Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc et al., Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, No. XXXX 0000000X (Idaho)
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, No. 400361/97 (N.Y.)
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc. 127 Cal.App.4th 1640 (2005).
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc case mentioned above. The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court’s stay order in August 2005. There is currently no activity in the case.
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc et al., Superior Court, Sacramento County, No. 97-AS-30301
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx was required to post a $12 billion bond if it wished to appeal the case. Because this amount threatened the company‘s ability to pay its April 2003 MSA payments to the states, the value of the MSA tobacco bonds dropped by 20% (XxXxxxxx et al. 2003, 26). Because of this threat to the solvency of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, the prospects for securitization dimmed. California cancelled the sale of its bonds, and New York proceeded with its $4.2 billion sale only after pledging to make up any shortfall in the tobacco companies‘ payments with the state‘s general revenue funds (XxXxxxxx et al. 2003, 18). 24 Specifically, a Tobit regression yields the following coefficient estimates, with standard errors reported in parentheses: Amount securitized in $millions = -1584 (500) + 268 (73) Share of settlement + 1236 (814) Cigarette excise tax in 1999. Although the Illinois Supreme Court subsequently overturned the verdict in the Price case in 2006, this incident highlights the continued financial stake that the states have in the financial well-being of the cigarette industry.
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc et al., Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, No. 97CVH055114 (Ohio)
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc et al., Superior Court, First Judicial District of Juneau, No. IJU-97915 CI (Alaska) Arizona State of Arizona v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al., Superior Court, Maricopa County, No. CV-96-14769 (Ariz.) Arkansas State of Arkansas v. The American Tobacco Co., Inc., et al., Chancery Court, 6th Division, Pulaski County, No. IJ 97- 2982 (Ark.) California People of the State of California et al. v. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc., et al., Superior Court, Sacramento County, No. 97-AS-
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc in October 1997. This case had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The settlement agreement required the participating tobacco companies to pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco’s portion of these payments was approximately $86 million; B&W’s portion of these payments was approximately $57 million. The settlement agreement bars class members from bringing aggregate claims or obtaining punitive damages and also bars individual claims to the extent that they are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud or misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as “general causation.” With respect to all other issues relating to liability, including whether an individual plaintiff’s disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as “specific causation,” the individual plaintiff will have the burden of proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the settlement. The Broin II cases arose out of the settlement of this case. On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation. As of September 30, 2013, there were 2,574 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.
Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc. 15.2 X.X. Xxxx & Associates, Inc. v. InternationalMedical Prosthetics Research Associates, Inc., 22.6m Yale Lock Mfg. Co. x. Xxxxxxx, 22.3a
