| 
						U.S. Supreme Court 
						declines to hear tobacco arbitration dispute 
   Send a link to a friend 
		[October 12, 2016] 
		By Lawrence Hurley 
		WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme 
		Court on Tuesday let stand lower court rulings allowing Pennsylvania and 
		Maryland to keep tens of millions of dollars in a dispute with tobacco 
		companies involving the massive 1998 settlement over deceptive marketing 
		and advertising of cigarettes. | 
        
            | 
			
			 The justices declined to hear appeals, filed by Reynolds America 
			Inc, Altria Group Inc and other companies that were part of the 
			settlement, of rulings that had favored Pennsylvania and Maryland 
			regarding the amount of the annual payment that those states should 
			receive under the deal. 
 The dispute centered on the 2003 annual payment that companies that 
			participated in the settlement were required to make to the various 
			states as part of the deal.
 
 An arbitration panel found that six states, including Pennsylvania 
			and Maryland, had not met their side of the bargain to ensure, as 
			required, that companies that were part of the settlement did not 
			disproportionately lose market share as a result of the terms of the 
			deal to competitors that shunned it.
 
			
			 
			The arbitration panel reduced the amount of money the six states 
			would receive for that year, but state courts in Maryland and 
			Pennsylvania subsequently ruled in favor of those states when they 
			objected. As a result of those rulings, Pennsylvania was able to 
			keep $125 million and Maryland was able to retain $50 million that 
			the companies had demanded be given back.
 [to top of second column]
 | 
 
			Under the landmark settlement reached with 46 states, the largest 
			U.S. tobacco companies promised to pay nearly $200 billion over 25 
			years to states to settle lawsuits over cigarette-related public 
			health costs. Among other provisions, the deal imposed restrictions 
			on the sale and marketing of cigarettes including barring ads 
			targeting youths. 
			The major tobacco companies worried that they would have to raise 
			prices on their brands in order to fund the settlement. So the 1998 
			agreement required states to pass laws that prevented cigarette 
			companies that did not sign the agreement from gaining an unfair 
			economic advantage over those that did sign it.
 (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
 
			[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |