Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered on November 23, 1998, originally between the four largest United States tobacco companies (Philip Morris Inc., R. J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard – the "original participating manufacturers", referred to as the "Majors") and the attorneys general of 46 states.
the lower court erred, in that the tobacco companies were not immune from liability under the Parker doctrine: the states' supervision under the terms of the settlement agreement did not reach those parts of the agreement that were the source of the antitrust injury, i.e., cigarette pricing and production.
On November 23, 1998, Hawaii, along with 45 other states that had filed similar actions against the tobacco companies, entered into a "global" settlement. Under the Master settlement agreement ("MSA"), which memorialized the "global" settlement, the tobacco companies agreed to take steps aimed at reducing or eliminating tobacco use by minors ...
The state is seeking $58 million from tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, alleging that they underpaid what they owe Minnesota in a landmark 1998 lawsuit settlement over the ...
The Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation was created as a separate legal subsidiary of the New York State Municipal Bond Bank Agency to securitize a portion of the State's future revenues from its share of the 1998 Master Settlement with the participating cigarette manufacturers in order to make a $4.2 billion payment to State's General Fund.
That was the situation in 1998, when Philip Morris, along with several other of the world's largest tobacco companies, ended years of litigation with 46 states through a master settlement ...
The settlement includes those who received erroneous overdraft fees in their checking accounts, misapplied payments in their auto loans and even negligent foreclosure proceedings.
To the extent that a tobacco product manufacturer establishes that the amount it was required to place into escrow on account of units sold in the state in a particular year was greater than the Master settlement agreement payments, as determined under section IX(i) of the Master settlement agreement including after final determination of all ...