Contingencies:

Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various United States and foreign jurisdictions against Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including PM USA and UST and its subsidiaries, as well as their respective indemnitees. Various types of claims may be raised in these proceedings, including product liability, consumer protection, antitrust, tax, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims for contribution and claims of distributors.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and it is possible that there could be adverse developments in pending or future cases. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending tobacco-related or other litigation could encourage the commencement of additional litigation. Damages claimed in some tobacco-related and other litigation are or can be significant and, in certain cases, range in the billions of dollars. The variability in pleadings in multiple jurisdictions, together with the actual experience of management in litigating claims, demonstrate that the monetary relief that may be specified in a lawsuit bears little relevance to the ultimate outcome. In certain cases, plaintiffs claim that defendants’ liability is joint and several. In such cases, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries may face the risk that one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail to participate in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay their proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. As a result, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries under certain circumstances may have to pay more than their proportionate share of any bonding- or judgment-related amounts. Furthermore, in those cases where plaintiffs are successful, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries may also be required to pay interest and attorney’s fees.

Although PM USA has historically been able to obtain required bonds or relief from bonding requirements in order to prevent plaintiffs from seeking to collect judgments while adverse verdicts have been appealed, there remains a risk that such relief may not be obtainable in all cases. This risk has been substantially reduced given that 45 states and Puerto Rico now limit the dollar amount of bonds or require no bond at all. As discussed below, however, tobacco litigation plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s bond cap statute in several cases and plaintiffs may challenge state bond cap statutes in other jurisdictions as well. Such challenges may include the applicability of state bond caps in federal court. Although we cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc., or one or more of its subsidiaries, could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome of one or more such challenges.

Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries record provisions in the condensed consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when they determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except to the extent discussed elsewhere in this Note 10. Contingencies: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; (ii) management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in any of the pending tobacco-related cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the condensed consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred.

Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries have achieved substantial success in managing litigation. Nevertheless, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant challenges remain. It is possible that the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria Group, Inc., or one or more of its subsidiaries, could be materially affected in a particular fiscal quarter or fiscal year by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of certain pending litigation. Altria Group, Inc. and each of its subsidiaries named as a defendant believe, and each has been so advised by counsel handling the respective cases, that it has valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. Each of the companies has defended, and will continue to defend, vigorously against litigation challenges. However, Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of Altria Group, Inc. to do so.

Overview of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA Tobacco-Related Litigation

Types and Number of Cases

Claims related to tobacco products generally fall within the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs; (ii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical monitoring and purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, including cases in which the aggregated claims of a number of individual plaintiffs are to be tried in a single proceeding; (iii) health care cost recovery cases brought by governmental (both domestic and foreign) plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of profits; (iv) class action suits alleging that the uses of the terms “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty or violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); and (v) other tobacco-related litigation described below. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery and the defenses raised in pending smoking and health, health care cost recovery and “Lights/Ultra Lights” cases are discussed below.

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against PM USA and, in some instances, Altria Group, Inc. as of April 22, 2013, April 23, 2012 and April 25, 2011.



Type of Case	Number of Cases Pending as of April 22, 2013	Number of Cases Pending as of April 23, 2012	Number of Cases Pending as of April 25, 2011
Individual Smoking and Health Cases⁽¹⁾	71	79	89
Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation ⁽²⁾	6	7	10
Health Care Cost Recovery Actions ⁽³⁾	1	1	3
“Lights/Ultra Lights” Class Actions	15	17	30
Tobacco Price Cases	1	1	1

⁽¹⁾ Does not include 2,574 cases brought by flight attendants seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”). The flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS smoking and health class action in Florida, which was settled in 1997 (Broin). The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive damages. Also, does not include individual smoking and health cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in Florida state and federal courts following the decertification of the Engle case (discussed below in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Class Action).

⁽²⁾ Includes as one case the 600 civil actions (of which 346 are actions against PM USA) that are to be tried in a single proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States Constitution does not preclude a trial in two phases in this case. Under the current trial plan, issues related to defendants’ conduct and whether punitive damages are permissible will be tried in the first phase. The second phase would consist of individual trials to determine liability, if any, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, if any. Trial in the case began in October 2011, but ended in a mistrial in November 2011. The new trial began on April 15, 2013 and is currently underway.

⁽³⁾ See Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation - Federal Government’s Lawsuit below.

International Tobacco-Related Cases

As of April 22, 2013, PM USA is a named defendant in Israel in one “Lights” class action. PM USA is a named defendant in nine health care cost recovery actions in Canada, seven of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”) that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Pending and Upcoming Tobacco-Related Trials

As of April 22, 2013, 24 Engle progeny cases and five individual smoking and health cases against PM USA are set for trial in 2013. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are also scheduled for trial in 2013. Trial dates are subject to change.

Trial Results

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases (separately discussed below), verdicts have been returned in 52 smoking and health, “Lights/Ultra Lights” and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 35 of the 52 cases. These 35 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (5), Florida (9), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2), and West Virginia (1). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), on February 14, 2013, the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA’s motion for reconsideration. On February 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for the trial court to reconsider its February 14, 2013 ruling and reinstate its prior order which the trial court denied. On March 26, 2013, plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Alaska Supreme Court of the denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 14 have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported “Lights” class action in Illinois (Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006. The plaintiff in Price is seeking to reopen the judgment dismissing this case (see below for a discussion of developments in Price).

As of April 22, 2013, 37 Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court’s Engle decision. Nineteen verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and 18 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA. See Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Progeny Trial Results below for a discussion of these verdicts.

Judgments Paid and Provisions for Litigation

After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $245 million and interest totaling approximately $139 million as of April 22, 2013.

For the three months ended March 31, 2013, Altria Group, Inc. recorded pre-tax charges of $5 million related to certain tobacco and health judgments. These charges were included in marketing, administration and research costs on Altria Group, Inc.’s condensed consolidated statement of earnings. In addition, for the three months ended March 31, 2013, Altria Group, Inc. recorded interest costs related to these judgments of $1 million. These costs were included in interest and other debt expense, net on Altria Group, Inc.’s condensed consolidated statement of earnings. Charges for the three months ended March 31, 2012 for tobacco and health judgments and related interest costs were approximately $500,000. During the first quarter of 2013 approximately $100,000 in payments were made related to tobacco and health judgments. During the first quarter of 2012, $121 million in payments were made for tobacco and health judgments and related interest costs. As of March 31, 2013, Altria Group, Inc. had provisions recorded on its condensed consolidated balance sheet in other accrued liabilities for tobacco and health judgments, including related interest costs, in the amount of $6 million. As of December 31, 2012, there were no provisions for tobacco and health judgments or related interest costs on Altria Group, Inc.’s condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Security for Judgments

To obtain stays of judgments pending current appeals, as of March 31, 2013, PM USA has posted various forms of security totaling approximately $36 million, the majority of which has been collateralized with cash deposits that are included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Smoking and Health Litigation

Overview

Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in smoking and health cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes, and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the smoking and health actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statutes of limitations and preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

Non-Engle Progeny Trial Results

Summarized below are the non-Engle progeny smoking and health cases pending during 2012 and 2013 in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and against PM USA. A chart listing the verdicts for plaintiffs in the Engle progeny cases can be found in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Progeny Trial Results below.

D. Boeken: In August 2011, a California jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding $12.8 million in compensatory damages against PM USA. PM USA’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were denied in October 2011. PM USA appealed and posted a bond in the amount of $12.8 million in November 2011.

Bullock: This litigation has concluded. In the fourth quarter of 2011, PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of $14 million related to damages and costs and $3 million related to interest and in March 2012, paid an amount of approximately $19.1 million in satisfaction of the judgment and associated costs and interest.

Schwarz: In March 2002, an Oregon jury awarded against PM USA $168,500 in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages. In May 2002, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award to $100 million. In May 2006, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory damages verdict, reversed the award of punitive damages and remanded the case to the trial court for a second trial to determine the amount of punitive damages, if any. In June 2006, plaintiff petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court to review the portion of the court of appeals’ decision reversing and remanding the case for a new trial on punitive damages. In June 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial limited to the question of punitive damages. In December 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling and awarded PM USA approximately $500,000 in costs. In March 2011, PM USA filed a claim against the plaintiff for its costs and disbursements on appeal, plus interest. Trial on the amount of punitive damages began in January 2012. In February 2012, the jury awarded plaintiff $25 million in punitive damages. In March 2012, PM USA filed motions to set aside the verdict, for a new trial or, in the alternative, for a remittitur. The trial court denied these motions in May 2012. In September 2012, PM USA filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment with the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Williams: This litigation has concluded. In the fourth quarter of 2011, PM USA recorded a provision of approximately $48 million related to damages and costs and $54 million related to interest and in January 2012 paid an amount of approximately $102 million in satisfaction of the judgment and associated costs and interest.

See Scott Class Action below for a discussion of the verdict and post-trial developments in the Scott class action and Federal Government Lawsuit below for a discussion of the verdict and post-trial developments in the United States of America healthcare cost recovery case.

Engle Class Action

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA. Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into an interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of the judicial review, was to be paid to the court and the court was to determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In May 2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial court to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial court be decertified, and that members of the decertified class could file individual actions against defendants within one year of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants’ cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise known or available knowing that the material was false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent. The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found that a third plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3 million, representing its share of compensatory damages and interest, to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme Court’s order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling (described above) that certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Third District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August 2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of limitations to non-members of the decertified class. In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006 ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) listed above (relating to agreement to misrepresent information), and added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the representations of fact made by defendants. In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised opinion. Defendants then filed a motion with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal requesting that the court address legal errors that were previously raised by defendants but have not yet been addressed either by the Third District Court of Appeal or by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007, the Third District Court of Appeal denied defendants’ motion. In May 2007, defendants’ motion for a partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of appellate review was denied by the Third District Court of Appeal. In May 2007, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In October 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition. In November 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for rehearing from the denial of their petition for writ of certiorari.

In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class except for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond stipulation and will receive no credit at this time from the $500 million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs’ claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice.

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, expired in January 2008. As of April 22, 2013, approximately 3,300 state court cases were pending against PM USA or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,400 state court plaintiffs. Furthermore, as of April 22, 2013, approximately 1,500 federal court cases were pending against PM USA asserting individual claims by or on behalf of a similar number of federal court plaintiffs, which reflects the January 22, 2013 dismissal by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) of 521 Engle progeny cases with prejudice. On February 21, 2013, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Because of a number of factors including, but not limited, to docketing delays, duplicated filings, and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates.

Federal Engle Progeny Cases

Three federal district courts (in the Merlob, B. Brown and Burr cases) ruled in 2008 that the findings in the first phase of the Engle proceedings cannot be used to satisfy elements of plaintiffs’ claims, and two of those rulings (B. Brown and Burr) were certified by the trial court for interlocutory review. The certification in both cases was granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the appeals were consolidated. In February 2009, the appeal in Burr was dismissed for lack of prosecution and in September 2012, the district court dismissed the case on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiff is appealing the dismissal. In July 2010, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in B. Brown that, as a matter of Florida law, plaintiffs do not have an unlimited right to use the findings from the original Engle trial to meet their burden of establishing the elements of their claims at trial. The Eleventh Circuit did not reach the issue of whether the use of the Engle findings violates defendants’ due process rights. Rather, plaintiffs may only use the findings to establish those specific facts, if any, that they demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty were actually decided by the original Engle jury. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine what specific factual findings the Engle jury actually made.

After the remand of B. Brown, the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling on Florida state law was superseded by state appellate rulings (discussed below and in Appeals of Engle Progeny Verdicts), which initially included Martin, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“R.J. Reynolds”) in Escambia County, and J. Brown, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds in Broward County. More recently, the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling on Florida state law has been superseded by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Douglas, discussed below.

Following Martin and J. Brown, in the Waggoner case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) ruled in December 2011 that application of the Engle findings to establish the wrongful conduct elements of plaintiffs’ claims consistent with Martin or J. Brown did not violate defendants’ due process rights. The court ruled, however, that plaintiffs must establish legal causation to establish liability. PM USA and the other defendants sought appellate review of the due process ruling. In February 2012, the district court denied the motion for interlocutory appeal, but did apply the ruling to all active pending federal Engle progeny cases. As a result, the ruling can be appealed after an adverse verdict or in a cross-appeal. The ruling has been appealed by R.J. Reynolds in the Walker and Duke cases pending before the Eleventh Circuit.

Most of the Engle progeny cases pending against PM USA in the federal district courts in the Middle District of Florida asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 1,500 plaintiffs remain stayed. There are currently 20 active cases pending in federal court. On January 30, 2013, the Federal District Court ordered the parties to negotiate an aggregate settlement mediation of all pending cases. On February 13, 2013, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration by the Federal District Court of the January 30, 2013 order. On March 4, 2013, the Federal District Court issued a new order removing certain requirements of the January 30, 2013 order. On April 9, 2013, the mediators reported to the district court that the cases have not been resolved nor have the parties agreed to a mechanism for settlement.

Florida Bond Cap Statute

In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by adding a $200 million bond cap that applies to all state Engle progeny lawsuits in the aggregate and establishes individual bond caps for individual Engle progeny cases in amounts that vary depending on the number of judgments in effect at a given time. Plaintiffs in three Engle progeny cases against R.J. Reynolds in Alachua County, Florida (Alexander, Townsend and Hall) and one case in Escambia County (Clay) challenged the constitutionality of the bond cap statute. The Florida Attorney General intervened in these cases in defense of the constitutionality of the statute.

Trial court rulings were rendered in Clay, Alexander, Townsend and Hall rejecting the plaintiffs’ bond cap statute challenges in those cases. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully appealed these rulings. In Alexander, Clay and Hall, the District Court of Appeal for the First District of Florida affirmed the trial court decisions and certified the decision in Hall for appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, but declined to certify the question of the constitutionality of the bond cap statute in Clay and Alexander. The Florida Supreme Court granted review of the Hall decision, but, in September 2012, the court dismissed the appeal as moot. In October 2012, the Florida Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ rehearing petition.

No federal court has yet addressed the constitutionality of the bond cap statute or the applicability of the bond cap to Engle progeny cases tried in federal court. However, on April 23, 2013, PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard Tobacco Company (“Lorillard”) filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to have the court apply the Florida bond cap statute to all federal Engle progeny cases.

Engle Progeny Trial Results

As of April 22, 2013, 37 federal and state Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court Engle decision. Nineteen verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs. For a further discussion of these cases, see the verdict chart below.

Eighteen verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Russo (formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva, Weingart, Junious, Szymanski, Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Hancock and Wilder). While the juries in the Weingart and Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no damages, the trial court in each case granted an additur. In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants’ favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial. Defendants are seeking review of the case in the Florida Supreme Court. In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of April 22, 2013.

In Lukacs, a case that was tried to verdict before the Florida Supreme Court Engle decision, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal in March 2010 affirmed per curiam the trial court decision without issuing an opinion. Under Florida procedure, further review of a per curiam affirmance without opinion by the Florida Supreme Court is generally prohibited. Subsequently in 2010, after defendants’ petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal was denied, defendants paid the judgment.

The chart below lists the verdicts and post-trial developments in the Engle progeny cases that were pending during 2012 or 2013 in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs (including Weingart and Hancock, where the verdicts originally were returned in favor of PM USA).



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
April 2013	Searcy	On April 1, 2013, a jury in the Orlando Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded $6 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages against each defendant.	On April 23, 2013, PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to have the court apply the Florida bond cap statute to all federal Engle progeny cases and to decide such motion before PM USA posts a bond in this case.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
March 2013	Giddens	On March 20, 2013, a jury in the Fort Myers Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded approximately $80,000 in compensatory damages and allocated 7% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $5,600).	On March 25, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered its final judgment against PM USA in the amount of $5,600, plus post-judgment interest. On April 5, 2013, the parties entered into an agreement not to pursue any appeal or cost claims and PM USA will not be required to satisfy the judgment. This litigation has concluded.

December 2012	Buchanan	In December 2012, a Leon County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and Liggett Group LLC (“Liggett Group”). The jury awarded $5.5 million in compensatory damages and allocated 37% of the fault to each of the defendants (an amount of approximately $2 million).	In December 2012, defendants filed several post-trial motions, including motions for a new trial and to set aside the verdict. Argument on these motions was heard on January 16, 2013. On March 23, 2013, the trial court entered final judgment against PM USA and Liggett Group refusing to reduce the compensatory damages award by plaintiff's comparative fault and holding PM USA and Liggett Group jointly and severally liable for $5.5 million. On April 1, 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. On April 5, 2013, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of $2.5 million.

October 2012	Lock	A Pinellas County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded $1.15 million in compensatory damages and allocated 9% of the fault to each of the defendants (an amount of $103,500).	In November 2012, defendants filed several post-trial motions, including motions for a new trial, to set aside the verdict and to reduce the damages award by the amount of economic damages paid by third parties. On January 23, 2013, the trial court orally denied all post-trial motions. On February 28, 2013, the trial court entered final judgment. PM USA’s portion of the damages was $103,500. On March 21, 2013, defendants filed notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On March 22, 2013, PM USA posted bonds in the amount of $103,500.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
August 2012	Hancock	A Broward County jury returned a verdict in the amount of zero damages and allocated 5% of the fault to each of the defendants (PM USA and R.J. Reynolds). The trial court granted an additur of $110,000, which is subject to the jury’s comparative fault finding.	In August 2012, defendants moved to set aside the verdict and to enter judgment in accordance with their motion for directed verdict. Defendants also moved to reduce damages, which motion the court granted. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to set off the damages award by the amount of economic damages paid by third parties, which will reduce further any final award. In October 2012, the trial court entered final judgment. PM USA’s portion of the damages was approximately $700. In November 2012, both sides filed notices of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.

May 2012	Calloway	A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard and Liggett Group. The jury awarded approximately $21 million in compensatory damages and allocated 25% of the fault against PM USA but the trial court ruled that it will not apply the comparative fault allocations because the jury found against each defendant on the intentional tort claims. The jury also awarded approximately $17 million in punitive damages against PM USA, approximately $17 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds, approximately $13 million in punitive damages against Lorillard and approximately $8 million in punitive damages against Liggett Group.	In May and June, 2012, defendants filed motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial. In August 2012, the trial court denied the remaining post-trial motions and entered final judgment, reducing the total compensatory damages award to $16.1 million but leaving undisturbed the separate punitive damages awards. In September 2012, PM USA posted a bond in an amount of $1.5 million and defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.

January 2012	Hallgren	A Highland County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded approximately $2 million in compensatory damages and allocated 25% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $500,000). The jury also awarded $750,000 in punitive damages against each of the defendants.	The trial court entered final judgment in March 2012. In April 2012, PM USA posted a bond in an amount of approximately $1.25 million. In May 2012, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
July 2011	Weingart	A Palm Beach County jury returned a verdict in the amount of zero damages and allocated 3% of the fault to each of the defendants (PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard).	In September 2011, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for additur or a new trial, concluding that an additur of $150,000 is required for plaintiff’s pain and suffering. The trial court entered final judgment and, since PM USA was allocated 3% of the fault, its portion of the damages was $4,500. In October 2011, PM USA filed its notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and, in November 2011, posted bonds in an aggregate amount of $48,000. On February13, 2013, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed per curiam the trial court's decision in favor of the plaintiff. On March 15, 2013, PM USA filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. On April 22, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court ordered PM USA to show cause as to why the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Douglas is not controlling in this case. In the first quarter of 2013, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $50,000 for the judgment plus interest and associated costs.

April 2011	Allen	A Duval County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded a total of $6 million in compensatory damages and allocated 15% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $900,000). The jury also awarded $17 million in punitive damages against each of the defendants.	In May 2011, the trial court entered final judgment. In October 2011, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for remittitur, reducing the punitive damages award against PM USA to $2.7 million, and denied defendants’ remaining post-trial motions. PM USA filed a notice of appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal and posted a bond in the amount of $1.25 million in November 2011. Oral argument was heard on January 16, 2013.

April 2011	Tullo	A Palm Beach County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, Lorillard and Liggett Group. The jury awarded a total of $4.5 million in compensatory damages and allocated 45% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $2,025,000).	In April 2011, the trial court entered final judgment. In July 2011, PM USA filed its notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and posted a $2 million bond.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
February 2011	Huish	An Alachua County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded $750,000 in compensatory damages and allocated 25% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of $187,500). The jury also awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.	In March 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed per curiam the trial court’s decision without issuing an opinion. In the second quarter of 2012, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $2.5 million. In July 2012, PM USA paid an amount of $2.5 million in satisfaction of the judgment and associated costs. This litigation has concluded.

February 2011	Hatziyannakis	A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded approximately $270,000 in compensatory damages and allocated 32% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $86,000).	In April 2011, the trial court denied PM USA’s post-trial motions for a new trial and to set aside the verdict. In June 2011, PM USA filed its notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and posted an $86,000 appeal bond. On January 16, 2013, the Fourth District affirmed per curiam the trial court’s decision without issuing an opinion. On January 31, 2013, PM USA filed a motion for a citation in order to facilitate further review of the case in the Florida Supreme Court, which was denied. On March 6, 2013, the Fourth District denied PM USA’s various motions for post-decision relief. On April 3, 2013, PM USA filed a motion seeking a 60-day extension on its petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was granted on April 9, 2013. In the first quarter of 2013, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $174,000 for the judgment plus interest and associated costs.

August 2010	Piendle	A Palm Beach County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded $4 million in compensatory damages and allocated 27.5% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $1.1 million). The jury also awarded $90,000 in punitive damages against PM USA.	In June 2012, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed per curiam the trial court’s decision without issuing an opinion. In the third quarter of 2012, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $2.7 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs and paid such amount in November 2012. In the first quarter of 2013, PM USA paid related fees in the amount of approximately $100,000. This litigation has concluded.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
July 2010	Kayton (formerly Tate)	A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded $8 million in compensatory damages and allocated 64% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $5.1 million). The jury also awarded approximately $16.2 million in punitive damages against PM USA.	In August 2010, the trial court entered final judgment, and PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $5 million appeal bond. In November 2012, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the punitive damages award and remanded the case for a new trial on plaintiff's conspiracy claim. Upon retrial, if the jury finds in plaintiff's favor on that claim, the original $16.2 million punitive damages award will be reinstated. PM USA filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied on January 18, 2013. On January 29, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. PM USA also filed a notice on January 31, 2013 to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. PM USA filed a motion to stay the mandate, which was denied on March 6, 2013. The Fourth District issued its mandate on April 10, 2013.

April 2010	Putney	A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Liggett Group. The jury awarded approximately $15.1 million in compensatory damages and allocated 15% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $2.3 million). The jury also awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages against PM USA.	In August 2010, the trial court entered final judgment. PM USA filed its notice of appeal to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and posted a $1.6 million appeal bond. Argument on the merits of the appeal occurred in September 2012.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
March 2010	R. Cohen	A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA and R.J. Reynolds. The jury awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and allocated 33 1/3% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $3.3 million). The jury also awarded a total of $20 million in punitive damages, assessing separate $10 million awards against each defendant.	In July 2010, the trial court entered final judgment and, in August 2010, PM USA filed its notice of appeal. In October 2010, PM USA posted a $2.5 million appeal bond. In September 2012, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the compensatory damages award but reversed and remanded the punitive damages verdict. The Fourth District returned the case to the trial court for a new jury trial on plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim. If the jury finds in plaintiff’s favor on that claim, the $10 million punitive damages award against each defendant will be reinstated. In October 2012, both plaintiff and defendants filed petitions for rehearing, which the Fourth District denied in December 2012. On January 14, 2013, defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. Plaintiff also filed notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court on January 18, 2013. On February 8, 2013, the Fourth District granted defendants’ motion to stay the mandate. On March 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for review of the stay order with the Florida Supreme Court, which was denied on April 12, 2013.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
March 2010	Douglas	A Hillsborough County jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Liggett Group. The jury awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were dismissed prior to trial. The jury allocated 18% of the fault to PM USA, resulting in an award of $900,000.	In June 2010, PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $900,000 appeal bond. In March 2012, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a decision affirming the judgment and upholding the use of the Engle jury findings but certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether granting res judicata effect to the Engle jury findings violates defendants’ federal due process rights. In April 2012, defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In May 2012, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the case. Argument occurred in September 2012. On March 14, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff and issued its mandate on April 15, 2013. In the first quarter of 2013, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $2.2 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
November 2009	Naugle	A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA. The jury awarded approximately $56.6 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitive damages. The jury allocated 90% of the fault to PM USA.	In March 2010, the trial court entered final judgment reflecting a reduced award of approximately $13 million in compensatory damages and $26 million in punitive damages. In April 2010, PM USA filed its notice of appeal and posted a $5 million appeal bond. In August 2010, upon the motion of PM USA, the trial court entered an amended final judgment of approximately $12.3 million in compensatory damages and approximately $24.5 million in punitive damages to correct a clerical error. In June 2012, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the amended final judgment. In July 2012, PM USA filed a motion for rehearing. In December 2012, the Fourth District withdrew its prior decision, reversed the verdict as to compensatory and punitive damages and returned the case to the trial court for a new trial on the question of damages. In December 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing en banc or for certification to the Florida Supreme Court, which was denied on January 25, 2013. On February 8, 2013, PM USA filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. Plaintiff also filed a notice on February 22, 2013 to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. PM USA filed a motion to stay the mandate, which was denied on February 26, 2013. The Fourth District issued its mandate on March 15, 2013.

