Page 1: 00000053
~ ." ~.~.~...,- ; LAW OFFICES
SHOO LHARI & BACON
• ~:~e~ ~ ~ (el~ 47~
"~ April 23, 1990
Produced _P~EG~'~~ __
~A ~" -
Arthur J. Stevens, Esq.
Senior Vice President -
General Co~sel ~bu~ ~:,ue ~ "L ~ Ph;~- .q" %
~Y98 ~ .
~rillard Tobacco Company
One Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016-5895
I am ~iting to review the points I
made during our recent
discussion of ~. I ~derstand that you have
no probl~with some
t~e of n~e change to reflect the basic
biological research which
CTR is sponsoring and has been sponsoring for
some time. I agree
wi~ those who feel the na~ Tobacco should be
left in the title.
Perhaps some~ing on the order of the Council
for Tobacco and
Biomedical (Biological) Research is appropriate.
~ issue still apparentl~ exists with
regard to the
m~ership of the Board of Directors.- First, I
think all companies
should be encouraged to have one of their
senior scientis~ on the
Board; Lorillard already has this. Second,
the appearance of
independ~ce and hence scientific merit will be
enhanced if several
meters of t~e Board have no ties to ~e
indust~. As you ~ow,
one of the objectives of Edell, and I am
sure other plaintiffs'
la~ers, has been and will be, to make it appear
~at C~ and the
SAB are no~ing more than tools or mouthpieces
for the indust~.
This objective is easier to accomplish if the
Board is comprised
of nothing but indust~ exe~tives. Most jurors
understand that a
Board of Directors is ultimately responsible for
the ~nning of a
corporation and for dete~ining its goals,
strategies. Despite s~stantial evidence to the
contra~, it is
difficult for jurors to accept that a scientific
adviso~ board is
an~hing more than that -- an adviso~ board
which can ~ but
not decide on the activities of the co~oration.
It is especially
difficult for a ju~ to believe that an indust~, as belea~ered
* I am enclosing a brief portion of a possible plaintiff's
opening statement dealing with the CTR issues discussed in
Page 2: 00000054
Arthur J. Stevens, Esq.~oduced as requ~ed by the CouPs M~ch ~ 1998 Order
Aprilpage 223' 1990 S~te of M~esot~ et al. ~ Phi~p Mo~ et ~
as the tobacco indust~, is ~ap~le of letting scientists spend
money freely on research which could fu~her implicate its pr~ucts
in dea~ and disease causation. Because of this perception, I
believe several ac~owledged business leaders, educators or leaders
of other professions would lend consider~le cred~ility to our
position -- a position which we in the indust~ ~ow to be t~e.
They would provide voices of independence and respect for jurors
to hear. I view the risks, if any, as minimal while the benefits
may be s~stantial.
At one time, in the early days of C~, it may have been
impo~ant to have a foyer indust~ executive sere as chai~an of
the C~. I ~estion whe~er that is so today. ~ effective
president can ~n the a~inistration of C~. ~ effective
Scientific Director and staff can handle the day to day scientific
affairs i.e., a~inistering and reviewing the research grant program
and making sure the SAB perfo~s its functions of decision-making
with regard to grant applications. ~at this proposal does
accomplish is to remove another and an unnecessa~badge of indust~
involv~ent. As it stands today, plaintiffs can point to the
chai~an, a foyer indust~executive and often a la~er, as ano~er
example of the indust~'s control over CTR. After all, jurors are
conditioned to view the chai~an as the CEO responsible to the
Board for seeing to it that the shareholders' (the individual
tobacco companies) interests are protected and the board's
e~ectations fulfilled. Is the current situation really wo~h
that misapprehension? I do not think so, and encourage the
abolis~ent of this sinecure. If it is felt that a chai~an is
needed to preside over board meetings, then I urge that the position
be rotated among meters of the board or, better yet, let the
president preside without a vote.
In talking wi~ Murray, I am convinced that a p~lic
relations fi~has been suggested only as a way for info~al advice
to be given to interested meters as to how the work of the C~
may be better understood by the p~lic and scientific co~uni~.
As you and I ~ow, a great deal of independent and outstanding
scientific research has been supposed by C~ for over 30 years.
This effo~, and the results, should be widely ~o~. The ~estion
is, how can this best be accomplished? Perhaps a p~lic relations
fi~ can make wo~hwhile suggestions. None of us should shy away
from the use of p~lic relations plans as effective means to
co~unicate wi~ ce~ain constituencies. Others are using p~lic
co~unications effectively, so should CTR. There is a great and,
I might add, accurate sto~ about CTR which should be told.
I make these suggestions because I believe they will
make it easier for us to accurately po~ray, in the courtroom,
just what C~ i~ and what i£ d~es. ~ence, ik will be more difficult
Page 3: 00000055
O0 H_Am aBACON
Arthur J. Stevens Esq.
April 23, 1990 ' PRIVILEGED AND CON~DEN~qAL
Page 3 ~oduced as requ~ed by the Coup's March ~ 1998 Order
State of Minnes~ et ~. ~ Phi~p Morris, et al.
Court F~e No.: C1-9@8565
for plaintiffs ~o m~scharac~er£ze the t~e ~ndependence and
objectivity of the scientific research effort.
Best personal regards.
Charles R. Wall
co: Dr. Alexander Spears
James R. Cherry, Esq.
Patrick M. Sirridge, Esq.