The tobacco companies challenged the calculation of their payments due under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to the State of Maryland. The companies sought to decrease their payments based on an adjustment contained in the MSA, while Maryland argued there was an exception to the adjustment which applied to the state, requiring full payment. In this matter, Maryland sought to enforce the exception through state courts and the companies, relying on the MSA, argued that arbitration was the proper forum for settlement of their calculation dispute. Agreeing with the trial court, which referred the case to arbitration on pretrial motion, the appellate court found the plain language of the MSA dictated arbitration regardless of a subsequent 2003 agreement modifying the 1998 MSA.
Maryland v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al., 944 A.2d 1167, Maryland Court of Special Appeals (2008).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
Governments or insurance agencies may seek reimbursement from the tobacco companies for health care costs related to tobacco. The most famous example is the case brought by individual states in the U.S.A. that resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Concurring with the other jurisdictions, we agree with the original manufacturers’ assertion. See New Hampshire, 927 A.2d at 512; see also Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002) (“[T]he presumption is that the arbitrator should decide ‘allegation[s] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.’”); Niro v. Fearn International, Inc., 827 F.2d 173, 175 (7th Cir.1987) (“[A] settlement agreement is an arbitrable subject when the underlying dispute is arbitrable, except in circumstances where the parties expressly exclude the settlement from being arbitrated.”)."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The tobacco companies challenged the calculation of their payments due under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to the State of Maryland. The companies sought to decrease their payments based on an adjustment contained in the MSA, while Maryland argued there was an exception to the adjustment which applied to the state, requiring full payment. In this matter, Maryland sought to enforce the exception through state courts and the companies, relying on the MSA, argued that arbitration was the proper forum for settlement of their calculation dispute. Agreeing with the trial court, which referred the case to arbitration on pretrial motion, the appellate court found the plain language of the MSA dictated arbitration regardless of a subsequent 2003 agreement modifying the 1998 MSA.