August 2009	F. Campbell	An Escambia County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against R.J. Reynolds, PM USA and Liggett Group. The jury awarded $7.8 million in compensatory damages. In September 2009, the trial court entered final judgment and awarded plaintiff $156,000 in damages against PM USA due to the jury allocating only 2% of the fault to PM USA.	In March 2011, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed per curiam the trial court’s decision without issuing an opinion. In May 2012, PM USA paid an amount of approximately $262,000 in satisfaction of the judgment and associated costs and interest. This litigation has concluded.



Date	Plaintiff	Verdict	Post-Trial Developments
August 2009	Barbanell	A Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding $5.3 million in compensatory damages. The judge had previously dismissed the punitive damages claim. In September 2009, the trial court entered final judgment and awarded plaintiff $1.95 million in actual damages. The judgment reduced the jury’s $5.3 million award of compensatory damages due to the jury allocating 36.5% of the fault to PM USA.	A notice of appeal was filed by PM USA in September 2009, and PM USA posted a $1.95 million appeal bond. In February 2012, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff’s claims. In October 2012, on motion for rehearing, the Fourth District withdrew its prior decision and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. In November 2012, PM USA filed a notice to invoke the jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In December 2012, the Florida Supreme Court granted a partial stay pending its disposition of the J. Brown case against R.J. Reynolds and the Fourth District issued its mandate.

February 2009	Hess	A Broward County jury found in favor of plaintiffs and against PM USA. The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. In June 2009, the trial court entered final judgment and awarded plaintiffs $1.26 million in actual damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The judgment reduced the jury’s $3 million award of compensatory damages due to the jury allocating 42% of the fault to PM USA.	PM USA noticed an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal in July 2009. In May 2012, the Fourth District reversed and vacated the punitive damages award and affirmed the judgment in all other respects, upholding the compensatory damages award of $1.26 million. In June 2012, both parties filed rehearing motions with the Fourth District, which were denied in September 2012. In October 2012, PM USA and plaintiffs filed notices to invoke the Florida Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction. In the first quarter of 2013, PM USA recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $3.2 million for the judgment plus interest and associated costs.

Appeals of Engle Progeny Verdicts

Plaintiffs in various Engle progeny cases have appealed adverse rulings or verdicts, and in some cases, PM USA has cross-appealed. PM USA’s appeals of adverse verdicts are discussed in the chart above.

Since the remand of B. Brown (discussed above under the heading Federal Engle Progeny Cases), several state appellate rulings have superseded the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling on Florida state law. These cases include Martin, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds in Escambia County and J. Brown, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds in Broward County. In Martin, the Florida First District Court of Appeal rejected the B. Brown ruling as a matter of state law and upheld the use of the Engle findings to relax plaintiffs’ burden of proof. R.J. Reynolds had sought Florida Supreme Court review in that case but, in July 2011, the Florida Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. In December 2011, petitions for certiorari were filed with the United States Supreme Court by R.J. Reynolds in Campbell, Martin, Gray and Hall and by PM USA and Liggett Group in Campbell. The United States Supreme Court denied defendants’ certiorari petitions in March 2012.

In J. Brown, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal also rejected the B. Brown ruling as a matter of state law and upheld the use of the Engle findings to relax plaintiffs’ burden of proof. However, the Fourth District expressly disagreed with the First District’s Martin decision by ruling that Engle progeny plaintiffs must prove legal causation on their claims. In addition, the J. Brown court expressed concerns that using the Engle findings to reduce plaintiffs’ burden may violate defendants’ due process rights. In October 2011, the Fourth District denied R.J. Reynolds’ motion to certify J. Brown to the Florida Supreme Court for review. R.J. Reynolds is seeking review of the case by the Florida Supreme Court.

In Douglas, in March 2012, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a decision affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff and upholding the use of the Engle jury findings with respect to strict liability claims but certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether granting res judicata effect to the Engle jury findings violates defendants’ federal due process rights. On March 14, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, upholding the use of the Engle jury findings with respect to strict liability and negligence claims.

In Koballa, in October 2012, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a decision affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff and upholding the use of the Engle jury findings with respect to negligence, concealment and conspiracy claims but, like Douglas, certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether granting res judicata effect to the Engle jury findings violates defendants’ federal due process rights. In November 2012, R.J. Reynolds filed an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court and the court entered a stay in the case pending resolution of the Douglas case.

As noted above in Federal Engle Progeny Cases, there has been no federal appellate review of the federal due process issues raised by the use of findings from the original Engle trial in Engle progeny cases, although several appeals brought by R.J. Reynolds are pending.

Because of the substantial period of time required for the federal and state appellate processes, it is possible that PM USA may have to pay additional outstanding judgments in the Engle progeny cases before the final adjudication of these issues by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court.

Other Smoking and Health Class Actions

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope) and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of April 22, 2013, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants’ cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants’ cigarettes. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Scott Class Action

Following a 2004 verdict that awarded plaintiffs approximately $590 million to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program and a series of appeals and other post-trial motions, PM USA recorded in the second quarter of 2011 a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet of approximately $36 million related to the judgment and approximately $5 million related to interest, which was in addition to a previously recorded provision of approximately $30 million. In August 2011, PM USA paid its share of the judgment and interest in an amount of approximately $70 million.

In October 2011, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. In December 2012, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees in an amount of approximately $103 million, all of which have now been paid from the court supervised fund. This litigation has concluded.

Other Medical Monitoring Class Actions

In addition to the Scott class action discussed above, two purported medical monitoring class actions are pending against PM USA. These two cases were brought in New York (Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) and Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts) on behalf of each state’s respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the purported class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages. A case brought in California (Xavier) was dismissed in July 2011, and a case brought in Florida (Gargano) was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in August 2011.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part PM USA’s summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ strict liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM USA’s summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs’ implied warranty claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical monitoring claim. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and medical monitoring claims. In January 2011, the district court granted PM USA’s motion, dismissed plaintiffs’ claims and declared plaintiffs’ motion for class certification moot in light of the dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Argument before the Second Circuit was heard in March 2012.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs’ claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to plaintiffs’ negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of $190 million. In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which the district court denied in March 2012 without prejudice. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. On February 28, 2013, the district court amended the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. A trial date has not been set.

Evolving medical standards and practices could have an impact on the defense of medical monitoring claims. For example, the first publication of the findings of the National Cancer Institute’s National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in June 2011 reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths among certain long-term smokers receiving Low Dose CT Scanning for lung cancer. Since then, various public health organizations have begun to develop new lung cancer screening guidelines. Also, a number of hospitals have advertised the availability of screening programs and some insurance companies now cover screening for some individuals. Other studies in this area are ongoing.

Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

Overview

In the health care cost recovery litigation, governmental entities seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures allegedly caused by tobacco products and, in some cases, of future expenditures and damages as well. Relief sought by some but not all plaintiffs includes punitive damages, multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research, disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs, additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney and expert witness fees.

The claims asserted include the claim that cigarette manufacturers were “unjustly enriched” by plaintiffs’ payment of health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking, as well as claims of indemnity, negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, violation of a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under federal and state statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust, deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims under federal and state anti-racketeering statutes.

Defenses raised include lack of proximate cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a valid claim, lack of benefit, adequate remedy at law, “unclean hands” (namely, that plaintiffs cannot obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), lack of antitrust standing and injury, federal preemption, lack of statutory authority to bring suit, and statutes of limitations. In addition, defendants argue that they should be entitled to “set off” any alleged damages to the extent the plaintiffs benefit economically from the sale of cigarettes through the receipt of excise taxes or otherwise. Defendants also argue that these cases are improper because plaintiffs must proceed under principles of subrogation and assignment. Under traditional theories of recovery, a payor of medical costs (such as an insurer) can seek recovery of health care costs from a third party solely by “standing in the shoes” of the injured party. Defendants argue that plaintiffs should be required to bring any actions as subrogees of individual health care recipients and should be subject to all defenses available against the injured party.

Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions in the United States have dismissed all or most health care cost recovery claims against cigarette manufacturers. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals and eight state appellate courts, relying primarily on grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were too remote, have ordered or affirmed dismissals of health care cost recovery actions. The United States Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs’ appeals from the cases decided by five circuit courts of appeals. In 2011, in the health care cost recovery case brought against PM USA and other defendants by the City of St. Louis, Missouri and approximately 40 Missouri hospitals, a verdict was returned in favor of defendants.

Individuals and associations have also sued in purported class actions or as private attorneys general under the Medicare as Secondary Payer (“MSP”) provisions of the Social Security Act to recover from defendants Medicare expenditures allegedly incurred for the treatment of smoking-related diseases. Cases were brought in New York (2), Florida (2) and Massachusetts (1). All were dismissed by federal courts.

In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care cost recovery actions have also been brought against tobacco industry participants, including PM USA and Altria Group, Inc., in Israel (dismissed), the Marshall Islands (dismissed), and Canada (9), and other entities have stated that they are considering filing such actions.

