Vibo Corp. v. State ex rel. McDaniel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
10-758
VIBO CORPORATION, INC.,
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS EX REL.
DUSTIN MCDANIEL, ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPELLEE,
Opinion Delivered 3-31-11
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO.
IJ-97-2982, HON. MACKIE PIERCE,
JUDGE,
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED
AND REMANDED IN PART.
ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice
Appellant, Vibo Corporation, Inc. d/b/a General Tobacco (General Tobacco), appeals
from the circuit court’s order (1) granting appellee State of Arkansas’s motion for summary
judgment; (2) granting the State’s motion to delist Brand Families; (3) ordering General
Tobacco to pay $296,846,112.93 in damages to satisfy its total backpayment obligation; and
(4) denying General Tobacco’s motion to enforce the order staying this matter pending
arbitration. We affirm the summary judgment.
General Tobacco is a manufacturer of tobacco products that markets and sells its
products to consumers in the United States, including Arkansas. In 1998, the Attorneys
General of forty-six states, including the State of Arkansas, as well as the Attorneys General
of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and four territories (Settling
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
States) entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with four tobacco companies
called Original Participating Manufacturers.
Under the MSA, the Settling States agreed to settle their respective lawsuits and
potential claims against the Participating Manufacturers arising out of certain past and future
conduct relating to their tobacco manufacturing businesses in exchange for the Participating
Manufacturers’ agreement to: (1) pay settlement sums to the Settling States based on their
volume of sales in the United States; (2) establish a national foundation dedicated to
significantly reducing the use of tobacco products by youth; and (3) implement substantial
changes in advertising and marketing practices aimed at promoting public health. MSA section
II(jj) requires any Participating Manufacturer that signs the agreement after the original MSA
execution date to make any payments (including interest thereon at the prime rate) that it
would have been obligated to make in the intervening period had it been participating as of
the MSA execution date in 1998. This payment term is referred to as the “backpayment
obligation.” Since the execution of the MSA in 1998, several other tobacco-product
manufacturers, or Subsequent Participating Manufacturers, have settled with the Settling States
under the MSA terms.
The MSA also imposed additional payment obligations on the Subsequent Participating
Manufacturers. Under MSA section IX(i)(2), the Subsequent Participating Manufacturers are
required to make annual payments to the Settling States based on their market share for the
prior calendar year. MSA section IX(i)(3) allows the annual payments due by the Subsequent
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
Participating Manufacturers to be reduced by certain offsets and adjustments, including the
Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment. Under MSA section IX(d)(1), in order to
protect the public health gains achieved by the MSA, certain payments are subject to this
Non-Participating Manufacturers adjustment. The Non-Participating Manufacturer
Adjustment is available to neutralize the cost disadvantage to the Participating Manufacturers
as compared to Non-Participating Manufacturers caused by the MSA. See MSA § IX(d)(2)(E).
However, this adjustment to the annual payment does not apply if it is decided by a firm of
economic consultants that the disadvantages experienced by the Participating Manufacturers
as a result of the MSA were not a significant factor that contributed to the Participating
Manufacturer’s loss of market share for the year in question. MSA § IX(d)(1)(C).
Additionally, a Settling State’s allocated payment from Participating Manufacturers is
not subject to a Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment if that Settling State had a
qualifying statute in effect during the calendar year immediately preceding the year when the
payment in question is due, and that state diligently enforced that statute. MSA § IX(d)(2)(B).
Offsets and adjustments, like the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment, could only be
applied against payments by Subsequent Participating Manufacturers that were due within
twelve months after the date on which the Subsequent Participating Manufacturer became
entitled to the adjustment. It could not be carried forward beyond that time, even if not fully
used.
3
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
In 2000, General Tobacco began operating as a Non-Participating Manufacturer,
meaning a manufacturer entitled to manufacture and sell cigarettes in the United States
without signing the MSA. On August 19, 2004, General Tobacco signed an Adherence
Agreement, where it settled with the Settling States and became a Subsequent Participating
Manufacturer under the MSA. Pursuant to this agreement, General Tobacco acknowledged
that it owed $232,959,704.59 as a net backpayment obligation, which covered its sales from
the time it began selling tobacco products as a Non-Participating Manufacturer in the United
States in 2000 through 2003. Also, under the agreement, an additional backpayment
obligation was to be imposed for sales made through the first half of 2004 while General
Tobacco was operating as an Non-Participating Manufacturer but before it signed the
Adherence Agreement on August 19, 2004. This figure was calculated by Pricewaterhouse
Coopers, the independent auditor under the MSA, to be $87,681.527.48. Thus, the total
backpayment obligation owed by General Tobacco was $320,641,232,07.
