PAM_4380_april_13_2011 - Litigation 4/13/2011 Master...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Litigation 4/13/2011 Master Settlement Agreement Impact on cigarette industry, cont. Next time: other impacts, political theory Next week: Obesity litigation Homework #6 due Monday Prelim #2: Friday, April 22 Covers information, taxation, litigation
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Impact on competition , cont. Consulting firm “to determine whether the disadvantages experienced as a result of the provisions of [the MSA] were a significant factor contributing to the Market Share Loss” The Brattle Group, Final Determination Pursuant to NPM Procedures Agreement S 19 in the 2003 NPM Adjustment Proceeding in the Master Settlement Agreement S IX (d) (1) ( C), March 2006 Recall specialized terminology: Original Participating Manufacturers (OPMs) Subsequent Participating Manufacturers (SPMs) PMs = OPMs + SPMs NPMs
Background image of page 2
Burden of proof of a ‘significant factor’ States’ position: a necessary (but not sufficient) null hypothesis is “that the impact of the MSA cost disadvantage on PM market share was less than 2 percentage points.” Necessary to reject (at customary levels of statistical significance) this null hypothesis to find for the Companies that the NPM adjustment should be made (↓ MSA payments) RJR argued:
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 18

PAM_4380_april_13_2011 - Litigation 4/13/2011 Master...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online