Legal proceedings covering a wide range of matters are pending or threatened in various U.S. and foreign jurisdictions against Altria and its subsidiaries, including PM USA and USSTC, as well as their respective indemnitees and Altria’s investees. Various types of claims may be raised in these proceedings, including product liability, unfair trade practices, antitrust, tax, contraband shipments, patent infringement, employment matters, claims for contribution and claims of competitors, shareholders or distributors. Legislative action, such as changes to tort law, also may expand the types of claims and remedies available to plaintiffs.

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, have ranged 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 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 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 or its subsidiaries also may be required to pay interest and attorneys’ 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 47 states and Puerto Rico 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. States, including Florida, also may seek to repeal or alter bond cap statutes through legislation. Although Altria cannot predict the outcome of such challenges, it is possible that the consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position of Altria, 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 and its subsidiaries record provisions in the 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 18. Contingencies: (i) management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending 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 cases; and (iii) accordingly, management has not provided any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. Litigation defense costs are expensed as incurred.

Altria 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, 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 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 and its subsidiaries may enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if they believe it is in the best interests of Altria to do so.

Types and Number of U.S. 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) 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; (iii) e-vapor cases alleging violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence, antitrust and unfair trade practices; and (iv) other tobacco-related litigation described below. Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery and the defenses raised in tobacco-related litigation are discussed below.

(1) Includes 16 cases filed in New Mexico, 30 cases filed in Massachusetts and 60 non-Engle cases filed in Florida. 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 (these Engle progeny cases are discussed below in Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Class Action). Also does not include 1,471 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 allowed class members to file individual lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibited them from seeking punitive damages. In March 2018, 923 of these cases were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

International Tobacco-Related Cases: As of January 25, 2021, (i) Altria is named as a defendant in three e-vapor class action lawsuits in Canada; (ii) PM USA is a named defendant in 10 health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name Altria as a defendant; and (iii) PM USA and Altria are named as 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 and Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”) that provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

Trial Results: Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases (separately discussed below), verdicts have been returned in 69 tobacco-related cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 44 of the 69 cases. These 44 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (7), Connecticut (1), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (4), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2).

Judgments Paid and Provisions for Tobacco and Health Litigation Items (Including Engle Progeny Litigation): After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October 2004, PM USA has paid judgments and settlements (including related costs and fees) totaling approximately $805 million and interest totaling approximately $218 million as of December 31, 2020. These amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $365 million and related interest totaling approximately $56 million.

The accrued liability for tobacco and health litigation items, including related interest costs, was included in accrued liabilities on Altria’s consolidated balance sheets. Pre-tax charges for tobacco and health litigation were included in marketing, administration and research costs on Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings. Pre-tax charges for related interest costs were included in interest and other debt expense, net on Altria’s consolidated statements of earnings.

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 unfair trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes, and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the smoking and health cases 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.

Gentile: In October 2017, a jury in a Florida state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding approximately $7.1 million in compensatory damages and allocating 75% of the fault to PM USA. PM USA appealed. In September 2019, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the trial court, granted PM USA judgment on certain claims and remanded for a new trial on the remaining claims. Plaintiff petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for further review, which the court denied in January 2021.

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 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.

In August 2006, PM USA and plaintiffs sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion. 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 February 2008, the trial court decertified the class.

Pending Engle Progeny Cases: The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases expired in January 2008, at which point a total of approximately 9,300 federal and state claims were pending. As of January 25, 2021, approximately 1,300 state court cases were pending against PM USA or Altria asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 1,600 state court plaintiffs. Because of a number of factors, including docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates. While the Federal Engle Agreement (discussed below) resolved nearly all Engle progeny cases pending in federal court, as of January 25, 2021, three cases were pending against PM USA in federal court representing the cases excluded from that agreement.

Forty-nine verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA, of which 43 were state cases. In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of January 25, 2021. Four verdicts (Pearson, D. Cohen, Collar and Chacon) that were returned in favor of PM USA were subsequently reversed for new trials. Juries in two cases (Reider and Banks) returned zero damages verdicts in favor of PM USA. Juries in two other cases (Weingart and Hancock) returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no damages, but the trial court in each case decided to award plaintiffs damages. One case, Pollari, resulted in a verdict in favor of PM USA following a retrial of an initial verdict returned in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendants appealed the verdict and the appellate court affirmed the judgement in favor of the defendants. Three cases, Gloger, Rintoul (Caprio) and Duignan, resulted in verdicts in favor of plaintiffs following retrial of initial verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs. Post-trial motions or appeals are pending. One case, Freeman, resulted in an appellate reversal of a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, and a judgment in favor of PM USA.

The charts below list the verdicts and post-trial developments in certain Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs. The first chart lists such cases that are pending as of January 25, 2021 where PM USA has recorded a provision in its consolidated financial statements because PM USA has determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated; the second chart lists other such cases that are pending as of January 25, 2021 but where PM USA has determined an unfavorable outcome is not probable and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated; and the third chart lists other such cases that have concluded within the previous 12 months. Unless otherwise noted for a particular case, the jury’s award for compensatory damages will not be reduced by any finding of plaintiff’s comparative fault. Further, the damages noted reflect adjustments based on post-trial or appellate rulings.

Plaintiff

Verdict Date

Defendant(s)

Court

Compensatory Damages (All Defendants)

Punitive Damages (PM USA)

Appeal Status

Accrual (1)

Berger (Cote)

September 2014

PM USA

Federal Court - Middle District of Florida

$6 million

$21 million

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the punitive and compensatory damages awards and remanded the case to the district court. PM USA’s challenge to the punitive damages award was denied by the district court. Upon appeal by PM USA, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the punitive damages award.

$6 million accrual in the fourth quarter of 2018

Santoro

March 2017

PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and Liggett Group(2)

Broward

$2 million (<$1 million PM USA)

<$1 million

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the compensatory damages award and reinstated the punitive damages award. Defendants’ motion for rehearing was denied. Defendants’ appeal to the Florida Supreme Court of the punitive damages award was also denied.

<$1 million accrual for compensatory damages award in the second quarter of 2020

Plaintiff

Verdict Date

Defendant(s)

Court

Compensatory Damages (1)

Punitive Damages
(PM USA)

Appeal Status

Duignan

February 2020(2)

PM USA and
R.J. Reynolds

Pinellas

$3 million

$12 million

Appeal by defendants to Second District Court of Appeal pending.

Cuddihee

January 2020

PM USA

Duval

$3 million

Appeal by plaintiff and defendant to First District Court of Appeal pending.

Rintoul (Caprio)

November 2019(2)

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Broward

$9 million

$74 million

Appeal by plaintiff and defendants to Fourth District Court of Appeal pending.

Gloger

November 2019(2)

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Miami-Dade

$15 million

$11 million

Appeal by defendants to Third District Court of Appeal pending.

McCall

March 2019

PM USA

Broward

<$1 million (<$1 million PM USA)

New trial ordered on punitive damages.

Neff

March 2019

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Broward

$4 million

$2 million

Appeals by plaintiff and defendants to Fourth District Court of Appeal pending.

Mahfuz

February 2019

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Broward

$12 million

$10 million

Appeals by plaintiff and defendants to Fourth District Court of Appeal pending.

Holliman

February 2019

PM USA

Miami-Dade

$3 million

Defendant’s appeal to Third District Court of Appeal pending.

Chadwell

September 2018

PM USA

Miami-Dade

$2 million

Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the compensatory damages award. PM USA petitioned Florida Supreme Court for review. Case stayed pending Florida Supreme Court decision in Prentice.(3)

Kaplan

July 2018

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Broward

$2 million

Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict. Defendants’ motion for rehearing pending.

(1) PM USA’s portion of the compensatory damages award is noted parenthetically where the court has ruled that comparative fault applies.

(2) Plaintiff’s verdict following a retrial of an initial verdict in favor of plaintiff.

(3) PM USA is not a defendant in this case.

Other Currently Pending Engle Cases with Verdicts Against PM USA

(rounded to nearest $ million)

Plaintiff

Verdict Date

Defendant(s)

Court

Compensatory Damages (1)

Punitive Damages
(PM USA)

Appeal Status

R. Douglas

November 2017

PM USA

Duval

<$1 million

Awaiting entry of final judgment by the trial court.

Sommers

April 2017

PM USA

Miami-Dade

$1 million

Third District Court of Appeal affirmed compensatory damages award and granted new trial on punitive damages. Florida Supreme Court denied PM USA’s petition for review of the Third District Court of Appeal's decision. PM USA paid approximately $1 million for the compensatory damages award and awaits the new trial on punitive damages. (2)

Cooper (Blackwood)

September 2015

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Broward

$5 million

(<$1 million PM USA)

Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed judgment and granted a new trial on punitive damages.