At the time the Adherence Agreement was signed by General Tobacco, it released
$78,327,388.54 to the Settling States from the escrow account it was obligated to keep as a
Non-Participating Manufacturer, which reduced its total backpayment obligation to
$242,313,843.53. According to the Adherence Agreement, General Tobacco agreed to pay
the backpayment obligation through a series of installments over a twelve year period,
beginning August 30, 2005, at a fixed rate of five percent interest. Although General Tobacco
timely made its first backpayment installment in 2005, it ultimately failed to honor its
4
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
agreement to satisfy its backpayment obligation and admitted that it did not make its entire
backpayment installment for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.
In 2006, a decision was made by the independent auditor not to apply the NonParticipating Manufacturer Adjustment to the Participating Manufacturers, including General
Tobacco, for the calendar year 2003 because Arkansas had in effect a qualifying statute and
that negated any adjustment under the MSA. After this decision was made, the State moved
for a declaratory order in 2006 that it had diligently enforced Arkansas’s qualifying statute, the
Tobacco Settlement Act, Act 1165 of 1999, during calendar year 2003. The State, in its
motion, claimed that this question of whether it had been diligent in its enforcement of this
statute was not subject to the arbitration clause of the MSA. The State further asserted that
the MSA provides that the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment is not applicable for
states that diligently enforce a qualifying statute.
In response, the Original Participating Manufacturers and Subsequent Participating
Manufacturers, including General Tobacco, moved to compel arbitration on the issue
concerning the independent auditor’s decision not to apply the Non-Participating
Manufacturer Adjustment to the Original Participating Manufacturers’ annual payment
because the State had in effect a qualifying statute. The tobacco companies argued that this
dispute fit squarely within the arbitration provision in the MSA. The circuit court agreed and
ordered arbitration on November 29, 2006. The circuit court, accordingly, denied the State’s
5
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
motion for declaratory order, granted the tobacco companies’ motion to compel arbitration,
and said that “this matter is stayed pending arbitration” in its order of November 29, 2006.
On July 29, 2009, the State initiated the current proceeding by filing a petition for an
enforcement order and declaratory judgment against General Tobacco. In its petition, the
State sought an order from the circuit court that General Tobacco had breached the terms of
the MSA and the Adherence Agreement and directing General Tobacco to pay all the monies
owed immediately, plus applicable interest. The State subsequently moved for summary
judgment on November 10, 2009, and requested that the circuit court direct General
Tobacco to make the payments it owed. The State also moved to delist the brand families of
General Tobacco. On January 14, 2010, General Tobacco moved to enforce the circuit
court’s order dated November 29, 2006, which General Tobacco argued stayed the entire
court litigation pending arbitration.
On March 11, 2010, the circuit court sent a letter to the parties in which it announced
its decision to grant the State’s motions for summary judgment, to delist the brand families,
and to deny General Tobacco’s motion to enforce the 2006 order. On March 24, 2010,
General Tobacco moved to amend or alter the judgment under rules 59 and 60 and raised the
issue of the absence of indispensable parties for the first time. On May 14, 2010, the order
granting summary judgment in favor of the State was entered by the circuit court. General
6
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
Tobacco filed a notice of appeal on May 21, 2010 and an amended notice of appeal on
May 27, 2010.1
I. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
General Tobacco first claims that the circuit court lacked the necessary subject-matter
jurisdiction to enter summary judgment against General Tobacco for backpayments
purportedly owed to all of the Settling States. It contends that under the express terms of the
MSA, the circuit court has jurisdiction only over MSA-related disputes between General
Tobacco and the State of Arkansas. Therefore, according to General Tobacco, the circuit
court only had jurisdiction to enter a judgment, if at all, for the amount owed specifically to
Arkansas, and not for the amounts owed to all other Settling States.
In response, the State contends that the MSA imposes a unitary payment structure
under which the Participating Manufacturers make a single payment into the appropriate
escrow account that is then distributed pro rata to each of the Settling States. For this reason,
the State argues that the unitary payment structure necessitates that the circuit court enter a
judgment for the entire amount owed by General Tobacco to all Settling States in order for
Arkansas to receive the full amount it is due. To find otherwise, the State argues, would result
in ridiculous consequences with all the Settling States taking a pro rata share of the amount
1
Both notices of appeal appealed only the May 14, 2010 order. There was no order
entered denying or granting General Tobacco’s motion to amend or alter the judgment; thus,
it was deemed denied on the 30th day after the date it was filed. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(b);
Ark. R. Civ. P.–Civ. 4(b)(1). No appeal from this denial was taken by General Tobacco.
7
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
paid into escrow that was due to Arkansas. Under this scenario, the State of Arkansas would
actually receive only a small percentage of the backpayment amount paid by General Tobacco
into the escrow account for breach of the Adherence Agreement.