In September 2005, in the first of several health care cost recovery cases filed in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that legislation passed in British Columbia permitting the lawsuit is constitutional, and, as a result, the case, which had previously been dismissed by the trial court, was permitted to proceed. PM USA’s and other defendants’ challenge to the British Columbia court’s exercise of jurisdiction was rejected by the Court of Appeals of British Columbia and, in April 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied review of that decision. In December 2009, the Court of Appeals of British Columbia ruled that certain defendants can proceed against the Federal Government of Canada as third parties on the theory that the Federal Government of Canada negligently misrepresented to defendants the efficacy of a low tar tobacco variety that the Federal Government of Canada developed and licensed to defendants. In May 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to the Federal Government of Canada to appeal this decision and leave to defendants to cross-appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss claims against the Federal Government of Canada based on other theories of liability. In July 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the third-party claims against the Federal Government of Canada.

Since the beginning of 2008, the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island have brought health care reimbursement claims against cigarette manufacturers. PM USA is named as a defendant in the British Columbia and Quebec cases, while both Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA are named as defendants in the New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island cases. The Province of Nova Scotia and the territory of Nunavut have enacted similar legislation or are in the process of enacting similar legislation. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation

In November 1998, PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers entered into the the MSA with 46 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Marianas to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other United States tobacco product manufacturers had previously settled similar claims brought by Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota (together with the MSA, the “State Settlement Agreements”). The State Settlement Agreements require that the original participating manufacturers make annual payments of approximately $9.4 billion, subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume. In addition, the original participating manufacturers are required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million. For the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, the aggregate amount recorded in cost of sales with respect to the State Settlement Agreements and the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (“FETRA”) was approximately $0.6 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively. The 2013 amount includes a credit of $483 million related to the NPM Adjustment discussed below.

The State Settlement Agreements also include provisions relating to advertising and marketing restrictions, public disclosure of certain industry documents, limitations on challenges to certain tobacco control and underage use laws, restrictions on lobbying activities and other provisions.

Possible Adjustments in MSA Payments for 2003 - 2012

Pursuant to the provisions of the MSA, domestic tobacco product manufacturers, including PM USA, who are original signatories to the MSA (the “Original Participating Manufacturers” or “OPMs”) are participating in proceedings with respect to claims for downward adjustments to the amounts paid by the OPMs and the other MSA-participating manufacturers to the states and territories that are parties to the MSA for each of the years 2003 - 2012. The proceedings relate to a NPM Adjustment based on the collective loss of market share for the relevant year by all participating manufacturers who are subject to the payment obligations and marketing restrictions of the MSA to non-participating manufacturers (“NPMs”) who are not subject to such obligations and restrictions.

As part of these proceedings, an independent economic consulting firm jointly selected by the MSA parties or otherwise selected pursuant to the MSA’s provisions is required to determine whether the disadvantages of the MSA were a “significant factor” contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the year in question. If the firm determines that the disadvantages of the MSA were such a “significant factor,” each state may avoid a downward adjustment to its share of the participating manufacturers’ annual payments for that year by establishing that it diligently enforced a qualifying escrow statute during the entirety of that year. Such a state’s share of the downward adjustment would then be reallocated to any states that are found not to have established such diligent enforcement. PM USA believes that the MSA’s arbitration clause requires a state to submit its claim to have diligently enforced a qualifying escrow statute to binding arbitration before a panel of three former federal judges in the manner provided for in the MSA. A number of states have taken the position that this claim should be decided in state court on a state-by-state basis.

An independent economic consulting firm, jointly selected by the MSA parties, determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for each of the years 2003 - 2005. A different independent economic consulting firm, jointly selected by the MSA parties, determined that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the year 2006. Following the firm’s determination for 2006, the OPMs and the states agreed that the states would not contest that the disadvantages of the MSA were a significant factor contributing to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Accordingly, the OPMs and the states have agreed that no “significant factor” determination by an independent economic consulting firm will be necessary with respect to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 (the “significant factor agreement”). This agreement became effective for 2007, 2008 and 2009 on February 1, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. The OPMs and the states have agreed to extend the significant factor agreement to apply to the participating manufacturers’ collective loss of market share for 2010, 2011 and 2012. This agreement became effective for 2010 on February 1, 2013 and will become effective for 2011 and 2012 on February 1, 2014 and 2015, respectively.

Following the “significant factor” determination with respect to 2003, 38 states filed declaratory judgment actions in state courts seeking a declaration that the state diligently enforced its escrow statute during 2003. The OPMs and other MSA-participating manufacturers responded to these actions by filing motions to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the MSA, including filing motions to compel arbitration in 11 MSA states and territories that did not file declaratory judgment actions. Courts in all but one of the 46 MSA states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have ruled that the question of whether a state diligently enforced its escrow statute during 2003 is subject to arbitration. Several of these rulings may be subject to further review. The Montana state courts have ruled that the diligent enforcement claims of that state may be litigated in state court, rather than in arbitration. In June 2012, following the denial of the OPMs’ petition to the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, the participating manufacturers and Montana entered into a consent decree pursuant to which Montana will not be subject to the 2003 NPM Adjustment.

PM USA, the other OPMs and approximately 25 other MSA-participating manufacturers have entered into an agreement regarding arbitration with 45 MSA states and territories concerning the 2003 NPM Adjustment, including the states’ claims of diligent enforcement for 2003. The agreement further provides for a partial liability reduction for the 2003 NPM Adjustment for states that entered into the agreement by January 30, 2009 and are determined in the arbitration not to have diligently enforced a qualifying escrow statute during 2003. Based on the number of states that entered into the agreement by January 30, 2009 (45), the partial liability reduction for those states is 20%. The partial liability reduction would reduce the amount of PM USA’s 2003 NPM Adjustment by up to a corresponding percentage. The selection of the arbitration panel for the 2003 NPM Adjustment was completed in July 2010, and the arbitration is currently ongoing. Following the completion of discovery, the participating manufacturers determined to continue to contest the 2003 diligent enforcement claims of 33 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and to no longer contest such claims by 12 states and four U.S. territories (the “non-contested states”). As a result, the non-contested states will not be subject to the 2003 NPM Adjustment. The non-contested states’ share of any such NPM Adjustment (other than those non-contested states that have joined the Term Sheet discussed below), along with the shares of any states found by the arbitration panel to have diligently enforced during 2003, will be reallocated in accordance with the MSA to those states, if any, found by the panel not to have diligently enforced during 2003. Proceedings to determine state diligent enforcement claims for the years 2004 through 2012 have not yet been scheduled.

Once a significant factor determination in favor of the participating manufacturers for a particular year has been made by an economic consulting firm, or the states’ agreement not to contest significant factor for a particular year has become effective, PM USA has the right under the MSA to pay the disputed amount of the NPM Adjustment for that year into a disputed payments account (“DPA”) or withhold it altogether. PM USA has made its full MSA payment due in each year from 2006 - 2010 to the states (subject to a right to recoup the NPM Adjustment amount in the form of a credit against future MSA payments), even though it had the right to deduct the disputed amounts of the 2003 - 2007 NPM Adjustments, as described above, from such MSA payments. PM USA paid its share of the amount of the disputed 2008, 2009 and 2010 NPM Adjustments shown below into the DPA in connection with its MSA payments due in 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively. The approximate maximum principal amounts of PM USA’s share of the disputed NPM Adjustment for the years 2003 through 2012, as currently calculated by the MSA’s Independent Auditor, are as follows (the amounts shown below do not include the interest or earnings thereon to which PM USA believes it would be entitled in the manner provided in the MSA, do not reflect the partial liability reduction for the 2003 NPM Adjustment pursuant to the arbitration agreement described above and do not reflect any reduction in light of the Term Sheet described below):



Year for which NPM Adjustment calculated	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008		2009		2010		2011		2012

Year in which deduction for NPM Adjustment may be taken	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011		2012		2013		2014		2015

PM USA’s Approximate Share of Disputed NPM Adjustment (in millions)	$337	$388	$181	$154	$185	$	250	$	205	$	203	$	159	$199

Effective December 17, 2012, PM USA, the other OPMs and certain other participating manufacturers entered into a term sheet (the “Term Sheet”) with 17 MSA states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico for settlement of the 2003 - 2012 NPM Adjustments with those states and territories (the “signatory states”). On March 12, 2013, the arbitration panel in the pending NPM Adjustment arbitration issued a stipulated partial settlement and award (the “Stipulated Award”) permitting the Term Sheet to proceed. As of April 22, 2013, eight of the states that have not joined the Term Sheet (“non-signatory states”) have filed motions in their state MSA courts to vacate and/or modify the Stipulated Award. Two of these states, Colorado and Ohio, also sought preliminary injunctive relief with respect to the Stipulated Award. The Colorado motion for a preliminary injunction was denied on April 11, 2013, and the Ohio motion for a preliminary injunction was denied on April 12, 2013. Additional non-signatory states may also take action in state court to vacate or modify the Stipulated Award. No assurance can be given that this litigation or any other such attempts by other non-signatory states will be resolved in a manner favorable to PM USA, nor can PM USA predict the remedy that might be ordered if any such litigation were to be resolved unfavorably to PM USA. PM USA continues to reserve all rights regarding the NPM Adjustments with respect to the non-signatory states. An additional MSA state joined the Term Sheet on April 12, 2013, and it is possible that more states will also join.