D. Brown

January 2015

PM USA

Federal Court - Middle District of Florida

$8 million

$9 million

Appeal by defendant to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stayed pending Florida Supreme Court decision in Prentice.(3)

Harris

July 2014

PM USA,
R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard

Federal Court - Middle District of Florida

$2 million (<$1 million PM USA)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment against PM USA and remanded to the district court to enter judgment for the defendants.

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 61 smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1), California (1), Delaware (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), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1). See Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation below for a discussion of “Lights” and “Ultra Lights” class action cases and medical monitoring class action cases pending against PM USA.

As of January 25, 2021, PM USA and Altria 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. In March 2019, all of these class actions were stayed as a result of three Canadian tobacco manufacturers (none of which is related to Altria or its subsidiaries) seeking protection under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (which is similar to Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S.). The companies entered into these proceedings following a Canadian appellate court upholding two smoking and health class action verdicts against those companies totaling approximately CAD $13 billion. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria and PMI, which provides for indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products.

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. 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.

Although there have been some decisions to the contrary, most judicial decisions in the U.S. 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 federal circuit courts of appeal.

Since the beginning of 2008, the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia 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 and PM USA are named as defendants in the New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia cases. The Nunavut Territory and Northwest Territory have passed legislation permitting similar claims, but lawsuits based on this legislation have not been filed. All of these cases have been stayed pending resolution of proceedings in Canada involving three tobacco manufacturers (none of which are affiliated with Altria or its subsidiaries) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act discussed above. See Smoking and Health Litigation - Other Smoking and Health Class Actions above for a discussion of these proceedings. See Guarantees and Other Similar Matters below for a discussion of the Distribution Agreement between Altria 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 tobacco product manufacturers entered into the MSA with 46 states, the District of Columbia and certain U.S. territories to settle asserted and unasserted health care cost recovery and other claims. PM USA and certain other tobacco product manufacturers had previously entered into agreements to settle 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 or “OPMs” (now PM USA and R.J. Reynolds and, with respect to certain brands, ITG Brands, LLC (“ITG”)) make annual payments of approximately $9.4 billion, subject to adjustments for several factors, including inflation, market share and industry volume. In addition, the OPMs are required to pay settling plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, subject to an annual cap of $500 million. For the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, the aggregate amount

NPM Adjustment Disputes: PM USA is participating in proceedings regarding the NPM Adjustment for 2003-2019. The “NPM Adjustment” is a reduction in MSA payments made by the OPMs and those manufacturers that are subsequent signatories to the MSA (collectively, the “participating manufacturers” or “PMs”) that applies if the PMs collectively lose at least a specified level of market share to non-participating manufacturers since 1997, subject to certain conditions and defenses. The independent auditor (the “IA”) appointed under the MSA calculates the maximum amount of the NPM Adjustment, if any, for each year.

PM USA has entered into three settlements of NPM Adjustment disputes with a total of 38 states and territories, one with 36 states and territories (the “multi-state settlement”), one with the State of New York and one with the State of Montana. In the multi-state settlement, PM USA, by the end of October 2017, had settled the NPM Adjustment disputes for 2003-2015 with 26 states in exchange for a total of $740 million. In 2018, PM USA agreed to settle the NPM Adjustment disputes for 2016 and 2017 with the 26 states mentioned above and PM USA settled the NPM Adjustment disputes for 2004-2017 with ten additional states. As a result of these two developments, PM USA will receive approximately $248 million, $68 million of which it received in April 2018, $121 million of which it received in April 2019 and $47 million of which it received in April 2020. In connection with these two developments, PM USA recorded a reduction to cost of sales in the amount of $39 million in 2017 and in the amount of $209 million in 2018. In the first quarter of 2019, PM USA also recorded a reduction to cost of sales in the amount of $52 million for its estimate of the 2018 NPM Adjustment settlement credit it expects to receive under the multi-state settlement.

In the first quarter of 2020, the PMs agreed that certain conditions set forth in the multi-state settlement had been met. As a result, PM USA’s and the other PMs’ settlement with Pennsylvania was extended to include NPM Adjustments for 2018-2024. In the third quarter of 2020, PM USA and the other PMs also agreed with the other 35 states to extend the settlement with those states to include NPM Adjustments for 2018-2022. As a result of these two developments, PM USA will receive approximately $361 million in credits to offset PM USA’s MSA payments over the following nine years.