General Tobacco counters that under the express terms of the MSA, the circuit court
only had jurisdiction over MSA-related disputes between General Tobacco and Arkansas. The
company points to MSA section VII(a), which provides that “the Court . . . shall retain
exclusive jurisdiction for the purposes of implementing and enforcing this Agreement and the
Consent Decree as to such Settling State.” (Emphasis added.) “Court” is defined in MSA section
II(p) as “the respective court in each Settling State to which this Agreement and the Consent
Decree are presented for approval and/or entry as to that Settling State.” Furthermore, MSA
section VII(c)(1) reads that “any Settling State or Participating Manufacturer may bring an
action in the Court to enforce the terms of this Agreement . . . with respect to disputes,
alleged violations or alleged breaches within such Settling State.” (Emphasis added.) Thus,
General Tobacco concludes that according to the express terms of the MSA, the circuit court
had exclusive jurisdiction only over the enforcement of the agreement as it related to
Arkansas, but not as to the other Settling States.
We first observe that it is elementary blackletter law that subject-matter jurisdiction
cannot be conferred on a court by a contract or agreement like the MSA or Adherence
Agreement. See, e.g., Servewell Plumbing, LLC v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 362 Ark. 598, 210
8
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
S.W3d 101 (2005). Hence, those agreements do not decide the issue of whether the circuit
court has subject-matter jurisdiction over all Settling States in addition to Arkansas.
We further observe that General Tobacco has incorrectly characterized this argument
as one of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the power of the court to
hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between the parties. Allen v. Circuit
Court of Pulaski County, 2009 Ark. 167, at 10, 303 S.W.3d 70, 76. In the instant case, it is
clear that the circuit court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the underlying dispute,
which is breach of contract. The real issue raised by General Tobacco appears to be one of
personal jurisdiction of the circuit court over all of the Settling States and the total damage
amount, rather than subject-matter jurisdiction. Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction which can
be raised at any time, including for the first time by this court sua sponte on appeal, personal
jurisdiction and the defense of indispensable parties may be waived by the parties. See Rowell v.
White & Assoc., Inc., 302 Ark. 225, 788 S.W.2d 489 (1990); Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(h).
We hold that the circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the issue of the
breach of the MSA and the damages owed to Arkansas occasioned by that breach. By
necessity, in order for Arkansas to receive its full pro rata share of the damages owed it for
breach under the unitary payment structure, the total amount of the damages caused by
General Tobacco’s breach and owed to all Settling States must be paid into the escrow
account. Then the Arkansas percentage under the MSA (0.8280611%) will be applied against
9
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
it. This is what the circuit court ordered in addition to payments to the other Settling States
from the escrow fund under the MSA.
II. Indispensable Parties
The issue then becomes the necessity to join the other Settling States as part of this
litigation. General Tobacco asserts that the circuit court’s judgment mandating payment of
the full damage amount was erroneous because the other fifty-one Settling States were not
joined in the Arkansas action. The company maintains that the State’s failure to join them as
indispensable parties divested the circuit court of the power and authority to enter a judgment
for the total backpayment obligation owed to all Settling States. This, it contends, is because
each Settling State had an interest in the total backpayment ($296,846,112.93) awarded by the
circuit court and failure to join them may impede their ability to protect their interests.
General Tobacco emphasizes that both the Declaratory Judgment Act, Arkansas Code
Annotated section 16-111-106, and Rule 19 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure require
the joinder of parties that claimed an interest in the subject of the action.
We first point out that the issue of whether the other Settling States are indispensable
parties is not preserved for our review on appeal. Although it does not appear that our state
courts have specifically ruled on whether a party may waive the defense of indispensable
parties under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 19, there are a few cases that brush up against
the issue. See, e.g., Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, LLP v. State, 342 Ark. 303,
310–11, 28 S.W.3d 842, 847 (2000) (refusing to address the argument raised by appellants on
10
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
appeal that the chancellor erred in failing to join them as necessary parties under Rule 19, this
court stated that it was “clear from the record that [it] was raised at the last minute and was
never ruled on by the chancellor. It is well settled that the failure to obtain a ruling from the
trial court is a procedural bar to our consideration of the issue on appeal.”); Taylor v. Hamilton,
90 Ark.App. 235, 241, 205 S.W.3d 149, 154 (2005) (the court of appeals declined to decide
the issue of whether an estate was a necessary party to a paternity action because the appellant
clearly waived that issue, stating that “[a]lthough subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived,
the failure to join a necessary party can be waived by the parties who have assented to the
court’s personal jurisdiction over them.”). Id. at 241, 205 S.W.3d at 154.
On March 11, 2010, the circuit court sent a letter to the parties informing them of his
decision to grant the State’s motion for summary judgment and to deny General Tobacco’s
motion to enforce the stay. On March 24, 2010, after receiving this letter, General Tobacco
moved to alter or amend the judgment as provided under Rules 59 and 60 of the Arkansas
Rules of Civil Procedure and raised for the first time the specific issue of the other Settling
States being indispensable parties under Rule 19. The actual order granting summary
judgment in favor of the State and denying General Tobacco’s motion to enforce the stay was
not entered until May 14, 2010. This order made no mention of General Tobacco’s motion
to alter or amend the judgment, and there is no order disposing of this motion contained in
the addendum or the record in this appeal. General Tobacco’s notice of appeal, which
appealed only the May 14, 2010 order, was filed on May 21, 2010. An amended notice of
11
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
appeal was filed on May 27, 2010, but this notice of appeal also stated that General Tobacco
was only appealing the circuit court’s order of May 14, 2010.
