DOCSLIB.ORG

Altria Group Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Altria Group Inc UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549-4561 (iDIVISION OF CORPORATION FINANCE April 2, 2010 Louana O. Heuhsen Vice President and Associate General Counsel AltraGroup, Inc. 6601 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Re: Altra Group, Inc. Incoming letter dated March 30, 2010 Dear Ms. Heuhsen: This is in response to your letter dated March 30,2010 concernng the shareholder proposal submitted tô Altra by Chrs Rossi. We also have received letters on the proponent's behalf dated March 30,2010, March 31,2010, and April 1, 2010. Our response is attached to the enclosed photocopy of your correspondence. By doing this, we avoid having to recite or summarze the facts set forth in the correspondence. Copies of all of the correspondence also wil be provided to the proponent. In connection with this matter, your attention is directed to the enclosure, which sets fort a brief díscussion of the Division's informal procedures regarding shareholder proposals. Sincerely, Heather L. Maples Senior Special Counsel Enclosures cc: John Chevedden *** FISMA & OMB Memorandum M-07-16 *** April 2, 2010 Response of the Offce of Chief Counsel Division of Corporation Finance Re: Altra Group, Inc. Incoming letter dated March 30, 2010 The proposal relates to acting by written consent. There appears to be some basis for your view that Altra may exclude the proposal under rule 14a-8(e)(2) because Altra received it after the deadline for submitting proposals. We note in paricular your representation that Altra had not received the proposal as of March 30, 2010 and that the e-mail address apparently used for delivery is the inactive e-mail address of the company's former corporate secretary. Accordingly, we wil not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if Altra omits the proposal from its proxy materials in reliance on rule 14a-8( e )(2). In reaching this position, we have not found it necessar to address the alternative basis for omission upon which Altria relies. We note that Altria did not file its statement of objections to including the proposal in its proxy materials at least 80 calendar days before the date on which it wil file definitive proxy materials as required by rule l4a-8G)(1). Noting the circumstances ofthe delay, we grant Altria's request that the 80-day requirement be waived. Sincerely, Charles K won Special Counsel DIVISION OF CORPORATION FINANCE INFORMAL PROCEDURES REGARING SHARHOLDER PROPOSALS The Division of Corporation Finance believes that its responsibility with respect to matters arising under Rule .14a-8 (17 CFR 240. 14a-8), as with other matters under the proxy rules, is to aid those who must comply with the rule by offering informal advice and suggestions and to determine, initially, whether or not it may be. appropriate in a paricular matter to recomm~nd enforcement action to the Commission: In connection with under Rule 14a-8, the Division's staff considers the information furnsheda shareholderto it by the Company. proposal .. in support of its intention to exclude the proposals from the Company's proxy materials, aswell as any information fuished by the proponent or the proponent'srepresentative. AIthoughRule 14a-8(k) does not require any cOIIUIications from shareholders to the . Commission's staff, the staffwil always consider information concerning alleged violations of . .. the statutes administered by the Commission, including argument as to whether proposed to be taen would be violative of or not activities the statute or rule involved. Thereceipt by the staff of such information, however, should not be construed as changing the staffs informal procedures and proXy revie.w into a fonIal or adversar procedure. It is importnt to note that the staff's and Commission's no.:action responses to Rule i 4a-8(j) submissions reflect only informal views. The determinations reached in these no- action letters do not and canot adjudicate the merits of a company's positîonwith respect to the proposal. Only a cour such as a U.S. District Cour can decide whether a company is obligated to include shareholder proposals in its proxy materials. Accordingly a determination not to recommend or take Commission enforcement action, discretionar . proponent, or any shareholder does not preclude a of a company, from pursuing any rights he or she may have against the cÒmpany in cour, should the management omit the proposal from the company's proxy materiaL. ., .