A federal judge in Maine yesterday denied class-action status to four lawsuits accusing Philip Morris USA of misleading smokers about the health risks of light cigarettes.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. concerns lawsuits that were filed in Illinois, Maine, California and Washington, D.C., alleging that Henrico County-based Philip Morris USA marketed light cigarettes as healthier than regular cigarettes in violation of various consumer-protection and false-advertising laws.

The lawsuits are among 15 cases that were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in federal court. In his ruling, Woodcock said the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for class-action status.

"While the judge has yet to rule on the remaining cases in the multidistrict litigation, we believe this decision should serve as a persuasive authority in denying class certification in those and other similar cases as well," said Murray Garnick, senior vice president and associate general counsel for Philip Morris USA parent company Altria Group Inc.

The federal court ruling in Maine yesterday was in contrast to a decision in a separate lawsuit in New Hampshire state court Monday.

In that case, a superior court judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Philip Morris USA over its marketing of light cigarettes. A spokesman for Philip Morris USA said the company will appeal that decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in the nation's history — a claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and promotions for many years — hinges on whether the Supreme Court will let the class-action case go to trial.

The court is likely to announce as soon as Monday whether it will hear the retail giant's appeal asserting that a single lawsuit cannot speak for more than 1.5 million employees.

Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following the Wal-Mart case for its implications for class-action litigation.
"This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but because of the economics of it, class-action certification is often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington lawyer Roy T. Englert Jr.

If the high court permits the Wal-Mart case to proceed as a class action, it will put enormous pressure on the retailer to settle, he said. The plaintiffs have not specified the damages they would seek, but given the size of the class, it could mount into billions of dollars.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the high court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action claims.

The Connecticut Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in a case where state lawmakers voted to end medical benefits for some impoverished legal immigrants. The justices are set to hear the case Tuesday.

A Hartford Superior Court judge ruled in December 2009 that a state law approved earlier that year violated the constitutional rights of legal immigrants by denying them medical benefits. The state appealed.

Lawmakers approved the legislation to save $9 million from a program serving about 4,800 immigrants who are elderly, disabled or are parents of needy children.

A 1996 federal law barred legal immigrants from receiving Medicaid until they had lived in the country five years. Connecticut had provided medical benefits to legal immigrants who'd been in country less than five years before last year's vote.

A case involving AT&T that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court this week has sweeping ramifications for potentially millions of consumers.

If the court rules for the telecom, any business that issues a contract to customers, such as for credit cards, cell phones or cable TV, could prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits.

This would take away one of the most powerful legal tools available to consumers in such cases, particularly those involving relatively small amounts of money. Class-action suits allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress, giving more heft to their claims.

Early returns show voters rejected Initiative 1098 being rejected with about 65 percent of the vote to 35 percent in unofficial returns.

Initiative 1098 would institute a new state tax on the top 1 percent of incomes to pay for education and health programs while trimming state property and business taxes. The campaign follows January’s overwhelming decision by Oregon voters to increase taxes for corporations and wealthier households.

"I'm particularly gratified the way Initiative 1098 is going down to defeat. I don't think we're going to see that kind of initiative back anytime soon," said former Senator Slade Gorton.

Initiative 1098 campaign was referred to as the "battle of the billionaires."

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his father are among the wealthy Washingtonians who joined labor unions and other traditional Democratic allies to support the tax-the-rich ballot measure. Opposing 1098 were Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Boeing, Russell Investments, Paccar Inc., software billionaire Charles Simonyi and members of the Nordstrom family.

And, big money was thrown into the fight. Supporters of the initiative spent more than $6.1 million, while the campaign against it spent more than $5 million of the $6.4 million raised.