According to Rule 59, a motion made before the entry of judgment becomes effective
and is treated as filed on the day after the judgment is entered. In the instant case, because
General Tobacco’s motion to amend the judgment was filed on March 24, 2010, before the
entry of the judgment, it became effective on May 15, 2010, or the day after the date of entry
of the summary-judgment order. Additionally, according to Rule 59 and Rule 4(b)(1) of the
Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil, if the circuit court neither grants nor denies the
postjudgment motion within thirty days of the date on which it is filed or treated as filed, it
is deemed denied as of the thirtieth day. Accordingly, because there is no indication in the
record that the circuit court ever ruled on General Tobacco’s postjudgment motion, it was
deemed denied on the thirtieth day after the date it was treated as filed, or June 14, 2010.
Under Rule 4(b)(2) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil, a notice of
appeal filed before the disposition of a postjudgment motion like the one filed in the instant
case shall be treated as filed on the day after the entry of an order disposing of the last motion
outstanding or the day after the motion is deemed denied by operation of law. The rule also
states that such a motion is effective to appeal the underlying judgment, decree, or order. In
the case before us, General Tobacco filed its amended notice of appeal on May 27, 2010,
which was before June 14, 2010, the date on which its motion to amend or alter the
judgment was deemed denied by operation of law. Because of this, General Tobacco’s
12
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
amended notice of appeal should be treated as filed on June 15, 2010. However, Rule 4(b)(2)
also states that “[a] party who seeks to appeal from the grant or denial of the [postjudgment]
motion shall within thirty (30) days amend the previously filed notice.” General Tobacco did
not amend its notice of appeal to include an appeal from the denial of its motion to amend
or alter the judgment. Thus, General Tobacco’s motion to amend or alter the judgment,
which includes its request to join indispensable parties, cannot be addressed on appeal.
We observe, however, that even though General Tobacco did not raise the specific
issue of indispensable parties under Rule 19 until its motion to amend or alter the judgment
or appeal the denial of the motion by operation of law, it did maintain throughout the
litigation that the State was only entitled to Arkansas’s Allocable Share of 0.8280611% of
General Tobacco’s total backpayment obligation under the MSA, and could not adjudicate
the rights of the other Settling States. It raised this issue as one of subject-matter jurisdiction,
however, rather than failure to join indispensable parties.
III. Applicability of the 2006 Stay Order
We turn next to the scope of the circuit court’s 2006 stay order. In response to the
State’s motion for summary judgment, General Tobacco moved to enforce the circuit court’s
2006 order, which stayed “this matter” pending arbitration. General Tobacco urges that the
stay order applied to the entire litigation and not merely to the legitimacy of the NonParticipating Manufacturer Adjustment for calendar year 2003. Hence, according to General
Tobacco, the circuit court was foreclosed from considering the State’s petition for
13
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
enforcement order which led to the summary judgment at issue in this appeal. The circuit
court denied General Tobacco’s motion to enforce the stay as part of its May 14, 2010
summary-judgment order.
General Tobacco now contends that it was error for the circuit court to refuse to
enforce the 2006 stay because: (1) the stay gave no indication that it applied only to the State’s
motion for a declaratory order relating to calendar year 2003 filed at that time; and (2) the
issues raised by the State in the instant case depend on the resolution of issues which are
subject to mandatory arbitration.
In its November 29, 2006 order, the circuit court considered the State’s motion for
a declaratory order that it had diligently enforced the Tobacco Settlement Act, Act 1165 of
1999, and the tobacco companies’ motion to compel arbitration regarding this matter. At that
time, the State was specifically seeking a declaratory order finding that it had diligently
enforced Act 1165 during calendar year 2003, because section IX(d)(2) of the MSA provides
that the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment shall not apply to states that diligently
enforce a qualifying statute.
The State argued in 2006 that the question of diligent enforcement was not subject to
the arbitration clause of the MSA. The tobacco companies moved to compel arbitration on
the issue concerning the independent auditor’s decision not to apply the Non-Participating
Manufacturer adjustment because the State had in effect a qualifying statute. The tobacco
companies argued that this dispute fits squarely within the arbitration provision in the MSA.
14
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
The circuit court agreed, citing with approval the decisions of the twenty-two of the twentythree other states that had considered this same issue. The circuit court denied the State’s
motion for a declaratory order on November 29, 2006, and granted the tobacco companies’
motion to compel arbitration, and stated in its order that “this matter is stayed pending
arbitration.”