~, j \ *** FISMA & OMB Memorandum M-07-16 *** April 1, 2010 Office of Chief Counsel Division of Corporation Finance Securties and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549 # 5 Chris Rossi's (Record Holder) Rule 14a-8 Proposal AUria Group, Ine. (MO) Written Consent Topic Ladies and Gentlemen: This fuher responds to the company March 30, 2010 no action request. Chris Rossi's Written Consent proposal was forwarded to company headquarters on December 10, 2009 to an email address that the Company's Principle Executive Offces had used at least 8-times in communicating with the undersigned on rule 14a-8 issues: "McKessy, Sean" ,Sean.McKessy~LTRIA.COM:;. These eight exhibits were included in the March 31, 2010 response to this no action request. The company failed to cite one precedent where a rule 14a-8 proposal was blocked because it was forwarded to an email address at a Company's Principle Executive Offces and which had been repeatedly been used recently in regard to rule 14a-8 issues. The company has repeatedly confirmed that Chris Rossi is a record hold over a span of years, but failed to do so for 2010. The company failed to address the legality or ethical ramifications of purportedly disabling an email address of a legal representative of the company in such amaner that the emaI1 address would mimc an active email address. In other words if the company did disable the email address in question - ths purorted disablement does not trigger a failure to receive message to any message sent to it. This is to request that the Securities and Exchange Commission allow ths resolution to stand and be voted upon in th~ 2010 proxy. Additional information wiD follow soon. ~"~_L_Sincerely, cc: Chris Rossi Louanna o. Heuhsen ,Louanna.O.Heuhsen~altria.com:; *** FISMA & OMB Memorandum M-07-16 *** Mr. Michael E. Szymanczyk Chairman Altria Group, Inc. (MO) 6601 W Broad St Richmond VA 23230 Dear Mr. Szymanczyk, I submit my attached Rule 14a-8 proposal in support of the long-term performance of our company. My proposal is for the next anual shareholder meeting. I intend to meet Rule 14a-S requirements including the continuous ownership of the required stock value until after the date of the respective shareholder meeting. My submitted format, with the shaeholder-supplied emphasis, is intended to be used for definitive proxy publication. This is my proxy for John Chevedden and/or his designee to forward this Rule 14a-8 proposal to the company and to act on my behalf regarding ths Rule l4a-8 proposal,. and/or modification of it, for the fortcoming shareholder meeting before, durng and after the forthcoming shareholder meeting. Please direct all futue communications regarding my rule 14a-8 proposal to John Chevedden *** FISMA & OMB Memorandum M-07-16 *** to faciltate prompt and verifiable communcations. Please identify this proposal as my proposal exclusively. Your consideration and the consideration of the Board of Directors is appreciated in support of the long-term performance of our company. Please acknowledge receipt of my proposal promptly by emaiL. lo/cr-107, f . cc: Sean McKessy ..Sean.McKessy~ TRIA. COM;; Corporate Secretary PH: 804274-2200 - - (MO: Rule 14a-8 Proposal, December 10,2009) 3 (Number to be assigned by the company) - Shareholder Action by Written Consent RESOLVED, Shareholders hereby request that our board of directors undertake such steps as may be necessar to permit shareholders to act by the written consent of a majority of our shares outstanding to the fullest extent permitted by law. Takng action by wrtten consent in lieu of a meeting is a mechansm shareholders can use to raise importnt matters outside the normal anual meeting cycle. Limitations on a shareholder right to act by wrtten consent are considered takeover defenses because they may impede the ability of a bidder to complete a profitable transaction for us or to obtain control ofthe board - which could result in a higher price for our stock. Although it is not necessarily anticipated that a bidder wil materialize, that very possibilty presents a powerful incentive for improved management of our company. A study by Harard professor Paul Gompers supports the concept that shareholder dis- empowering governance features, including restrctions on shareholder ability to act by wrtten consent, are significantly correlated to reduced shareholder value. The merit of this Shareholder Action by Written Consent proposal should also be considered in the context of the need for improvement in our company's 2009 reported corporate governance status: The Corporate Librar rated our company "D" with "High Governance Risk" and "Very High Concern" in executive pay - $12 milion for our CEO Michael Szymanczyk. The Corporate Librar said almost no mention was made in our company's executive pay discussion and analysis of the almost $9 milion of restrcted stock that vested for Mr. Szymanczyk. Whe other elements of executive pay are related to performance, this - the largest element - was simply predicated on tung up for work every day and represented an ineffective use of executive pay. Mr. Szymanczyk's pension increased by more than $4 millon, a fuher non-performance-related payment. Compare this to the pension plans of some of our 10,000 employees. Additionally, Mr. Szymanczyk's had $500,000 of personal private jet trips and $200,000 of his taxes paid for by o:u company.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Findley Davies Virginia CEO Pay Report Estimated Compensation
