Pennsylvania will continue to fight the tobacco industry's lawsuit to reduce payments to the Master Settlement Agreement, the 1998 deal that requires tobacco companies to pay billions of dollars to offset public health costs from tobacco-related diseases.
The agreement called for tobacco companies to continue paying states for as long as they sell cigarettes. Payments to Pennsylvania typically yield more than $300 million a year.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane on Tuesday said Pennsylvania will continue to litigate those claims rather than accept reduced payments from the tobacco companies, who dispute charges dating to 2003.
“I could not agree to a settlement that contained unclear terms and financial projections,” Kane said.
Pennsylvania was among 31 states that rejected the settlement offer.
The major tobacco companies contend they were paying too much and states were not carrying out their responsibilities to seek money from smaller companies that weren't a party to the settlement.
The tobacco companies pegged Pennsylvania's share of the disputed payments at about $50 million a year.
State Rep. John Mahr, R-Upper St. Clair, a member of the Tobacco Settlement Investment Board, said Kane has yet to brief the panel.
“Obviously, tobacco settlement proceeds have had an important role in advancing health care, life sciences and non-smoking programs,” he said.
Debra Erdley is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-320-7996 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.