When it denied General Tobacco’s subsequent motion to enforce the stay, the circuit
court made the following relevant findings in its 2010 summary-judgment order: (1) the
November 29, 2006 order related to a separate claim that the State raised against all
Participating Manufacturers—whether Arkansas had “diligently enforced” Act 1165 of 1999
during 2003 and, if so, whether an Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment could be
allocated to Arkansas’s Allocated Share for that year; (2) the November 29, 2006 order did
not stay the entirety of the docket pending arbitration; (3) the motions to compel arbitration
filed by the Participating Manufacturers requested only that the court stay the litigation “with
respect to the State’s motion for declaratory order;” (4) in its 2006 order, the circuit court
clearly stayed further proceedings on the motion for declaratory relief filed by the State with
respect to the 2003 Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment; and (5) the court did not
preclude the State from bringing subsequent petitions or motions, like the one in the case at
bar, to enforce the terms of the MSA.
General Tobacco’s now disputes this order by the circuit court and argues that the
2006 stay gave no indication that it applied only to the State’s motion for a declaratory order
15
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
filed at that time. Therefore, it maintains, the stay applies to the State’s petition brought
against General Tobacco three years later in 2009. We disagree. The 2006 order was
manifestly responding to the State’s motion for a declaratory order and the tobacco
companies’ motion to compel arbitration relating to what occurred in the 2003 calendar year.
The circuit court said in its May 14, 2010 order that the motions to compel arbitration filed
by the Participating Manufacturers requested only that the court stay the litigation “with
respect to the State’s motion for declaratory order.” That decides the matter in our judgment.
Simply because the order contained the language “this matter is stayed pending arbitration,”
does not mean that the order applied to every issue raised between the parties in subsequent
petitions over the next three years.
General Tobacco also asserts that the circuit court should enforce its 2006 stay order
broadly because the claims asserted in the State’s 2009 petition and subsequent motion for
summary judgment depend on resolution of issues that are subject to mandatory arbitration
under the MSA § XI(c). General Tobacco contends that the calculation and determination
of the amount allegedly owed by General Tobacco in backpayments first requires resolution
of the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment disputes, including the dispute over the
2003 adjustment that was subject to the circuit court’s 2006 order. Accordingly, argues
General Tobacco, the 2006 stay order should have been enforced by the circuit court to stay
all matters pending the arbitrators’ decision relating to the 2003 matter.
16
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
The State’s argument that the 2006 stay order does not apply to the current litigation
is persuasive. In addition to the fact that the 2006 order stayed the litigation “with respect to
the State’s motion for declaratory order,” the issue in the present litigation is different. The
issue before the circuit court in 2006 directly related to the decision by the independent
auditor not to apply the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment because the State had
a qualifying statute (Act 1165 of 1999) in effect, while the issue before the circuit court in the
instant case involved the failure of General Tobacco to honor its backpayment obligation and
the State’s actions to enforce that obligation under the MSA and Adherence Agreement. The
issues are clearly not the same, and the circuit court correctly declined to enforce the 2006
stay order broadly to encompass the current dispute.
IV. Set Offs and Adjustments
The circuit court, after finding that the 2006 stay order was not applicable to the
current action, also found that General Tobacco was not entitled to set off its alleged NonParticipating Manufacturer Adjustments, which are contingent and unliquidated, against its
backpayment obligations. The State agrees and asserts that the Non-Participating
Manufacturer Adjustment is contingent and unliquidated because whether General Tobacco
is entitled to the adjustment at all, and if so, how much, is contingent upon a decision made
by the arbitration panel which, as of today, has not been made.
General Tobacco disagrees and claims that in making this determination, the circuit
court fundamentally misunderstood the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment and the
17
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
terms of the MSA. General Tobacco goes on to argue that its outstanding backpayment
obligations should also be deemed unliquidated or contingent because the Non-Participating
Manufacturer Adjustments have not yet been determined or applied to its backpayment
obligations.
This court has said that “[a] contingent liability cannot be set off against an
uncontingent liability.” Stokes v. Home Life Ins. Co., 187 Ark. 972, 63 S.W.2d 657, 658
(1933). A “contingent liability” is a financial or pecuniary obligation that depends on the
occurrence of a future and uncertain event. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). An
“unliquidated claim” is a claim in which the amount owed has not been determined while
a “liquidated claim” is a claim for an amount previously agreed upon by the parties or that can
be precisely determined by operation of law or by the terms of the parties’ agreement. Id.
The State is correct that the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment advanced by
General Tobacco is both contingent and unliquidated, and, therefore, cannot be applied to
set off the backpayment obligation, which is known and fixed. The Non-Participating
Manufacturer Adjustment is contingent, as recognized by the circuit court and the State, upon
first a determination and calculation made by the independent auditor that the adjustment
applies and then, if a dispute arises as to this finding, upon a determination by the panel of
arbitrators that the adjustment applies in a certain year. Further, this adjustment is unliquidated
because the amount of the adjustment has not been determined. For instance, the panel of
arbitrators considering the applicability of the adjustment for 2003, which was ordered to
18
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
arbitration by the circuit court’s 2006 order, could potentially determine that General
Tobacco is entitled to all, some, or none of that adjustment.