The Term Sheet provides for the OPMs to receive reductions to their MSA payments in an amount equal to 46% of the signatory states’ aggregate allocable share of the OPMs’ aggregate 2003 - 2012 NPM Adjustments. The OPMs have agreed that, subject to certain conditions, PM USA will receive approximately 28% of such reductions (which is the maximum percentage allocation of the total 2003 - 2012 NPM Adjustments to which PM USA was entitled under the MSA); R.J. Reynolds will receive approximately 60% of such reductions; and Lorillard will receive approximately 12% of such reductions. Based on the identity of the signatory states on April 15, 2013, the reduction in PM USA’s MSA payment obligation was approximately $483 million. PM USA recorded this amount as an increase in its reported pre-tax earnings in the first quarter of 2013.

PM USA received all of its reduction under the Term Sheet through a credit against its April 2013 MSA payment. R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard received part of their reductions through credits against their April 2013 MSA payments and are expected to receive the remainder through reductions in their MSA payments in April 2014 - April 2017.

As part of the settlement, each of the signatory states received its portion of over $4.7 billion from the DPA. In this context, PM USA authorized release to the signatory states of their allocable share of the $658 million that PM USA has paid into the DPA (plus the accumulated earnings thereon), which amounted to approximately $272 million. Furthermore, PM USA will deposit the signatory states’ allocable share of the 2011 - 2012 NPM Adjustments into the DPA in connection with its April 2014 - 2015 MSA payments and then, following such deposit, authorize the release of such share to the signatory states.

The Term Sheet also provides that the NPM Adjustment provision will be revised and streamlined as to the signatory states for years after 2012. In connection with the settlement, the formula for allocating among the OPMs the revised NPM Adjustments applicable in the future to the signatory states will be modified in a manner favorable to PM USA, although the extent to which it is favorable to PM USA will be dependent upon certain future events, including the future relative market shares of the OPMs.

PM USA intends to continue to pursue vigorously the disputed NPM Adjustments for 2003 - 2012 against the non-signatory states through the arbitration proceedings described above. The amounts of the NPM Adjustments for 2003 - 2012 set forth in the table above will be reduced in light of the Term Sheet to determine the maximum amount of such adjustments potentially available from the non-signatory states. As part of the Stipulated Award, the arbitration panel ruled that the 2003 NPM Adjustment claim is to be reduced pro rata by the aggregate allocable share of the signatory states to determine the maximum amount of the 2003 NPM Adjustment potentially available from the non-signatory states, although a non-signatory state may seek a more favorable reduction method as to it through review in its state court. (The amount of the 2003 NPM Adjustment allocated to any non-signatory state found not to be diligent for that year will also be reduced by the partial liability reduction under the agreement regarding arbitration described above.) The Stipulated Award did not specify the reduction method applicable to the 2004 - 2012 NPM Adjustment claims. Many of the state court actions to vacate and/or modify the Stipulated Award brought by the non-signatory states described above seek relief with respect to the pro rata reduction method.

The amounts in the table above may be recalculated by the MSA’s Independent Auditor if it receives information that is different from or in addition to the information on which it based these calculations, including, among other things, if it receives revised sales volumes from any participating manufacturer. Disputes among the manufacturers could also reduce the foregoing amounts. The availability and the precise amount of any NPM Adjustment for 2003 - 2012 obtained through such proceedings (as opposed to the Term Sheet) will not be finally determined until later in 2013 or thereafter. There is no certainty that the OPMs and other MSA-participating manufacturers would ultimately receive any adjustment from the non-signatory states as a result of these proceedings, and the amount of any adjustment received for a year could be less than the amount for that year listed above (even as reduced in light of the Term Sheet). If the OPMs do receive such an adjustment through these proceedings (apart from the Term Sheet), the adjustment would be allocated among the OPMs pursuant to the MSA’s provisions. It is expected that PM USA would receive its share of any adjustments for 2003 - 2007 in the form of a credit against future MSA payments and its share of any adjustment for 2008 - 2010 in the form of a withdrawal from the DPA.

Other Disputes Related to MSA Payments

In addition to the disputed NPM Adjustments described above, MSA states and participating manufacturers, including PM USA, conducted another arbitration to resolve certain other disputes related to the calculation of the participating manufacturers’ payments under the MSA. PM USA disputed the method by which ounces of “roll your own” tobacco had been converted to cigarettes for purposes of calculating the downward volume adjustments to its MSA payments. PM USA believed that, for the years 2004 − 2012, the use of an incorrect conversion method resulted in excess MSA payments by PM USA in those years of approximately $92 million in the aggregate. On February 14, 2013, the arbitration panel issued a ruling in favor of the MSA states. Consequently, PM USA will not receive any credit against its future MSA payments on account of this dispute. This same arbitration panel also issued a ruling in the dispute over whether the “adjusted gross” or the “net” number of cigarettes on which federal excise tax is paid is the correct methodology for calculating MSA payments due from certain subsequent participating manufacturers. It is unclear precisely which past and future MSA payments may be affected by this ruling. PM USA also does not currently have access to the data that would be necessary to determine the magnitude and the direction of such effects, if any.

Other MSA-Related Litigation

Since the MSA’s inception, NPMs and/or their distributors or customers have filed a number of challenges to the MSA and related legislation. They have named as defendants the states and their officials, in an effort to enjoin enforcement of important parts of the MSA and related legislation, and/or participating manufacturers, in an effort to obtain damages. To date, no such challenge has been successful, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have affirmed judgments in favor of defendants in 16 such cases.

Federal Government’s Lawsuit

In 1999, the United States government filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against various cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA, and others, including Altria Group, Inc., asserting claims under three federal statutes, namely the Medical Care Recovery Act (“MCRA”), the MSP provisions of the Social Security Act and the civil provisions of RICO. Trial of the case ended in June 2005. The lawsuit sought to recover an unspecified amount of health care costs for tobacco-related illnesses allegedly caused by defendants’ fraudulent and tortious conduct and paid for by the government under various federal health care programs, including Medicare, military and veterans’ health benefits programs, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The complaint alleged that such costs total more than $20 billion annually. It also sought what it alleged to be equitable and declaratory relief, including disgorgement of profits that arose from defendants’ allegedly tortious conduct, an injunction prohibiting certain actions by defendants, and a declaration that defendants are liable for the federal government’s future costs of providing health care resulting from defendants’ alleged past tortious and wrongful conduct. In September 2000, the trial court dismissed the government’s MCRA and MSP claims, but permitted discovery to proceed on the government’s claims for relief under the civil provisions of RICO.

The government alleged that disgorgement by defendants of approximately $280 billion is an appropriate remedy. In May 2004, the trial court issued an order denying defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment limiting the disgorgement remedy. In February 2005, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that disgorgement is not a remedy available to the government under the civil provisions of RICO and entered summary judgment in favor of defendants with respect to the disgorgement claim. In July 2005, the government petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review of the Court of Appeals’ ruling that disgorgement is not an available remedy, and in October 2005, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

In June 2005, the government filed with the trial court its proposed final judgment seeking remedies of approximately $14 billion, including $10 billion over a five-year period to fund a national smoking cessation program and $4 billion over a 10-year period to fund a public education and counter-marketing campaign. Further, the government’s proposed remedy would have required defendants to pay additional monies to these programs if targeted reductions in the smoking rate of those under 21 were not achieved according to a prescribed timetable. The government’s proposed remedies also included a series of measures and restrictions applicable to cigarette business operations, including, but not limited to, restrictions on advertising and marketing, potential measures with respect to certain price promotional activities and research and development, disclosure requirements for certain confidential data and implementation of a monitoring system with potential broad powers over cigarette operations.

