its determination is "final and non-appealable." To allow the Independent Auditor to reach a determination about the NPM adjustment before the Firm makes its decision regarding the significant factor condition, the MSA authorizes the Independent Auditor, when information necessary for a determination is missing and not readily available to a party, to "employ an assumption as to the missing information producing the minimum amount that is likely to be due with respect to the payment in question."
The courts that approved the MSA retain jurisdiction to decide disputes about it, as to their respective Settling States, except as otherwise provided. At issue in this case is one of the exceptions, an arbitration provision governing the resolution of disputes about the Independent Auditor's calculations and determinations:
In March 2004, the Independent Auditor issued preliminary and final notices of calculation for payments due from the PMs for 2003. It determined that the PMs had suffered a market share loss and, employing the "missing information" provision,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. RD Legal Funding, LLC
...terms ‘arising out of,’ and most particularly ‘relating to,’ certainly evince a broad arbitration clause"), aff'd, 8 N.Y.3d 574, 838 N.Y.S.2d 460, 869 N.E.2d 636 (2007).In relevant part, the term "relate to" is defined as "to have relationship or connection." Relate, Merriam Webster (May 24......
-
McGraw v. American Tobacco Co.
...State ex rel. King v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., 145 N.M. 134, 194 P.3d 749 (N.M.Ct.App. 2008); New York v. Philip Morris Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 574, 838 N.Y.S.2d 460, 869 N.E.2d 636 (2007); North Carolina v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 666 S.E.2d 783 (N.C.Ct.App.2008), writ denied, ___ N.C. ___, 676 ......
-
State v. Philip Morris Usa, Inc.
...at 515 ("In sum, this dispute falls squarely under the arbitration provision of the [MSA]."); State v. Philip Morris Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 574, 580, 838 N.Y.S.2d 460, 869 N.E.2d 636, 639 (2007) ("The plain language of the MSA compels arbitration."); State v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2007 ND 90, 732 N.......
-
State v. Philip Morris
...affects the amount of MSA payment the State and all other settling states receive. See, e.g., New York v. Philip Morris, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 574, 838 N.Y.S.2d 460, 869 N.E.2d 636, 639 (2007) ("The plain language of the MSA compels arbitration."); State ex rel. Stenehjem v. Philip Morris, 732 N.W......
-
A. Basic Agreement
...a presumption that the parties intended to arbitrate a dispute), aff'd, 290 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2002); State of N.Y. v. Philip Morris Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 574, 581, 838 N.Y.S.2d 460 (2007) (holding that the scope of arbitration extended to the "disputes connected with the Independent Auditor's calcu......