2
 SEriT BY:tfA CnT£L L  Uf TO N :^ 15 3 3  M l :  43A M :  fiACHTELL UPTON- 5453297; KEM03UOM April  2B 1992 TO :  Herbert  K. Wachtall Paul Vizcarrondo Jr. John  r 5avarese FROH: David  M.  Murphy R E:  LORIIXARD CTR  INQUIRY Yesterday at  Lorlllard (H Y)  a new issue can* up that we  should  discuss as scon as possible. Art  Stevens end Bill  Allinder  would like our view on whether, given  WLRAX s  moratorium advice.  Lorillard may participate in funding  through  a Shook, Hardy special account the work of a Georgetown pathologist,  Bennett  Jensen. According to Allinder, the facts  ar e  as follows: Dr. Jensen received  * * C T R Spee lal  Project funds back  in  '84, which  funds have been spent.  He  now faces funding problems at Georgetown that, again according to Allinder, have something to do with his ties to the industry. Because of his worsening relations with Georgetown, Jensen is looking fo r  a position  at  another  university  and could use some funds to tide bin over until he finds  a  new home Shook, Hardy proposes to  M give  hia 340,000  — not for specific research (he's currently working on  a  vaccine for human  patholoma)  or  with  an eye to publication but solely in order to maintain a good relationship with  hin  and secure his continued help  i n  making contact with other scientists. The money would coma from an expert witness fund administered by Shook, Hardy  ( Shook,  Hardy special  Fund ). Ordinarily, each tobacco  company  contributes to  the shook. Hardy fund and thereafter is not involved in deciding whether to approve specific litigation or legislation related expenditures. This expenditure, however, was brought to Art Stevens'  attention by  Alllnder  because it could be construed  _ i Allinder  admits  that: Shook, Hardy wants to give  £ jj Jensen  money to keep  him  happy and  tnat  there is no immediate  value to hie research. And he explained that the funds would  CJ come out of Shook, Hardy Special Fund rather than out of the  w Shook Hardy special research projects fund because  (4 )  Jensen is a potential  expert vitnees  in  Hainan  (however, he is not on  tne witness lia t  and,  Allinder concedes, ia a low priority OR000  4742 http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aoq36b00/pdf Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/xxwv0035

Wachtell Murphy 1992 Question Slush Fund Fraud

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Wachtell Murphy 1992 Question Slush Fund Fraud

Citation preview

  • SEriT BY:tfACnTLL UfTO-N : ^ - 1 5 - 3 3 Ml): 43AM : fiACHTELL UPTON- 5453297;

    K E M 0 3 U O M

    Apri l 2B, 1992

    TO: Herbert K. Wachtal l Paul Vizcarrondo , J r . John r , 5avarese

    FROH: D a v i d M. Murphy

    RE: LORIIXARD/CTR INQUIRY

    Yesterday at Lorlllard (HY) a new issue can* up that we should discuss as scon as possible.

    Art Stevens end Bill Allinder would like our view on whether, given WLRAX's moratorium advice. Lorillard may participate in funding through a Shook, Hardy special account the work of a Georgetown pathologist, Bennett Jensen.

    According to Allinder, the facts are as follows: Dr." Jensen received **CTR Speelal Project" funds back in '84, which funds have been spent. He now faces funding problems at Georgetown that, again according to Allinder, have something to do with his ties to the industry. Because of his worsening relations with Georgetown, Jensen is looking for a position at another university and could use some funds to tide bin over until he finds a new home.

    Shook, Hardy proposes to Mgive hia" 340,000 not for specific research (he's currently working on a vaccine for human patholoma) or with an eye to publication but solely in order to maintain a good relationship with hin and secure his continued help in making contact with other scientists. The money would coma from an expert witness fund administered by Shook, Hardy ("Shook, Hardy special Fund").

    Ordinarily, each tobacco company contributes to the shook. Hardy fund and thereafter is not involved in deciding whether to approve specific litigation or legislation related expenditures. This expenditure, however, was brought to Art Stevens' attention by Alllnder because it could be construed _ to violate HMW's moratorium on new special projects funding, *j

  • 3LXL BT^iMLnitLL LlrTON ^3-15-93 :10:45.-UI : WAOfTELL LIPTOW- 5 4 5 3 2 3 7 ; * 3

    witnasa), and