Sélectionner une page

This report for fiscal year 2018 showed that less than 3% of the main settlement funds were invested in such programs. « A few states have even used it in the past for the benefit of the tobacco industry, » the ALA noted in a 20th anniversary press release. North Carolina, for example, used 75 percent of the funds for tobacco production. The regulation also dismantled tobacco industry groups Tobacco Institute, the Center for Indoor Air Research and the Council for Tobacco Research. In the MSA, the Initial Participating Manufacturers (OPMs) agreed to pay at least $206 billion in the first 25 years of the agreement. This settlement process led to two other national agreements: while the bill was being discussed in Congress, some states began to settle their lawsuits against the tobacco industry. On July 2, 1997, Mississippi became the first. Over the next year, Florida, Texas and Minnesota followed, with the four states recovering a total of more than $35 billion. In 2009, the Family Tobacco Prevention and Control Act gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. Attorneys general have been actively involved in helping the FDA shape its regulator. Eventually, more than 45 tobacco companies entered into agreements with states established under the MSA. Although Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas are not signatories to the MSA, they have their own individual tobacco regulations that took place before the MSA.

Under the Eligibility Act, unsigned tobacco companies (also known as « non-participating manufacturers » or « NPMs ») are required to deposit a portion of their income into an escrow account.   The money in the escrow account acts as a reserve of liability.   If NPMs are successfully sued for cigarette-related damages, the money in the escrow accounts will pay the damages.   The payment of each NPM is based on market share and represents approximately the same cost per cigarette as the amount that PMOs must pay to comply with the MSA. Payments may only be used to pay for a judgment or settlement on a claim against the NPM, up to the amount that the NPM would otherwise pay under the MSA. All remaining funds in the escrow account will return to the NPM after twenty-five years. Another point of criticism is the presumed preference of large tobacco companies over small independent tobacco producers and sellers. Proponents of this argument argue that some price restrictions make it difficult for small producers to compete with « big tobacco ». Twelve states have successfully fought this argument in court over the past two years, and the application of the MSA continues permanently in the United States. [Citation needed] The original articles of trusts provided that NPM payments would remain in trust for 25 years, but allowed for the early release of a trust amount greater than the transferable portion that the Crown would have received if the NPM had been an NPM.

[32] The originally published trust laws allowed an NPM to receive a refund of the amount it had paid into the trust fund, provided that a tobacco manufacturer demonstrated that the amount it was required to contribute to the trust fund in a given year was greater than the Crown`s attributable share of the total payments that the producer should have made that year under the [ MSA]. If it was a participating manufacturer. [33] This « Allocable Share Release Board » was intended to create substantial equivalence between the NPM`s fiduciary duty under fiduciary laws and the amounts that NPMs would have paid if they had joined the MSA. [34] However, if an NPM makes the majority of its sales in a few states, it could receive a refund of these escrow payments beyond what it would have paid to each of those states if it had been an SPM. For example, an MNP that generated 50% of its revenue in Kansas (which has a relatively small transferable share) would receive a release of more than 49% of its full trust payment from its trust fund in Kansas. In other words, the initial provision to release transferable shares created an unintended loophole: it only worked as intended if NPMs distributed their products nationally. In those circumstances, the npS` total fiduciary duties to all states with similar tobacco laws were approximately in addition to the payments that those NPMs would have made under the MSA. However, if a NPM concentrated its sales on a few states with small percentages of assignable shares, the NPM could receive a refund of a large portion of its escrow payments. Because Kansas` percentage was so low — about 0.8 percent — NPMs focused their sales on Kansas and other states to get immediate fiduciary refunds from those states.

For PMS (Subsequent Participating Manufacturers), payments are determined by their relative market share compared to other PMS. For PMS that have joined the MSA within 90 days of its implementation, annual payments are determined by the number of cigarettes a PMS sells beyond the grandfathered volume – calculated as the highest market share of the individual PMS in 1998 (the year in which the MSA was exported) or 125% of the SMS MARKET share in 1997. If the sales volume or market share of an SPM is for inventory replacement, there is no need to make payments to billing statements. PMSs that have not joined the MSA within 90 days of its execution will not receive a benefit of an amount that is grandfathered. PMS that joins the Framework Settlement Agreement after this ninety-day exemption period must instead make annual payments based on all national SALES of PMS cigarettes for a given year. In addition to its annual payment obligations, in order to join the Framework Settlement Agreement now, an unrestricted PMS must pay « within a reasonable time after the signing of the Framework Settlement Agreement » the amount to which it is payable under the Framework Settlement Agreement during the period between the date of entry into force of the Framework Settlement Agreement and the date on which the PMS acceded to the Agreement, would have been obliged. [17] In November 1998, the attorneys general of the remaining 46 states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, entered into the framework settlement agreement with the four largest cigarette manufacturers in the United States. (Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Mississippi had already entered into individual agreements with the tobacco industry.) The four manufacturers – Philip Morris USA, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and Lorillard Tobacco Company – designated in the MSA as the Original Participating Manufacturers (OPM).

This Congressional remedy (1997 National Settlement Proposal (NSP), also known as the « June 20, 1997 Proposal ») for the cigarette tobacco problem was similar to the subsequent Multistate Settlement Agreement (MSA), but with significant differences. For example, although the congressional proposal would have allocated one-third of all funds to adolescent tobacco control, such restrictions do not appear in the MSA. [11] In addition, the congressional proposal would have mandated oversight by the Food and Drug Administration and imposed federal restrictions on advertising. Therefore, in late 2000, naag drafted a model law on smuggling to ensure that NPMs made fiduciary payments for cigarettes. See PX 116. The Model Contraband Law states that excise duty stamp agents are not permitted to stamp cigarettes for sale in the state unless the manufacturer becomes a PM under the MSA or is an NPM who makes all trust payments required by the Trust Act. [45] The Model Law on Smuggling provides a criminal penalty for wholesalers who sell cigarettes manufactured by NPMs that are not properly registered in the State and who make full confidence payments. As of mid-2002, only seven signatory States had adopted smuggling laws. By 2007, 44 of the 46 states of settlement (including Kansas) had passed these laws.

See K.S.A. § 50-6a04. The Attorney General of Kansas is responsible for enforcing escrow and smuggling laws. [46] In the largest civil litigation in the United States. Historically, states and territories have won a victory that has allowed tobacco companies to pay states and territories billions of dollars in annual payments. The money was used as compensation for taxpayers` money spent on tobacco-related diseases and loss to the local economy. The agreement also provided for the creation of an independent organization dedicated to the prevention of tobacco use among youth and included funds to create this organization, the Truth Today Initiative. .