    Business Trends: Executive Compensation CEO ranking based on total The Findley Davies Virginia CEO Pay Report estimated compensation Compensation of CEOs at Virginia’s public companies with annual revenue of at least $1 billion COMPANY PERFORMANCE % Change % Change % Change Previous year % change Total 1 Year total Total Fiscal year Fiscal year Company name Executive name Base salary Previous year from Bonus Previous year from Total salary from Equity awards Long-term Other Total estimated total estimated from compensation shareholder return vs. revenues net income base salary previous bonus previous and bonus previous cash awards compensation compensation compensation previous (as disclosed return S&P500** ($ millions) ($ millions) year year year year in latest proxy) General Dynamics Corp., Falls Church Nicholas D. Chabraja $ 1,375,000 $ 1,300,000 5.8% $ 4,500,000 $ 3,500,000 29% $ 5,875,000 22.4% $ 25,619,046 N/A $ 404,603 $ 31,898,649 $ 15,634,585 104.0% $ 21,926,640 -33.78% 4.71% $ 29,300.0 $ 2,478.0 Norfolk Southern Corp., Norfolk Charles W. Moorman 950,000 800,000 18.8 1,759,400 862,400 104 2,709,400 63.0 9,639,106 N/A 132,239 12,480,745 12,637,254 -1.2 14,226,049 -4.30 34.19 10,661.0 1,716.0 Dominion Resources Inc., Richmond Thomas F. Farrell II 1,191,667 1,100,000 8.3 2,355,000 4,402,400 -47 3,546,667 -35.5 3,107,029 $ 4,380,000 626,421 11,660,117 12,930,286 -9.8 14,285,252 -21.14 19.16 16,290.0 1,836.0 Brinks Co.1, Richmond Michael T.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Tobacco Harm Reduction Hearing Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives
    CAN TOBACCO CURE SMOKING? A REVIEW OF TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 3, 2003 Serial No. 108–31 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house VerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 87489.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 87489.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 CAN TOBACCO CURE SMOKING? A REVIEW OF TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION VerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 87489.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 87489.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 CAN TOBACCO CURE SMOKING? A REVIEW OF TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 3, 2003 Serial No. 108–31 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 87–489PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 87489.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 87489.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE W.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Places to Launch a Career” Ranking That This Book Is Based Upon Requires Surveys of Career Services Directors, Students, and Employers Themselves
    The Best Places toLaunch a Career This page intentionally left blank BusinessWeek Fast Track The Best Places toLaunch a Career Lindsey Gerdes New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan New Delhi San Juan Seoul Singapore Sydney Toronto Copyright © 2008 by McGraw-Hill. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. 0-07-160114-7 The material in this eBook also appears in the print version of this title: 0-07-149655-6. All trademarks are trademarks of their respective owners. Rather than put a trademark symbol after every occurrence of a trademarked name, we use names in an editorial fashion only, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. Where such designations appear in this book, they have been printed with initial caps. McGraw-Hill eBooks are available at special quantity discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions, or for use in corporate training programs. For more information, please contact George Hoare, Special Sales, at [email protected] or (212) 904-4069. TERMS OF USE This is a copyrighted work and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw-Hill”) and its licensors reserve all rights in and to the work. Use of this work is subject to these terms. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the right to store and retrieve one copy of the work, you may not decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, reproduce, modify, create derivative works based upon, transmit, distribute, disseminate, sell, publish or sublicense the work or any part of it without McGraw-Hill’s prior consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices to Final Mem & Order\Appendix a Part 1.Wpd
