The Enterprise Has Functioned as a Continuous Unit

The Enterprise Has Functioned as a Continuous Unit

¶The evidence also convincingly demonstrates that the Enterprise has functioned as a continuous unit from at least December 1953,21 when the executives of five Defendants (Philip

¶Despite the apparent conflict of interest, a few law firms, particularly Covington & Burling and Shook, Hardy & Bacon, represented the shared interests of all the Defendants and coordinated a significant part of the Enterprise's activities.

¶For purposes of this lawsuit, the Enterprise was in existence as early as December 1953. No evidence was presented about the Enterprise prior to 1953.

¶Morris, RJR, B&W, Lorillard and American) agreed to launch their long-term campaign to deceive and mislead American smokers and potential smokers announced in the Frank Statement. See Findings of Fact Section III(B). For five decades, Defendants not only communicated directly and continuously with one another on matters relevant to the aims of the Enterprise, but also created, supported, and controlled a web of organizations, committees, and other bodies that facilitated coordinated behavior. For example, TIRC/CTR, which was created in 1954, existed until 1998, and the Tobacco Institute, which was created in 1958, existed until 2000. Jointly created and funded CIAR, which was created in 1988, existed through 1999. In addition, Defendants' participation in various other organizations, including many international organizations, continued for years. Defendants continue to participate in the TAC (formerly the TSMC and then the TRC) even today. Similarly, Defendants continue to participate in CORESTA, and the TDC (formerly ICOSI and then INFOTAB). See Findings of Fact Section III(I).

¶Over many years, Defendants, often used the Tobacco Institute to furnish advice, assistance, and even financial support to international industry-related groups and organizations as they worked on projects, publications, videos, conferences, briefing papers, and lobbying materials for the benefit of the Enterprise. See Findings of Fact Section III(D). For example, the Tobacco Institute funded and organized the College of Tobacco Knowledge, a series of annual seminars for employees of the tobacco industry and tobacco-related industries which addressed issues facing the industry at that time and sought to ensure presentation of a unified and consistent public stance on smoking and health issues. See Findings of Fact Section III(D)(5). Defendants utilized their outside lawyers to further the goals of the Enterprise, including attorneys such as John Rupp at Covington & Burling,

¶Donald Hoel at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Andrew Foyle at Lovells, and others at Chadbourne & Parke and Jones Day.

¶Finally, Defendants have continued to adhere to many of the exact positions formulated at the very genesis of the Enterprise -- such as denial of the adverse health effects of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke, denial of the addictive properties of nicotine, and denial that Defendants market to youth. See Findings of Fact Section V(A,B,F,G).

¶In sum, the Enterprise consisted of individual Defendants working together to coordinate significant activities for over 50 years through TIRC/CTR, the Tobacco Institute, and an array of other overlapping entities. Their activities were calculated to serve their shared objectives, including their primary goal of maximizing profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes. See, e.g., United Healthcare Corp. v. Am. Trade Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 563, 570 (8th Cir. 1996); Securitron Magnalock Corp., 65 F.3d at 263-64; Perholtz, 842 F.2d at 355; United States v. Local 1084-1, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n., 812 F. Supp. 1303, 1310-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Mitland Raleigh-Durham v. Myers, 807 F. Supp. 1025, 1055 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).