The State of Tennessee sought to recoup money owed to it under legislation related to the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) for cigarettes sold in the state. Under the MSA and Tennessee law, tobacco manufacturers who did not agree to settle were required to establish escrow accounts in states where they continued to sell cigarettes. In this case, an Indonesian tobacco manufacturer sold cigarettes through a series of intermediaries that eventually were sold to consumers in Tennessee. Neither the distributor in the U.S. nor the manufacturer paid any money into the escrow accounts as required by the MSA. The manufacturer challenged the case by claiming that Tennessee courts did not have personal jurisdiction over the company under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. After conflicting conclusions in the lower courts, the Tennessee Supreme Court found the company did not have the necessary minimum contacts necessary to establish personal jurisdiction. The court said the company did not purposely avail itself of the state's laws and the contacts with the state were attributable to uncontrolled third parties. The court upheld the trial court's ruling and dismissed the case.
State of Tennessee v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co., No. M2010-01955-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. 2013)
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.
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
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.
"This record reveals that NV Sumatra had no meaningful contacts with Tennessee. Beyond the act of placing its United brand cigarettes in the international stream of commerce, NV Sumatra's targeted behavior was minimal at most. It had no specific interest in Tennessee. The company's awareness - largely after the fact - that its cigarettes were being sold in Tennessee fails to evidence purposeful availment of the Tennessee market. Based on the attenuated nature and quality of the sales of NV Sumatra's cigarettes in Tennessee, we do not find that these sales amounted to minimum contacts sufficient for NV Sumatra to reasonably expect being hauled into Court in Tennessee. The International Shoe does not fit; NV Sumatra cannot wear it."
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 State of Tennessee sought to recoup money owed to it under legislation related to the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) for cigarettes sold in the state. Under the MSA and Tennessee law, tobacco manufacturers who did not agree to settle were required to establish escrow accounts in states where they continued to sell cigarettes. In this case, an Indonesian tobacco manufacturer sold cigarettes through a series of intermediaries that eventually were sold to consumers in Tennessee. Neither the distributor in the U.S. nor the manufacturer paid any money into the escrow accounts as required by the MSA. The manufacturer challenged the case by claiming that Tennessee courts did not have personal jurisdiction over the company under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. After conflicting conclusions in the lower courts, the Tennessee Supreme Court found the company did not have the necessary minimum contacts necessary to establish personal jurisdiction. The court said the company did not purposely avail itself of the state's laws and the contacts with the state were attributable to uncontrolled third parties. The court upheld the trial court's ruling and dismissed the case.