    APPENDIX A Excerpts from United States v. Philip Morris USA. Inc., et al. — F. Supp. 2d —, No. 99-2496 (GK), 2006 WL 2380622, 2006 WL 2380648, 2006 WL 2380632, 2006 WL 2381449, 2006 WL 2380650, and 2006 WL 2380681 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2006). [The Table of Contents from the opinion itself follows. Italicized headings appear in whole or in part in this appendix. Note that the page numbers in this table of contents do not correspond to the pages in this appendix. Footnotes have been omitted or moved to the text in brackets.] TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................1 A. Overview ........................................................1 B. Preliminary Guidance for the Reader..................................5 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY...............................................10 III. CREATION, NATURE, AND OPERATION OF THE ENTERPRISE.....................................................15 A. Pre-1953 Overview–The Rise in American Smoking and the Status of Scientific Research on Smoking and Health ..............16 B. Creation of the Enterprise ..........................................18 C. TIRC/CTR -- Tobacco Industry Research Committee/Council for Tobacco Research-USA .........................................26 1. Selection and Approval of TIRC’s Scientific Advisory Board Members and Scientific Director .........................37 2. Research Activities of TIRC/CTR ..............................43 3. Public Relations Activities of TIRC/CTR ........................50 4. Publications and Public Statements
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Companies: Philip Morris Without Some of the Risks of Smoking
    56 RESEARCH Says: Cigarette Market Share 57 Chapter These companies remain some of the most Sweden Finland by country, 2008 Norway . This is thanks in part to their endless British Estonia “profitable in the world American Russian United Kingdom Tobacco Latvia Fed. 18 London, inventive ways of undermining and circumventing regulation. Lithuania Denmark Russian Federation Ireland Philip Morris USA/ Anna Gilmore, University of Bath, UK, 2011 Netherlands Belarus Philip Morris International ” Canada Poland Imperial Tobacco Group Germany Bristol, UK Belgium n recent years, publicly traded tobacco Nicoventures, a separate company dedicated to Czech Rep. Ukraine British American Tobacco Philip Morris International Slovakia Rep. Lausanne, Switzerland Austria Moldova I companies have consolidated through creating alternative nicotine products that offer Switz. Hungary Slovenia— France —Croatia Romania Imperial Tobacco Group privatization and mergers. Today there are five the same experience expected from cigarettes Bosnia & Herzegovina Serbia Kazakhstan Japan Tobacco/ major private tobacco companies: Philip Morris without some of the risks of smoking. Bulgaria Albania —FYR Japan Japan Tobacco International Philip Morris International Italy Macedonia DPR Portugal Uzbekistan China National International, Altria/Philip Morris USA, Japan New York, NY Spain Georgia Kyrgyzstan Korea United States of America Greece Tobacco Corporation Korea Estimates of revenues from the global tobacco Armenia— —Azerbaijan Beijing State-Owned Tobacco Company Turkmenistan Rep Tobacco International, British American Altria Group/Philip Morris USA Turkey industry vary widely but are likely approaching Richmond, VA —Malta Syrian Tobacco, and Imperial Tobacco. In addition to Tunisia Cyprus— China Japan Tobacco/ Other Arab Rep. Japan Tobacco International half a trillion dollars annually. Although Lebanon*— Isl.
    [Show full text]
  • One Disastrous Summer
    nb36p01.qxp 8/31/2007 8:11 PM Page 1 TOP STORIES BUSINESS LIVES NYSE puts a big Book clubs, bet on its new tech New York-style guru’s software as PAGE 43 it seeks to expand PAGE 2 ® WNBC seeks to shake up local TV scene with VOL. XXIII, NO. 36 WWW.NEWYORKBUSINESS.COM SEPTEMBER 3-9, 2007 PRICE: $3.00 7 p.m. newscast PAGE 2 The Plaza Bikini babes hand out freebies for delays Riese Restaurants NEW YORK, NEW YORK, P. 6 reopening Looking for fallout from credit crisis? until ’08 Just wait until next year Construction woes; GREG DAVID, PAGE 13 questions loom Slow growth pays on rehiring workers off for real estate MEN AT WORK: Jerry BY LISA FICKENSCHER information firm Gottlieb just got back SMALL BUSINESS, P 34 into his office, which is still a construction the much-anticipated reopen- zone, near the steam ing of The Plaza hotel has been pipe blast site. pushed back until next year, dash- ing a plan to celebrate the hotel’s david neff david 100th anniversary in grand style. “Oct.1 is such a significant date BUSINESS INTERRUPTION for us,” says the hotel’s general manager, Shane Krige. “It would have been fantastic to open then.” The hotel is now accepting reservations for Jan. 1. REPORT One disastrous summer As The Plaza gears up for its re- REAL ESTATE opening, tensions are simmering of them have yet to recover from a to return—to gutted offices.Walls, between the hotel union and new G Condo developers Around the city, series of random disasters, from the flooring, furniture and equipment management over who will work struggle to finance affected businesses steam pipe explosion in July to the had been removed by cleanup there.