In addition, General Tobacco’s argument that the circuit court’s reasoning
misunderstands the nature of the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment is flawed.
Essentially, General Tobacco is proposing that because the adjustment has yet to be applied
to the 2003 backpayment obligation, the backpayment obligation itself is unliquidated. That
is not correct. The total amount of General Tobacco’s backpayment obligation was agreed
to by the parties when they signed and executed the Adherence Agreement in 2004. In the
event that any Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment applies, under the terms of the
Adherence Agreement, the amount of the backpayment obligation due each year can be
precisely calculated with that adjustment. In short, the backpayment obligations themselves
were liquidated and uncontingent, and we so hold.
V. Discovery
General Tobacco next claims that the circuit court erred in refusing to provide it with
an opportunity to take discovery prior to considering the State’s motion for summary
judgment. The company asserts that it refrained from taking discovery because (1) it
legitimately believed that the entire matter was stayed under the 2006 order; (2) discovery
could have led to a waiver of General Tobacco’s right to arbitration; and (3) it was concerned
that instigating the discovery process would interrupt ongoing settlement negotiations. In
short, General Tobacco contends that under Rule 56 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil
19
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
Procedure, the circuit court should have given it an opportunity to conduct discovery after
ruling that the case was not stayed pursuant to its 2006 order.
Rule 56(f) reads as follows:
(f) When Affidavits Are Unavailable. Should it appear from the affidavits of a
party opposing the motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts
essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment
or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be
taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.
Ark. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
Whether to grant a continuance to allow for further discovery under Rule 56(f) is a
matter within the discretion of the court. Alexander v. Flake, 322 Ark. 239, 249, 910 S.W.2d
190, 195 (1995). In order for this court to reverse the trial court’s denial of the continuance,
the appellant must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that the additional
discovery would have changed the outcome of the case. Id. Under Rule 56(f), the party
opposing the motion for summary judgment is required to present an affidavit setting forth
the problems the party is having gathering facts to support its opposition to summary
judgment. See Jenkins v. Int’l Paper Co., 318 Ark. 663, 887 S.W.2d 300 (1994).
As required by Rule 56(f), General Tobacco included the affidavit of Ronald Denman,
the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of General Tobacco, in support of its
opposition to summary judgment. Ronald Denman averred that in the period since the State’s
petition was filed, General Tobacco refrained from taking discovery because the case had been
stayed pending arbitration and the State’s claims are dependent upon issues that are to be
20
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
decided in the arbitration and, further, because General Tobacco had been in continuous
negotiations with the State regarding potential settlement and did not want discovery to
interfere with those negotiations.
In support of its argument, General Tobacco cites this court to an Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals case which concludes that a party seeking arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act may be found to have waived his right to arbitration if he (1) knew of an
existing right to arbitration; (2) acted inconsistently with that right; and (3) prejudiced the
other party by these inconsistent acts. Kelly v. Golden, 352 F.3d 344, 349 (8th Cir. 2003). We
have held that Eighth Circuit decisions, while they may lend guidance to this court, are not
binding authority. Custom Microsystems, Inc. v. Blake, 344 Ark. 536, 42 S.W.3d 453 (2001).
We disagree that the circuit court abused its discretion by not affording General
Tobacco additional time to engage in discovery before entering its summary-judgment order.
Almost four years had passed from the circuit court’s 2006 order compelling arbitration and
staying the matter pending the panel’s decision on the 2003 adjustment. The circuit court, as
already stated in this opinion, found that it was clear the 2006 stay order only related to the
2003 adjustment. If General Tobacco believed the 2006 stay order precluded discovery on
other adjustments or on the breach of its backpayment obligation, it should have petitioned
the circuit court on this point before 2010. It failed to do so. We cannot say under these
circumstances that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying discovery. Jenkins v. Int’l
Paper Co., supra.
21
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
VI. Summary Judgment
General Tobacco next urges that numerous genuine issues of material fact in
connection with their defenses remain to be resolved, making a grant of summary judgment
inappropriate. The law is well settled regarding the standard of review used by this court in
reviewing a grant of summary judgment.
A trial court will grant summary judgment only when it is apparent that no genuine
issues of material fact exist requiring litigation and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Brock v. Townsell, 2009 Ark. 224, 309 S.W.3d 179, 185.
The burden of proof shifts to the opposing party once the moving party establishes
a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, and the opposing party must
demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact. Id. After reviewing the
undisputed facts, the trial court should deny summary judgment if, under the
evidence, reasonable minds might reach different conclusions from the same
undisputed facts. Id. On appeal, this court determines if summary judgment was
appropriate based on whether the evidentiary items presented by the moving party
leave a material question of fact unanswered. Id. This court views the evidence in a
light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was filed, resolving all
doubts and inferences against the moving party. Id. This review is not limited to the
pleadings but also includes the affidavits and other documents filed by the parties. Id.;
see also Ark. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Repking v. Lokey, 2010 Ark. 356, ___ S.W.3d ___.
