Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Philip Morris - A Stock For Wealth Or Poverty (MO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (2094)	8/17/1998 8:28:00 AM
From: Geoff	Respond to of 6439

Two things: 1) a federal lawsuit, 2) settlement with the states and 3) an article on second-hand smoking (MUST READ!) 1) I agree with others here that a federal lawsuit of that magnitude would be literally laughed out of court. Numerous federal judges have stated, on the record, that they feel that the tobacco debate is best left to the Congress to legislate, not to the courts to judicate (if that is not a word, then use judiciate, but I like my word better). Many of them, leftovers from the two previous conservative administrations, remain loyal to the belief that tobacco is not an issue that belongs in the courts. A $1 Trillion lawsuit brought by the federal government would probably see public opinion turn against the current administration, and cast even more doubt as to the sanity of the public health community (Kessler, Koop, etc.). Mississippi AG Mike Moore, and others, feel that it was the extreme demands of the public health community, "overreaching" on Congress' part, that led to the demise of the original settlement. 2) As for the settlement with the states, it would seem that not settling makes sense. However, settling in a comprehensive manner with ALL of the states is a lot easier than going one by one. One fell swoop can knock out the largest and most dangerous lawsuits currently on the table. I would prefer one large settlement, which would allow all of us to assess such a charge to forward earnings projections and value the stock at the appropriate levels. A comprehensive state settlement would lend a lot more credibility to valuation models, and thus a more certain future for tobacco companies and their shareholders. 3) Excellent article! telegraph.co.uk But man oh man was that a big victory. It seems that late in the day someone woke up and realized it. later, geoff

To: Rarebird who wrote (2094)	8/17/1998 8:34:00 AM
From: Ralph Bergmann	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6439

As I said already, I don't know what I would do. On the other hand the situation could be a time window for the best possible settlement. Jurisdiction can change immediately. But, I cannot imagine that we will see a settlement below that of last year. The states would loose their face in the eyes of the public. The trillion dollar lawsuit wouldn't be wise in my eyes. Imagine this is much more than Iraq had to pay for the gulf war and it is probably (if you adjust it to the GDP) more than Germany had to pay to Israel as a consequence of the holocaust after the second world war. It is like in the usual business: If you extend your claims beyond a certain level, you will loose your respect and credibility. Another point: Yesterday I saw a lot of reports about the sex scandal of Clinton. My personal impression is that there is no other way for Clinton than to resign. You can turn it as you want, he lied, he lied , he lied. (If he admits today the sexual relationship). What would happen if Clinton would be replaced by a Republican, maybe after a new election(I know this would not happen because Al Gore would be next, but ...)? What effect would this have on the settlement? Does anybody think that the Republicans don't want to have the money from a settlement? How would they behave? Ralph