    [Show full text]
  • Altria Group Inc
    ALTRIA GROUP INC FORM 10-K (Annual Report) Filed 3/15/2005 For Period Ending 12/31/2004 Address 120 PARK AVE NEW YORK, New York 10017 Telephone 917-663-4000 CIK 0000764180 Industry Tobacco Sector Consumer/Non-Cyclical Fiscal Year 12/31 Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 OR TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to Commission File Number 1-8940 ALTRIA GROUP, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Virginia 13-3260245 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 120 Park Avenue, 10017 New York, N.Y. (Zip Code) (Address of principal executive offices) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 917-663-4000 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of Each Class Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered Common Stock, $0.33 1 / 3 par value New York Stock Exchange Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Printmgr File
    2015 PROXY STATEMENT 2015 Proxy Statement Contents 1 Notice of Annual Meeting 2 Proxy Statement Summary 6 Questions and Answers About the Annual Meeting and Voting 10 Corporate Governance and Board Matters Director Independence Related Party Transactions Board Leadership Structure and Role in Risk Oversight Executive Sessions of Directors Committees and Meeting Attendance Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations Communications With Directors Non-Employee Director Compensation 19 Share Ownership 21 Item 1 — Election of Directors 26 The Audit Committee Report 27 Auditors 28 Item 2 — Ratification of Appointment of Auditors 29 Compensation, Governance and Nominating Committee Report 29 Compensation Discussion and Analysis Executive Summary Objectives of Dominion’s Executive Compensation Program and the Compensation Decision-Making Process Elements of Dominion’s Compensation Program Other Relevant Compensation Practices 50 Executive Compensation Summary Compensation Table Grants of Plan-Based Awards Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End Option Exercises and Stock Vested Pension Benefits Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control Equity Compensation Plans 64 Item 3 — Advisory Vote on Approval of Executive Compensation (Say on Pay) 65 Item 4 — Approval of Amendment to Bylaws 66 Shareholder Proposals (Items 5-11) 80 Appendices Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for Dominion’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be Held on May 6, 2015 Dominion’s Notice of Annual Meeting, 2015 Proxy Statement, 2014 Summary Annual Report and 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K are available on our website at www.dom.com/proxy Notice of Annual Meeting Dominion Resources, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Source: "Should Be Confined to VAT" (To a 1 5% VAT)
    Report from the „Seminar on the taxation of tobacco in the European Union", 28-29 September 2006 (Budapest, Grand Hotel Royal): by Tibor Szilagyi [currently working at WHO Secretariat] The conference has been organised by the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC), an international N'GO registered in the US. The website of this organisation (www. iticnei.org) previously acknowledged receiving support from tobacco companies. Audience: Around 50 people, representing primarily finance ministries and financial research institutes from Central and Eastern Ruropean countries. The only speaker from the Ruropean Commission has been Mr Alexander Wiedovv, director of indirect taxation and tax administration of the EC. The Chairman of the conference has been Prof Sijbren Cnossen of the University of Maastricht. Another key speaker Mr Adrian Cooper (UK), managing director of Oxford Economic Forecasting. Both have been actively put forward tobacco industry arguments with regard to taxation of tobacco products. The latter has published a ..special report" with this occasion, entitled ..Addressing the RU cigarette excise regime review 2006". The report ~ the introduction says ••- analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the RU taxation regime and ..considers how it should be reformed". The report considers the escalation of the black market as a sign of a ..destabilized cigarette market", which is primarily caused by tax and price increases. The report publishes a table (page 10) on the share of black market in selected RU countries, mentioning as source ..industry estimates". It considers, for example, 25% of the Hungarian or 35% of Lithuanian market as ..black", without even mentioning on which basis these estimates have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action ) No. 99-CV-02496 (GK) PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., ) f/k/a PHILIP MORRIS INC., et al., ) Next Scheduled Court Appearance: ) Trial (ongoing) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) WRITTEN DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MAX H. BAZERMAN, Ph.D. SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO ORDERS #471 AND #924 1 I. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 2 Q: Please state your full name. 3 A: Max Hal Bazerman. 4 Q: What is your occupation Dr. Bazerman? 5 A: I am a professor at Harvard University. I also consult with a number of for-profit 6 corporations and non-profit organizations. 7 Q: You have been shown a copy of U.S. Ex. 89,457. Do you recognize this to be a 8 copy of your curriculum vitae as of December, 2004? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: What were you asked to do by the United States as an expert in this case? 11 A: The United States has asked me (a) to outline theory from the field of behavioral decision 12 research relevant to potential remedies in this case, (b) to discuss applications of this theory to 13 business contexts, and (c) to apply that theory to this case. 14 Q: Based on this assignment, could you briefly describe the subject of your testimony? 15 A: The United States has instructed me to assume that it has established defendants' liability 16 and that defendants' misconduct continues to this day. Making those assumptions, and applying 17 theory from behavioral decision research as it relates to issues of incentive and bias, I conclude 18 that defendants' misconduct will continue absent significant Court intervention to change the 19 incentives and systematic biases operating on defendants' managers and executives.
    [Show full text]
  • US Food and Drug Administration Jurisdiction Over Tobacco Products
    Policy Forum Compromise or Capitulation? US Food and Drug Administration Jurisdiction Over Tobacco Products Stanton A. Glantz1*, Richard Barnes1, Sharon Y. Eubanks2 1 Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, 2 Attorney in private practice, McLean, Virginia, United States of America On June 12, 2009, the United States Congress passed the Family Smoking Summary Points Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (S. 982), granting the US Food and Drug N On June 12, 2009, the US Congress passed compromise legislation granting the Administration (FDA) authority regulating Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jurisdiction over tobacco products, tobacco products. The idea of FDA repealing federal pre-emption of state and local regulation of tobacco advertising, and requiring graphical warning labels on tobacco products. regulation of tobacco has broad [1], but not unanimous, support among medical N Past legislative compromises with the tobacco industry have led to short-term and public health professionals. This law public health gains at the expense of long-term progress. has many strengths (Table 1): it grants the N The law offers the tobacco industry an opportunity to rehabilitate its image and FDA general authority over tobacco products because they are now ‘‘FDA regulated.’’ products, including the ability to reduce N Tobacco interests that have violated US racketeering law are inappropriately (but not eliminate) nicotine, requires represented on the Scientific Advisory Committee that influences FDA improved warning labels on cigarette and regulations. other tobacco packages, and implements N The challenge for the compromise law’s advocates will be to accept the rules limiting marketing of tobacco responsibility for these problems and see that their negative consequences products to youth that the FDA issued in do not materialize.
    [Show full text]
  • News Analysis
    Tobacco Control 2001;10:91–95 91 Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.10.2.91c on 1 June 2001. Downloaded from NEWS ANALYSIS In the latest ad campaign, PM urges All articles written by David Simp- women to visualise a physiologically son unless otherwise attributed. challenging example of claiming Ideas and items for News Analysis power back from men: “See yourself should be sent to David Simpson at as a king”. Apart from being oVensive, the address given on the inside the implied suggestion that a king is front cover. superior to a queen may be as baZing to hundreds of millions of British Commonwealth citizens as it would have been to the female pharaoh from USA: getting it ancient Egypt who is portrayed in the wrong with women ad. But sex aside, the clearly intended associations of power, control, and the It is strangely reassuring how even the best things in life have caused angry biggest tobacco companies, able to critics to contrast the ad with PM’s hire the most sophisticated advertis- elaborate and expensive attempts to ing and marketing skills in the world, portray itself as reformed and socially continue to make mistakes. Philip responsible. Nowadays feminists are Morris (PM) started the year with a King George VI, the father of Britain’s current among the first to spot how tobacco comforting reminder of how even the monarch, smoked from the age of 14, had a cancerous lung removed in his early 50s, and companies exploit women, and they biggest of all can make blunders, died of heart disease at the age of 56.
    [Show full text]