United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

29 Citing briefs

  1. USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Clarification Regarding Defendants Obligation to Disclose Disaggregated Marketing Data

    Filed March 14, 2011

    Defendants mistakenly read the Order to limit the data produced This mismatch between the data obtained by the FTC and the data required by the United States to verify Defendants’ compliance with the Final Order, discussed above, is only exacerbated by Defendants’ limited reading of who can review the data required under the Final Order “[i]n order ensure transparency of Defendants’ marketing efforts, particularly those directed towards youth, and what effect such efforts are having.” 449 F. Supp. 2d at 932. Defendants give no substantive reason that this information should be confined to the United States’ lawyers and their supporting personnel in the Justice Department, without the ability to consult with economic, marketing, communications, statistical, and other experts in other Executive Branch components, or even Department of Justice expert witnesses.

  2. In Re: Inphonic, Inc., Wireless Phone Rebate Litigation - MDL-1792

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Dismiss and Statement of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss, 50 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint

    Filed May 21, 2008

    The matter or communication sent via the U.S. mail or interstate wires need not itself contain false or misleading information or evidence fraud; rather, “innocent” mailings – ones that contain no false information – may supply the mailing element. Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 715 (1989); see also Philip Morris, 449 F. Supp. 2d at 879-880. Case 1:06-mc-00507-ESH-AK Document 56 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 30 of 37 #3846277 24 fraud jurisprudence) & 327 F. Supp. 2d at 20-21 (recognizing RICO liability for aiding and abetting commission of predicate acts); BCCI Holdings, 56 F. Supp. 2d at 52-53. Because Plaintiffs clearly allege multiple predicate acts, “occurring over a period of years, which are clearly related by purpose and method,” a “pattern of racketeering activity” has been sufficiently alleged.

  3. In Re: Light Cigarettes Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

    REPLY TO ADDITIONAL Statement of Fact

    Filed April 14, 2010

    Defendants’ own internal documents demonstrate that the lights descriptor was placed on their light cigarettes to convey to consumers that they are healthier to smoke than regular cigarettes. DOJ, 449 F. Supp. 2d at 513 (¶ 2401) (“James Morgan, who was Brand Manager of Marlboro from 1969 to 1972, during the time when Philip Morris introduced Marlboro Lights, its first ‘light’ cigarette, explained the intended meaning of the ‘lights’ descriptor. Morgan stated that, from the very beginning, the ‘lights’ descriptor was intended to communicate that the brand was low in tar-as opposed to a brand that was lighter in taste.”)

  4. In Re: Light Cigarettes Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

    MOTION to Certify Class and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

    Filed March 29, 2010

    The district court held that the defendants, including Defendants herein, had “engaged in massive, sustained, and highly sophisticated marketing and promotional campaigns to portray their light brands as less harmful than regular cigarettes.” 449 F. Supp. 2d at 860. In addition to misleading brand descriptors such as “light” and “low tar,” the court found that Defendants’ public statements regarding light cigarettes were “blatantly false.”

  5. In Re: Light Cigarettes Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

    MOTION for Application of the Collateral Estoppel Doctrine with Memorandum of Law

    Filed November 20, 2009

    The DOJ action took over seven years to litigate and “some pundits have opined that [it] is the largest piece of civil litigation ever brought.” Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d at 34. The court issued over 1,000 orders and the trial itself took nine months.

  6. USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed December 20, 2011

    As Plaintiffs have detailed, providing this truly “corrective” information to consumers – and especially young people – will be vital to the effectiveness of the corrective communications at preventing and restraining further misconduct. See 449 F. Supp. 2d at 927; 566 F.3d at 1140 (“as the district court observed and the interveners argue here, requiring Defendants to issue corrective statements will prevent and restrain them from making fraudulent public statements on smoking and health matters in the future”) (other citations omitted). This will not be an element of the communications required under the FDA Act, regardless of the outcome of the pending litigation.

  7. USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al

    RESPONSE to MEMORANDUM 5906 Re. Retail Point-of-Sale

    Filed April 15, 2011

    Moreover, as this Court found, there is “no evidence that any Defendant has evaluated whether tobacco outlets participating in the We Card Program were actually not selling tobacco to young people or whether the program reduced the overall adolescent smoking prevalence rate.” 449 F. Supp. 2d at 669, ¶ 3165. There may be good reason for this lack of self-scrutiny: A recent article found considerable evidence from Defendants’ internal documents that the program’s goals from the outset were “first, to improve the industry’s image through publicity, and second, to reduce regulation and law enforcement activity focused on tobacco control, particularly stings of retail outlets that revealed the extent of sales to minors.”

  8. USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Vacate Final Order And Factual Findings Based on The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

    Filed April 4, 2011

    Indeed, it bears remembering that, in light of their massive misconduct and unwillingness to modify their behavior, the Court recognized that more far-reaching remedies, such as smoker cessation and public education programs would have “unquestionably serve[d] the public interest.” 449 F. Supp. 2d at 933. Particularly given that the Court was constrained, in light of the interlocutory ruling by the D.C. Circuit, not to impose these additional remedies, it would certainly ill-serve RICO’s purposes to prevent and restrain future violations to significantly weaken – or, as suggested by Defendants, dispense with entirely – those remedies that the Court was authorized to impose, and thereby allow Defendants to continue the very kinds of misconduct the Court has sought to prevent and restrain.

  9. USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al

    RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,,, Public Health Intervenors' Opning Brief Regarding Corrective Statements In Point-Of-Sale Displays

    Filed April 1, 2011

    Given the Court’s findings that these displays are one of “Defendants’ central vehicles” and “key method[s]” for communication, FF 3110-11, there can be no serious dispute that this particular remedy is vital to accomplish the Court’s goal to “prevent and restrain [Defendants] from making fraudulent public statements on smoking and health matters in the future.” 449 F. Supp. 2d at 926. On the other side of the coin, the government is fully addressing the contractual arrangements between the retailers and Defendants, and why, in light of those arrangements, this remedy is neither “administratively impractical,” Certain Def’s.

  10. USA v. Philip Morris USA, et al

    REPLY re Response to Document, Reply To Defendants' Response To The Government's Proposed Corrective Statements

    Filed March 16, 2011

    at 9, is also irrelevant, given that the Court has concluded that Defendants’ deceptions are likely to continue. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d at 909-10; see also Warner-Lambert, 562 F.2d at 753 (enjoining the misconduct in addition to requiring corrective statement). 11 these truths because a Court is requiring them to do so, but that is a fact, based on thousands of findings.