In August 2006, the federal trial court entered judgment in favor of the government. The court held that certain defendants, including Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA, violated RICO and engaged in seven of the eight “sub-schemes” to defraud that the government had alleged. Specifically, the court found that:


•	defendants falsely denied, distorted and minimized the significant adverse health consequences of smoking;


•	defendants hid from the public that cigarette smoking and nicotine are addictive;


•	defendants falsely denied that they control the level of nicotine delivered to create and sustain addiction;


•	defendants falsely marketed and promoted “low tar/light” cigarettes as less harmful than full-flavor cigarettes;


•	defendants falsely denied that they intentionally marketed to youth;


•	defendants publicly and falsely denied that ETS is hazardous to non-smokers; and


•	defendants suppressed scientific research.

The court did not impose monetary penalties on defendants, but ordered the following relief: (i) an injunction against “committing any act of racketeering” relating to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion, health consequences or sale of cigarettes in the United States; (ii) an injunction against participating directly or indirectly in the management or control of the Council for Tobacco Research, the Tobacco Institute, or the Center for Indoor Air Research, or any successor or affiliated entities of each; (iii) an injunction against “making, or causing to be made in any way, any material false, misleading, or deceptive statement or representation or engaging in any public relations or marketing endeavor that is disseminated to the United States public and that misrepresents or suppresses information concerning cigarettes”; (iv) an injunction against conveying any express or implied health message through use of descriptors on cigarette packaging or in cigarette advertising or promotional material, including “lights,” “ultra lights” and “low tar,” which the court found could cause consumers to believe one cigarette brand is less hazardous than another brand; (v) the issuance of “corrective statements” in various media regarding the adverse health effects of smoking, the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine, the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking “low tar” or “light” cigarettes, defendants’ manipulation of cigarette design to ensure optimum nicotine delivery and the adverse health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke; (vi) the disclosure on defendants’ public document websites and in the Minnesota document repository of all documents produced to the government in the lawsuit or produced in any future court or administrative action concerning smoking and health until 2021, with certain additional requirements as to documents withheld from production under a claim of privilege or confidentiality; (vii) the disclosure of disaggregated marketing data to the government in the same form and on the same schedule as defendants now follow in disclosing such data to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) for a period of ten years; (viii) certain restrictions on the sale or transfer by defendants of any cigarette brands, brand names, formulas or cigarette businesses within the United States; and (ix) payment of the government’s costs in bringing the action.

Defendants appealed and, in May 2009, a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a per curiam decision largely affirming the trial court’s judgment against defendants and in favor of the government. Although the panel largely affirmed the remedial order that was issued by the trial court, it vacated the following aspects of the order:


•	its application to defendants’ subsidiaries;


•	the prohibition on the use of express or implied health messages or health descriptors, but only to the extent of extraterritorial application;


•	its point-of-sale display provisions; and


•	its application to Brown & Williamson Holdings.

The Court of Appeals panel remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider these four aspects of the injunction and to reformulate its remedial order accordingly.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals panel rejected all of the government’s and intervenors’ cross appeal arguments and refused to broaden the remedial order entered by the trial court. The Court of Appeals panel also left undisturbed its prior holding that the government cannot obtain disgorgement as a permissible remedy under RICO.

In July 2009, defendants filed petitions for a rehearing before the panel and for a rehearing by the entire Court of Appeals. Defendants also filed a motion to vacate portions of the trial court’s judgment on the grounds of mootness because of the passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“FSPTCA”), granting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) broad authority over the regulation of tobacco products. In September 2009, the Court of Appeals entered three per curiam rulings. Two of them denied defendants’ petitions for panel rehearing or for rehearing en banc. In the third per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals denied defendants’ suggestion of mootness and motion for partial vacatur. In February 2010, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. filed their certiorari petitions with the United States Supreme Court. In addition, the federal government and the intervenors filed their own certiorari petitions, asking the court to reverse an earlier Court of Appeals decision and hold that civil RICO allows the trial court to order disgorgement as well as other equitable relief, such as smoking cessation remedies, designed to redress continuing consequences of prior RICO violations. In June 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied all of the parties’ petitions. In July 2010, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate lifting the stay of the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case to the trial court. As a result of the mandate, except for those matters remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, defendants are now subject to the injunction discussed above and the other elements of the trial court’s judgment.

In February 2011, the government submitted its proposed corrective statements and the trial court referred issues relating to a document repository to a special master. Defendants filed a response to the government’s proposed corrective statements and filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s injunction in light of the FSPTCA, which motion was denied in June 2011. Defendants appealed the trial court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On July 27, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to vacate the district court’s injunction.

Remaining issues pending include: (i) the specifics relating to the court-ordered corrective statements and (ii) the requirements related to point-of-sale signage. On November 27, 2012, the district court issued its order specifying the content of the corrective statements described above. The district court’s order requires that the parties engage in negotiations with the special master regarding implementation of the corrective statements remedy, which negotiations are ongoing. Unresolved issues will be decided by the special master and the court. Defendants filed a notice of appeal from the order on the content of the corrective statements on January 25, 2013 and a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance on January 30, 2013. On February 15, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals granted defendants’ motion to hold their appeal in abeyance.

In December 2011, the parties to the lawsuit entered into an agreement as to the issues concerning the document repository. Pursuant to this agreement, PM USA agreed to deposit an amount of approximately $3.1 million into the district court in installments over a five-year period.

“Lights/Ultra Lights” Cases

Overview

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of April 22, 2013, a total of 14 such cases were pending in the United States. Three of these cases were pending in U.S. federal courts as discussed below. The other cases were pending in various U.S. state courts. In addition, a purported “Lights” class action is pending against PM USA in Israel.

In the one “Lights” case pending in Israel (El-Roy), hearings on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification were held in November and December 2008, and an additional hearing on class certification was held in November 2011. On November 28, 2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and ordered the plaintiffs to pay defendants approximately $100,000 in attorney fees. Plaintiffs in that case have noticed an appeal. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

The Good Case

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA’s motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported “Lights” class action, on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (“FCLAA”) and dismissed the case. In December 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by federal preemption. Although the Court rejected the argument that the FTC’s actions were so extensive with respect to the descriptors that the state law claims were barred as a matter of federal law, the Court’s decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate merits of plaintiffs’ claim, the viability of the action as a class action, or other state law issues. The case was returned to the federal court in Maine and consolidated with other federal cases in the multidistrict litigation proceeding discussed below. In June 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice after the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, concluding the litigation.

Federal Multidistrict Proceeding and Subsequent Developments

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in Good, and through April 22, 2013, 26 purported “Lights” class actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPMDL”) before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings (“MDL proceeding”).

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in four cases, covering the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal. Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their cases. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district courts in which the suits originated. In Tang, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in July 2012, concluding the litigation.

In Phillips, which is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, defendants filed in June 2012 a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs’ class action consumer sales practices claims and a motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs’ state deceptive trade practices claims. On March 21, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motions, dismissing with prejudice the associated claims. Plaintiffs’ non-statutory claims of fraud, unjust enrichment, and express and implied warranty were not dismissed. A hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification currently is set for August 30, 2013.

In Cabbat, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, plaintiffs in July 2012 amended their complaint, adding a claim for unjust enrichment and dropping their claims for breach of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 1, 2013. The trial court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion on July 1, 2013 and set a February 11, 2014 trial date.

In Wyatt, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 11, 2013.

“Lights” Cases Dismissed, Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

To date, in addition to the district court in the MDL proceeding, 16 courts in 17 “Lights” cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs’ class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in the Price case. See The Price Case below for further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported “Lights” class action brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court in Schwab that granted plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled “Light” or “Lights.” In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court (discussed above). The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court’s dismissal of “Lights” claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order to certify a class and subsequently denied plaintiffs’ rehearing petition. In October 2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory review of the trial court’s refusal to certify a class. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA’s motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April 2010. On April 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion in the Oregon Court of Appeals to certify the appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Other Developments

In December 2009, the state trial court in the Carroll (formerly known as Holmes) case (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA’s motion for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as additional defendants. In July 2011, the parties stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. On February 6, 2013, the trial court approved the parties’ stipulation to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in the Miner (formerly known as Watson) case that denied plaintiffs’ motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants’ contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the “federal officer” statute. The case was removed to federal court in Arkansas and the case was transferred to the MDL proceeding discussed above. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. A hearing on plaintiffs’ March 13, 2013 class certification motion is scheduled to begin on October 22, 2013.

The Price Case

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court’s mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that the United States Supreme Court’s December 2008 decision in Good demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision was “inaccurate.” PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA’s motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed. In March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court declined PM USA’s petition for review. As a result, the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on whether the court should grant the plaintiffs’ petition to reopen the prior judgment. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, which PM USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM USA’s opposition to the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the trial court to reinstate the original judgment. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ petition in December 2012. On January 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial District. On January 16, 2013, PM USA filed a motion asking the Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its jurisdiction over the appeal. On February 15, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court denied PM USA’s motion.

