Tobacco.org

• ROMERO v. PHILIP MORRIS INC., et. al. (PDF) 

To summarize, Plaintiffs have come forward with evidence that during the class period the tobacco industry exhibited an unprecedented degree of parallelism, beginning with the July 1993 consolidation of what had previously been ten price tiers into two price tiers, and continuing through twelve in-tandem increases in the prices of both premium and discount cigarettes. This multi-variable, multi-price-tier parallelism goes well beyond the price leadership within a single-tier market demonstrated by the cigarette industry prior to the introduction of generic cigarettes.

Further, the parallelism in the present case involves parallelism among market tiers which formerly had been in vigorous competition, resulting in a significant differential between the list prices of the cheapest cigarettes and the most expensive cigarettes. . . .

We hold merely that Plaintiffs’ evidence allows a reasonable factfinder to reject conscious parallelism as a plausible explanation, thereby leaving the competing inference of conspiracy as the most likely explanation for the parallelism proven by Plaintiffs.

Lorillard & Liggett

{46} In its answer brief, Lorillard points out that Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Leffler, testified during his deposition that he was unaware of any conduct by Lorillard during the class period that was not “completely consistent with conscious parallelism.” . . . In view of Dr. Leffler’s concessions, we conclude that Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden under Matsushita of coming forward with evidence that would allow a reasonable juror to exclude lawful conscious parallelism as the most likely explanation for Lorillard’s and Liggett’s adoption of parallel price increases. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment as to these two Defendants. We reverse the summary judgment in favor of Defendants Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, and R.J. Reynolds.

Jump to full article »

• NM court revives case against cigarette makers 

The state Court of Appeals has revived a class-action lawsuit against several cigarette makers for allegedly engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy.

Today's ruling overturned a 2006 decision by a Santa Fe County district court against New Mexico consumers who brought the damage lawsuit against tobacco companies, including Philip Morris Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Jump to full article »