However, if an NPM makes the bulk of its sales in certain states, it could be reimbursed for those fiduciary payments that go beyond what it would have paid to each of those states if it had been an SPM. For example, an NPM that made 50 percent of its revenue in Kansas (which has a relatively small share) would receive a release of more than 49 percent of its total trust from its Kansas Escrow fund. In other words, the original provision on the release of viable actions created an unintended gap: it only worked if NPMs distributed their products at national level. In those circumstances, the NPM`s total fiduciary duties vis-à-vis all states with similar tobacco laws were roughly in addition to the payments made by those NMPs under the MSA. However, if an NPM concentrates its sales on a small number of states with a low percentage of eligible shares, the NPM could be reimbursed for a large portion of its fiduciary payments. Because Kansas` percentage was so low — about 0.8 percent — NPMs were concentrating their sales in Kansas and other states to get immediate trust repayments from those states. While the bill was debated in Congress, some states began to settle their disputes against the tobacco industry. On July 2, 1997, Mississippi became the first. Over the next year, Florida, Texas and Minnesota followed, with a total of more than $35 billion reimbursed by the four states. An overview of the restrictions imposed on the marketing of tobacco products under the Master Tobacco Agreement, the MSA implementation process, several MSA enforcement measures and the challenges ahead in enforcing the marketing restrictions on ADMs.

Dennis Eckhart (2004). This summary summarizes the restrictions imposed by the MSA on the marketing and advertising of tobacco products, as well as the types of behaviours that do not concern the ASM. It also provides a step-by-step description of the implementation process, from informal investigations to litigation, examines several enforcement actions that have helped to materialise the importance of certain restrictions on the marketing and advertising of the MSA, and draws attention to other areas of sectoral behaviour that raise current and likely future challenges for the application of ADMs. Another criticism is the alleged preference of large tobacco groups over small independent tobacco producers and sellers. Proponents of this argument argue that some price restrictions make it harder for small producers to compete with big tobacco. Twelve states have successfully fought this argument in court over the past two years, and the application of the MSA will continue forever throughout the United States. [Citation required] Next year, the big tobacco companies agreed with the tobacco-producing countries to compensate tobacco producers for the losses they are expected to suffer as a result of the rise in cigarette prices due to previous comparisons. This agreement, called “Phase II,” created the National Tobacco Growers` Settlement Trust Fund. Tobacco producers and quota holders in the 14 states that grow smoking tobacco and roots used to make cigarettes are entitled to payments under the trust fund. The states are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia…