Comments on: FAMILY BUSINESSES http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/01/31/family-businesses/ Blogging U.S. vs. Philip Morris, Inc. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:30:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: tobacco observer http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/01/31/family-businesses/#comment-226 tobacco observer Tue, 01 Feb 2005 05:27:49 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2005/01/31/family-businesses/#comment-226 If you were to examine the trial proceedings so far you would have a terrible time deciphering what any particular lawyer, witness or judge meant, exactly, when they said, “teens,” “youth,” “addictive,” “smoker,” or even, “Philip Morris.” ======== Its pretty simple. According to the gov't, for purposes of this lawsuit the "youth addicted population" consists of all adults between the ages of 18 and 21 who legally smoke 5 or more cigarettes per day. If that definition defies all reason and common sense. . .well. . .what do you expect from a bunch of gov't lawyers? Philip Morris' structure isn't particularly elusive, though the fact that the name of this parent company was the same as two of its holdings was one of the main reasons for the recent switch to "Altria". Altria is a holding corporation that owns interest (ie shares) in a number of other seperate corporations, including SAB-Miller beer, PMUSA cigarettes, Kraft foods, and PM-INTL cigarettes. Like many large conglomerates, the exact nature of the companies it owns has changed over time with various mergers and acquisitions. But as such, Altria (formerly Philip Morris Inc) has never actually manufactured nor sold a single cigarette since its inception. By all accounts, Altria has never been involved in the day-to-day operations of any of its consituent tobacco companies or other holdings. So why Altria reamins as a defendant in this case is a bit puzzling, particularly when the other "parents" are not. If you were to examine the trial proceedings so far you would have a terrible time deciphering what any particular lawyer, witness or judge meant, exactly, when they said, “teens,” “youth,” “addictive,” “smoker,” or even, “Philip Morris.”
========

Its pretty simple. According to the gov’t, for purposes of this lawsuit the “youth addicted population” consists of all adults between the ages of 18 and 21 who legally smoke 5 or more cigarettes per day. If that definition defies all reason and common sense. . .well. . .what do you expect from a bunch of gov’t lawyers?

Philip Morris’ structure isn’t particularly elusive, though the fact that the name of this parent company was the same as two of its holdings was one of the main reasons for the recent switch to “Altria”.

Altria is a holding corporation that owns interest (ie shares) in a number of other seperate corporations, including SAB-Miller beer, PMUSA cigarettes, Kraft foods, and PM-INTL cigarettes. Like many large conglomerates, the exact nature of the companies it owns has changed over time with various mergers and acquisitions.

But as such, Altria (formerly Philip Morris Inc) has never actually manufactured nor sold a single cigarette since its inception. By all accounts, Altria has never been involved in the day-to-day operations of any of its consituent tobacco companies or other holdings. So why Altria reamins as a defendant in this case is a bit puzzling, particularly when the other “parents” are not.

]]>