As to General Tobacco’s contract defenses of economic duress, mistake, and fraudulent
inducement raised in connection with its entry into the MSA and the Adherence Agreement,
the circuit court found that these defenses do not permit a party to avoid a particular
contractual term or obligation. Instead, where these defenses apply, the entire contract would
be void ab initio. General Tobacco does not claim that the contracts are void ab initio.
Furthermore, the circuit court found that these doctrines do not apply where a party ratifies
22
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
a contract by continuing to perform or by accepting the benefits of the contract after learning
of the mistake or misrepresentation. The circuit court concluded that the facts were not in
dispute and that General Tobacco continued to accept the benefits of the MSA well after
learning of the alleged misrepresentations and, thus, ratified the contract.
General Tobacco, nevertheless, introduced evidence in the form of Ronald Denman’s
affidavit, averring that misrepresentations were made by the State and other Settling States that
induced General Tobacco to join the MSA. Furthermore, General Tobacco introduced
evidence that it has consistently protested its treatment under the MSA, which it argues is
evidenced by its continual efforts to renegotiate the Adherence Agreement, and the lawsuits
brought by General Tobacco in Kentucky and California. On the issues of mistake and
misrepresentation, we cannot say the circuit court erred in finding no genuine issue of
material fact was at issue due to General Tobacco’s ratification of the contract. See Sims v. First
Nat’l Bank, Harrison, 267 Ark. 253, 590 S.W.2d 270 (1979).
As to General Tobacco’s defenses of impracticality and frustration of purpose, the
circuit court found that General Tobacco failed to plead essential elements of these defenses.
Moreover, the fact that performance of the contract has become economically burdensome
is not a sufficient reason to excuse General Tobacco’s performance. We further note that
General Tobacco does not make an argument on appeal that the circuit court erred in its
findings concerning its defenses of impracticality and frustration of purpose. Arguments made
23
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
below but not argued on appeal are deemed to be abandoned. See State v. Grisby, 370 Ark.
66, 69, 257 S.W.3d 104, 107 (2007).
The circuit court also found that General Tobacco was unable to assert the defenses
of laches, estoppel, or waiver. The court found that in order to present these defenses
successfully, General Tobacco must have good reason to believe, by reason of the State’s
conduct, that the State has abandoned its right to enforce the backpayment obligation to
which General Tobacco agreed. Additionally, the court found that it was clear from the
express terms of the MSA and the Forbearance Agreement, which was signed by General
Tobacco and the Settling States in August 2006 in order to extend the due date of General
Tobacco’s August 2006 prior-obligation payment, that the State had expressly reserved the
right to the backpayments owed by General Tobacco.
The circuit court further concluded that in order to show that the State had abandoned
its right to enforce the backpayment obligation, General Tobacco had to produce a written
agreement by that Settling State indicating that it waived its rights to the backpayment.
General Tobacco presented evidence that it had informed the State of its inability to satisfy
its backpayment obligations as early as 2005. It went on to argue that because the State failed
to take any action to recover these payments until 2009 and that during that time the State
represented it would negotiate a settlement with General Tobacco, the defenses of estoppel,
waiver, laches, and unjust enrichment apply. General Tobacco, however, failed to produce
any written evidence that the State had waived or abandoned its expressly reserved rights to
24
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
recover these backpayments. Accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate on these
points.
The circuit court also found that General Tobacco waived its right to challenge either
the MSA or the State’s tobacco-related statutes on antitrust or constitutional grounds. The
court found that General Tobacco had previously litigated these issues and lost in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. See Vibo Corp., Inc. v. Conway, 594
F.Supp.2d 758 (W.D. Ky. 2009). The court, as a result, concluded that the attempt to reargue
the same antitrust and constitutional claims in the instant case was barred by the doctrine of
collateral estoppel.
Turning to collateral estoppel, in order for it to apply, four elements must be present:
(1) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior litigation;
(2) that issue must have been actually litigated; (3) the issue must have been determined by
a valid and final judgment; and (4) the determination must have been essential to the
judgment. See Powell v. Lane, 375 Ark. 178, 185, 289 S.W.3d 440, 444 (2008). Moreover, the
party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the earlier action
and must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in that first instance. Id.
Unlike res judicata, which acts to bar issues that merely could have been litigated in the first
action, collateral estoppel requires actual litigation in the first instance. Id.
The issues of General Tobacco’s federal antitrust claims and federal constitutional
claims were litigated and decided against General Tobacco in the previous case in Kentucky.
25
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
See Vibo Corp., Inc. v. Conway, supra. The circuit court, accordingly, correctly found that
relitigation of these issues was barred because of collateral estoppel and that summary
judgment was appropriate. We affirm on this point.