In June 2009, the plaintiff in an individual smoker lawsuit (Kelly) brought on behalf of an alleged smoker of “Lights” cigarettes in Madison County, Illinois state court filed a motion seeking a declaration that his claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act are not (i) barred by the exemption in that statute based on his assertion that the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Price is no longer good law in light of the decisions by the United States Supreme Court in Good and Watson, and (ii) preempted in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Good. In September 2009, the court granted plaintiff’s motion as to federal preemption, but denied it with respect to the state statutory exemption.

State Trial Court Class Certifications

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified class actions remain pending in California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall) and Missouri (Larsen). Significant developments in these cases include:

•

Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial court denied PM USA’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts’ consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In December 2008, subsequent to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Good, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order requesting that the parties advise the court within 30 days whether the Good decision is dispositive of federal preemption issues pending on appeal. In January 2009, PM USA notified the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that Good is dispositive of the federal preemption issues on appeal, but requested further briefing on the state law statutory exemption issue. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs’ cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice (see Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation - Federal Government’s Lawsuit described above). In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion. On February 1, 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs’ claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case.

•

Brown: In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM USA and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices. In May 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court. The class consists of individuals who, at the time they were residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or advertised with the terms or phrases “light,” “medium,” “mild,” “low tar,” and/or “lowered tar and nicotine,” but not including any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases, “ultra light” or “ultra low tar,” and (ii) who were exposed to defendant’s marketing and advertising activities in California. Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of “light” cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive relief ordering corrective communications. In September 2012, at the plaintiffs’ request, the trial court dismissed all defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit. Trial began on April 22, 2013.

•

Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995 through 2003. In June 2010, PM USA’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice (see Federal Government’s Lawsuit described above). The plaintiffs’ motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs’ claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA’s remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011 the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. The court has continued the new trial through January 2014, with an exact date to be determined.

Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation

Tobacco Price Case: One case remains pending in Kansas (Smith) in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including PM USA and Altria Group, Inc., conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted. In March 2012, the trial court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs sought the trial court’s reconsideration of its decision, but in June 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision, and defendants have cross-appealed the trial court’s class certification decision, to the Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Ignition Propensity Cases: PM USA is currently facing litigation alleging that a fire caused by cigarettes led to individuals’ deaths. In a Kentucky case (Walker), the federal district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims in February 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal. In October 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the portion of the district court decision that denied remand of the case to Kentucky state court and remanded the case to Kentucky state court. The Sixth Circuit did not address the merits of the district court’s dismissal order. Defendants’ petition for rehearing with the Sixth Circuit was denied in December 2011. PM USA filed a renewed motion to dismiss in state court on March 25, 2013.

False Claims Act Case: PM USA is a defendant in a qui tam action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (United States ex rel. Anthony Oliver) alleging violation of the False Claims Act in connection with sales of cigarettes to the U.S. military. The relator contends that PM USA violated “most favored customer” provisions in government contracts and regulations by selling cigarettes to non-military customers in overseas markets at more favorable prices than it sold to the U.S. military exchange services for resale on overseas military bases in those same markets. The relator has dropped Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant and has dropped claims related to post-MSA price increases on cigarettes sold to the U.S. military. In July 2012, PM USA filed a motion to dismiss.

Argentine Grower Cases: PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. were named as defendants in four cases (Hupan, Chalanuk, Rodriguez Da Silva and Aranda) filed in Delaware state court against multiple defendants by the parents of minor Argentine children born with alleged birth defects. Plaintiffs in these cases allege that they grew tobacco in Argentina under contract with Tabacos Norte S.A., an alleged subsidiary of PMI, and that they and their infant children were exposed directly and in utero to hazardous herbicides and pesticides used in the production and cultivation of tobacco. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants under U.S. and Argentine law. Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA are in discussions with PMI regarding indemnification for these cases pursuant to the Distribution Agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement. On December 11, 2012, Altria Group, Inc. and certain other defendants were dismissed from the Hupan, Chalanuk and Rodriguez Da Silva cases. The three remaining defendants in those actions are PM USA, Philip Morris Global Brands (a subsidiary of PMI) and Monsanto Company.

UST Litigation

Claims related to smokeless tobacco products generally fall within the following categories:

First, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in certain actions in West Virginia (See In re: Tobacco Litigation above) brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco manufacturers, and other organizations seeking damages and other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included among the plaintiffs are five individuals alleging use of USSTC’s smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from such proceedings since December 2001.

Second, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction, and breach of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in Florida (Vassallo).

Certain Other Actions

Kraft Thrift Plan Cases: Four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Thrift Plan (“Kraft Thrift Plan”), a defined contribution plan, filed a class action complaint (George II) on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Kraft Thrift Plan in July 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Named defendants in this action included Altria Corporate Services, Inc. (now Altria Client Services Inc.) and certain company committees that allegedly had a relationship to the Kraft Thrift Plan. Plaintiffs requested, among other remedies, that defendants restore to the Kraft Thrift Plan all losses improperly incurred.

In August 2011, Altria Client Services Inc. and a company committee that allegedly had a relationship to the Kraft Thrift Plan were added as defendants in another class action previously brought by the same plaintiffs in 2006 (George I), in which plaintiffs allege defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering company stock funds in a unitized format and by allegedly overpaying for recordkeeping services.

In June 2012, the district court approved a court-approved class-wide settlement for George I and George II that does not require any payment by the Altria Group, Inc. defendants, concluding this litigation.

Environmental Regulation

Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise related to environmental protection, including, in the United States: The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (commonly known as “Superfund”), which can impose joint and several liability on each responsible party. Subsidiaries (and former subsidiaries) of Altria Group, Inc. are involved in several matters subjecting them to potential costs of remediation and natural resource damages under Superfund or other laws and regulations. Altria Group, Inc.’s subsidiaries expect to continue to make capital and other expenditures in connection with environmental laws and regulations.

Altria Group, Inc. provides for expenses associated with environmental remediation obligations on an undiscounted basis when such amounts are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are adjusted as new information develops or circumstances change. Other than those amounts, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the cost of any environmental remediation and compliance efforts that subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. may undertake in the future. In the opinion of management, however, compliance with environmental laws and regulations, including the payment of any remediation costs or damages and the making of related expenditures, has not had, and is not expected to have, a material adverse effect on Altria Group, Inc.’s consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, financial position or cash flows.

Guarantees and Other Similar Matters

In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation. At March 31, 2013, subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. were also contingently liable for $31 million of guarantees related to their own performance, consisting primarily of surety bonds. In addition, from time to time, subsidiaries of Altria Group, Inc. issue lines of credit to affiliated entities. These items have not had, and are not expected to have, a significant impact on Altria Group, Inc.’s liquidity.

Under the terms of a distribution agreement between Altria Group, Inc. and PMI (the “Distribution Agreement”), entered into as a result of Altria Group, Inc.’s 2008 spin-off of its former subsidiary PMI, liabilities concerning tobacco products will be allocated based in substantial part on the manufacturer. PMI will indemnify Altria Group, Inc. and PM USA for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PMI or contract manufactured for PMI by PM USA, and PM USA will indemnify PMI for liabilities related to tobacco products manufactured by PM USA, excluding tobacco products contract manufactured for PMI. Altria Group, Inc. does not have a related liability recorded on its condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2013 as the fair value of this indemnification is insignificant.

As more fully discussed in Note 11. Condensed Consolidating Financial Information, PM USA has issued guarantees relating to Altria Group, Inc.’s obligations under its outstanding debt securities, borrowings under its senior unsecured 5-year revolving credit agreement and amounts outstanding under its commercial paper program.

Redeemable Noncontrolling Interest

In September 2007, Ste. Michelle completed the acquisition of Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars through one of its consolidated subsidiaries, Michelle-Antinori, LLC (“Michelle-Antinori”), in which Ste. Michelle holds an 85% ownership interest with a 15% noncontrolling interest held by Antinori California (“Antinori”). In connection with the acquisition of Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars, Ste. Michelle entered into a put arrangement with Antinori. The put arrangement, as later amended, provides Antinori with the right to require Ste. Michelle to purchase its 15% ownership interest in Michelle-Antinori at a price equal to Antinori’s initial investment of $27 million. The put arrangement became exercisable on September 11, 2010 and has no expiration date. As of March 31, 2013, the redemption value of the put arrangement did not exceed the noncontrolling interest balance. Therefore, no adjustment to the value of the redeemable noncontrolling interest was recognized on the condensed consolidated balance sheet for the put arrangement.

The noncontrolling interest put arrangement is accounted for as mandatorily redeemable securities because redemption is outside of the control of Ste. Michelle. As such, the redeemable noncontrolling interest is reported in the mezzanine equity section on the condensed consolidated balance sheets at March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012.