09-24-2019, 08:56 AM
(09-24-2019, 08:18 AM)fenders53 Wrote:(09-23-2019, 11:07 PM)Otter Wrote:(09-23-2019, 08:09 PM)fenders53 Wrote:(09-23-2019, 05:41 PM)stockguru Wrote: JUUL did nothing wrong. The issue is copycat pods being made. The truth will come out soon Enough. MO will be back to $50 at some point.
The issue is also it's not too hard to make a case JUUL knew full well they were marketing to minors.
***
Anyone want to explain to me why that's not a REAL big deal for more than a few weeks?
Sure. From a legal standpoint, the burden of proof required to prosecute Juul is actually quite stiff. There is no presumption of guilt, and any allegations of illegal marketing to minors must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction or to a substantial certainty for civil penalties.
That’s actually quite hard to do, absent a smoking gun. Juul’s counsel will have its own witnesses coached well enough to make meeting those burdens of proof quite difficult. Unless there’s an unambiguous email chain out there about marketing to teens, it’ll be hard to make a case. Juul can easily argue that the flavors were designed to entice adult cigarette smokers away from those harmful tobacco products to a safer alternative.
State attorneys general know this, and will posture their cases as ones where public perception and lengthy proceedings are harmful to Juul’s business (political pressure). Eventually a negotiated settlement is reached. Money gets paid, the attorneys general hold press conferences and dream of future gubernatorial or senate runs, maybe legislators enact some sin taxes to keep the money flowing in perpetuity, and people keep buying products they want.
Source - am jaded litigator
I believe that or I wouldn't have added more shares. You're the attorney so I'll ask a question. I believe JUUL is safer, but can I claim my product is safer without proof it is safer? That seems like something you can litigate. A Federal criminal investigation has been launched against JUUL.
In the end, this part of the industry gets regulated and all the taxes they can squeeze. I'm just upset MO overpaid so much for only 1/3rd of JUUL. I doubt JUUL would have sold at all if they didn't smell trouble. MO is going to end up writing down half their investment in JUUL and that probably amounts to a year of cash flow. Moves like these are how you put your dividend in peril. I do have considerable trust in MO. It will be interesting to watch them dance through this minefield. It will be interesting to see if PM is smart enough to back away until the dust clears some.
Can't really cover constitutional regulation of commercial speech fully in a forum post, but typically the government is empowered to prohibit advertising that is deceptive, and require advertisers to make certain disclosures to prevent deception of consumers, as the government has a substantial interested in preventing deception of consumers. In this specific area of commercial speech, the government also has a substantial interest in safeguarding public health.
Juul has walked a fine line with its advertisements, implying strongly that smokers should make the switch to their product from cigarettes (which are scientifically proven to be harmful). I don't know that they have outright made a claim in advertising that Juul pods are safer than cigarettes. IIRC the FDA ruled early this year that even their existing advertising was deceptive. I think their biggest legal risk is from claims that they marketed to minors. I suspect they will be motivated to reach as broad a settlement as possible on those claims ASAP.
As for the value component as it affects MO, my recollection (think I read it on SA) is that the Juul stake was worth roughly $7 of MO's stock price when MO was trading around $50. So, even if you value Juul at $0, that's some indication of the risk to MO's 1/3 stake.
I wouldn't be surprised if a combined MO/PM look to snap up the remaining 2/3 of Juul at distressed firesale rates at some point in the future.