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: wire who wrote (3485)	3/30/1999 6:16:00 PM
From: Duker	Respond to of 6439

Philip Morris U.S.A. Will Appeal Loss in Portland Smoking and Health Case PORTLAND, Ore.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 30, 1999--Philip Morris U.S.A. said today it will appeal a jury's decision to award $80 million for a smoker's death, and the company believes there are ''significant and substantial reasons why the verdict should be reversed.'' ''There is no question that this punitive damages award is wholly unjustified and is grossly disproportionate to the amount of compensatory damages awarded,'' said John J. Mulderig, associate general counsel for Philip Morris. Today's verdict follows an industry victory on March 18 in the Ironworkers case in Akron, Ohio, where an 11-member federal jury, looking at claims similar to those in this case, unanimously determined there had been no fraud or conspiracy among cigarette manufacturers. ''We believe this verdict should be reversed because it is contrary to the evidence presented in the trial and contrary to Oregon law,'' said Mulderig. ''The law of Oregon requires that the jury must base its finding on the sale of cigarettes and the company's conduct only after September 1, 1988. The jury was improperly allowed to consider evidence prior to that date. We believe, for that reason, among others, the verdict should be overturned.'' Mulderig noted there was overwhelming evidence presented at trial that the smoker, Jesse Williams, was well aware of the risks associated with smoking even before he started at age 21. Even more importantly, Mulderig said, the jury was presented evidence showing that 11 members of Williams' family had quit smoking. The case was brought by the family of Mr. Williams, who started smoking at age 21 while he was in the Army. His family members testified that Mr. Williams, who died two years ago at age 67, was aware of the well-publicized health risks associated with smoking, including reports by the U.S. Surgeon General and Congressional warning labels on cigarette packs. However, the family members testified that he disregarded that information. Mulderig said the verdict ''appears to have been an emotional decision on the part of the jury, particularly given the huge discrepancy between the $800,000 in compensatory damages and the $79.5 million in punitive damages awarded. ''Lawsuits like this should be decided on properly presented evidence, not on sympathy. We expect a full review of the legal issues surrounding this case in the appellate court, and we believe we should prevail on appeal.'' In the past decade, there have been four other verdicts for plaintiffs at trial. Of those, three have been reversed on appeal. An appeal is pending in a fourth, the Henley case in San Francisco. Mulderig noted that ''we have said for several years that we must expect adverse verdicts in some trials, but we believe we should win most at the trial level. Of the cases that are lost at trial, we believe a majority of those should be reversed on appeal.''