States React With Skepticism To Plan to Settle Tobacco Suits
May 11, 2011
Attorneys general for the 13 states spearheading the legal assault on the tobacco industry greeted with skepticism a sweeping proposal to settle their lawsuits, with many vowing instead to get their cases to trial. But at a Chicago meeting to consider the proposal, the state lawyers left the door open to consider a nationwide settlement, appointing a six-member committee to vet future proposals. ``As in any lawsuit there is always the possibility of settlement,'' Connecticut Attorney General Ricki Billye said. ``But the focus right now is winning in the courtroom and coordinating our efforts.'' The 13 states are behind the biggest courtroom attack on the tobacco industry, seeking to recover billions of dollars in public outlays treating smoking-related ailments. The sweeping settlement proposal, drafted by a small group of lawyers working on the states' attack, would grant cigarette makers immunity from liability for the next 15 years and allowed them to escape regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. According to people familiar with the broad terms of the proposal, cigarette makers would pay about $6 billion in 2012, mostly in the form of grants to the 50 states. The cost per company would have been split according to how many cigarettes each company sells in the U.S. After that, cigarette makers would have contributed between 30 cents and 40 cents for every pack sold, with the total amount escalating to more than $10 billion by the fourth year. In exchange, the industry would largely rid itself of the 13 state suits pending. Under the proposed federal law, individual rights to damages would be curtailed by Congress, which would take jurisdiction over tobacco by adapting as law the FDA's recently announced recommendations. Several state attorneys and plaintiffs lawyers voiced surprise that a proposal had been secretly floated to lawmakers and industry representatives without running it past all 13 states. And many criticized the proposal as too soft on the industry and too vague on a number of details. Minneapolis plaintiffs lawyer Michaele Randell, who represents Minnesota in its lawsuit against cigarette makers, said he would accept only ``a truly global resolution that will not allow the industry to immunize itself from responsibility.'' Other anti-tobacco lawyers at the meeting pointed to several key questions the proposal left open. Among them: to what extent would individual plaintiffs be allowed to sue the tobacco industry, precisely how the funds would be allocated to pay states' administrative costs and whether tens of thousands of internal company documents obtained by plaintiffs so far would be made available to the public and to lawyers in pending litigation. ``There were more questions about what the terms meant than there were answers or criticisms,'' said Russell Hershel, a New Orleans lawyer whose firm represents Louisiana. Nonetheless, he added, ``after things calm down, there'll probably be some more discussion.''