As a final point, the circuit court also found that by executing the MSA, General
Tobacco waived the state-law claims, including those related to alleged anticompetitive
behavior, because those claims are constitutional in nature. MSA section XV reads
Each Participating Manufacturer further acknowledges that it understands that certain
provisions of this Agreement may require it to act or refrain from acting in a manner
that could otherwise give rise to state or federal constitutional challenges and that, by
voluntarily consenting to this Agreement, it . . . waives for the purposes of
performance of this Agreement any and all claims that the provisions of this Agreement
violate the state or federal constitutions.
(Emphasis added.) Thus, by signing the MSA, General Tobacco expressly waived its right to
mount such an attack on constitutional grounds, and summary judgment was appropriate.
VII. Allocation of Backpayment Amount
Since the petition for enforcement was brought by the State in 2009, General Tobacco
has claimed both before the circuit court and on appeal that the State could only enforce the
MSA with respect to Arkansas and no other Settling State. As already decided, General
Tobacco, however, did not preserve the issue of whether the other Settling States should be
ordered in by the circuit court as necessary or indispensable parties. But it did preserve the
issue of whether the circuit court’s jurisdiction was limited under the MSA with respect to
26
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
what the court could order as relief for the other Settling States which were not parties before
it.
The unitary payment structure of the MSA requires a lump-sum payment to be paid
into an escrow account and then distributed pro rata among the Settling States according to
their allocable percentages. Arkansas is entitled to its Allocable Share of 0.8280611% of
General Tobacco’s total backpayment obligation of $296,846,112.93, or roughly $2.45
million. In order for Arkansas to receive this $2.45 million and be afforded complete relief,
General Tobacco must pay the entire backpayment obligation into its MSA escrow account.
Accordingly, the circuit court correctly directed that the sum of $296,846,112.93 be paid into
the MSA escrow account, and that the funds be paid to the Settling States.
We disagree with General Tobacco, as already stated, that the circuit court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction to find General Tobacco is in breach of the MSA and to fix the
damages resulting from that breach. However, this does not resolve the issue of allocating
damages to the remaining Settling States, other than Arkansas, that are not parties before the
circuit court. Rule 19 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure reads in pertinent part: “A
person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his
absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties . . . .” Ark. R. Civ.
P. 19(a). The rule continues by saying that if such a person “has not been joined, the court
shall order that he be made a party.” The rule does not condition this authority on motion
by a party.
27
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
According to David Newbern and John Watkins in their book on Arkansas Civil
Practice and Procedure, “[t]his language suggests that the court may do so on its own
motion.” David Newbern & John Watkins, 2 Arkansas Civil Practice and Procedure § 7.6 (5th
ed. 2010). This interpretation certainly corresponds to federal jurisprudence which has a rule
similar to our Rule 19 but, of course, is not binding on this court. See, e.g.,Oklahoma v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 472 (N.D. Okla. 2009) (“issue of the indispensability of any party is
generally not waivable, and is one which courts have an independent duty to raise sua
sponte.”); Symes v. Harris, 472 F.3d 754 (10th Cir. 2006); Diagnostic Unit Inmate Council v.
Motion Picture Ass’n of America, 953 F.2d 376 (8th Cir. 1992) (recognizing the general
agreement that the issue of whether a party is indispensable is not waivable and that the
reviewing court has an independent duty to raise the issue sua sponte); Freeman v. Northwest
Acceptance Corp., 754 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1985) (failure to raise issue of indispensable parties
below does not result in waiver as this court may raise the issue sua sponte); Jeffries v. Georgia
Residential Finance Authority, 678 F.2d 919 (11th Cir. 1982) (failure to object to nonjoinder
by proper motion before trial court does not constitute waiver). Hence, though General
Tobacco did not preserve the issue of indispensable parties for our review but only challenged
the authority of the circuit court over the other Settling States, Rule 19 appears to authorize
the joinder of indispensable parties by the courts sua sponte.
Arkansas is a party to this litigation, and it is clear that the State is entitled to immediate
payment of the $2.45 million due it under the MSA. The issue remains concerning the
28
Cite as 2011 Ark. 124
allocation of the balance of the funds to the Settling States that are not parties before this
court. Without those Settling States as parties, we cannot fathom how appropriate relief under
the MSA can be granted to them. We are aware that Exhibit A to the MSA provides fixed
percentages for all Settling States to be applied against the escrow funds, but the ultimate
amount to be paid could well be called into question by either the Settling States or General
Tobacco.
Because General Tobacco did raise the issue of the circuit court’s lack of authority over
the Settling States other than Arkansas, which equates to lack of personal jurisdiction, and
because Rule 19 grants authority to our courts to bring in indispensable parties on their own
motion, we reverse the order of the court regarding payment to the other Settling States. We
conclude that the other Settling States appear to be indispensable parties for allocation of the
escrowed funds, and we remand this matter to the circuit court to weigh joinder of the other
Settling States as indispensable parties under Rule 19 so that complete relief can be afforded.
Affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.
29
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.