▪2003 NPM Adjustment. In September 2013, an arbitration panel issued rulings regarding the 15 states and territories that remained in the arbitration, ruling that six of them did not establish valid defenses to the NPM Adjustment for 2003. In June 2014, two of these six states joined the multi-state settlement discussed above. With respect to the remaining four states, following the outcome of challenges in state courts, PM USA ultimately recorded $74 million primarily as a reduction to cost of sales, with the final adjustment being recorded in the third quarter of 2017. Subsequently, another one of the six states joined the multi-state settlement. Two potential disputes remain outstanding regarding the amount of interest due to PM USA and there is no assurance that PM USA will prevail in either of these disputes.

The Montana state courts ruled that Montana may litigate its claims in state court, rather than participate in a multi-state arbitration and the PMs agreed not to contest the applicability of the 2004 NPM Adjustment to Montana. In April 2020, the State of Montana filed a motion in Montana state court against the PMs, including PM USA, claiming that Montana’s share of the NPM Adjustment amounts should have been paid to the state in advance of the resolution of disputes over the applicability of those adjustments. Montana’s share of the amounts PM USA placed in the disputed payments account established pursuant to the terms of the MSA on account of the NPM Adjustment disputes was approximately $13.8 million. The matter was resolved by agreement in November 2020 resulting in a settlement payment from PM USA of approximately $4 million, which was recorded to cost of sales in the fourth quarter of 2020, and the release to Montana of its share of PM USA’s money in the

The PMs have reached an agreement with the states that have not settled (with the exception of Missouri) that the next round of NPM arbitrations will encompass three years, 2005-2007, and the parties have selected an arbitration panel for the 2005-2007 arbitration. Missouri is participating in the arbitration, but has agreed to arbitrate only one year, 2005, before the panel. The hearings in this arbitration have not yet been scheduled. No assurance can be given as to when proceedings for 2008 and subsequent years will be scheduled or the precise form those proceedings will take.

The IA has calculated that PM USA’s share of the maximum potential NPM Adjustments for 2004-2019 is (exclusive of interest or earnings): $388 million for 2004; $181 million for 2005; $154 million for 2006; $185 million for 2007; $250 million for 2008; $211 million for 2009; $218 million for 2010; $166 million for 2011; $214 million for 2012; $224 million for 2013; $258 million for 2014; $313 million for 2015; $305 million for 2016; $297 million for 2017; $340 million for 2018 and $441 million for 2019. These maximum amounts will be reduced, likely substantially, to reflect the NPM Adjustment settlements discussed above, and potentially for current and future calculation disputes and other developments. Finally, PM USA’s recovery of these amounts, even as reduced, is dependent upon subsequent determinations regarding state-specific defenses and disputes with other PMs.

Other Disputes Under the State Settlement Agreements: The payment obligations of the tobacco product manufacturers that are parties to the State Settlement Agreements, as well as the allocations of any NPM Adjustments and related settlements, have been and may continue to be affected by R.J. Reynolds’s acquisition of Lorillard in 2015 and its related sale of certain cigarette brands to ITG (the “ITG brands”). In particular, both R.J. Reynolds and ITG have asserted that they do not have to make payments on the ITG brands under the Florida, Minnesota and Texas State Settlement Agreements or include the ITG brands for purposes of certain calculations under the State Settlement Agreements. PM USA believes that R.J. Reynolds’s and ITG’s positions violate the State Settlement Agreements and applicable law. PM USA further believes that these actions: (i) improperly increased PM USA’s payments for 2015-2019; (ii) may improperly increase PM USA’s payments for subsequent years; (iii) improperly decreased PM USA’s share of the 2015-2019 NPM Adjustments and of the settlements of related disputes; and (iv) may improperly decrease PM USA’s share of NPM Adjustments and related settlements for subsequent years.

In January 2017, PM USA and the State of Florida each filed a motion in Florida state court against R.J. Reynolds and ITG seeking to enforce the Florida State Settlement Agreement. In August 2018, the Florida trial court entered final judgment ruling that R.J. Reynolds (and not ITG) must make settlement payments under the Florida State Settlement Agreement on the ITG brands, and ordering R.J. Reynolds to pay PM USA approximately $9.8 million (inclusive of interest) for the 2015-2017 period. Both R.J. Reynolds and PM USA filed notices of appeal and, in July 2020, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. In September 2020, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal denied R.J. Reynolds’s motions for rehearing. In October 2020, R.J. Reynolds petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to review the appellate court decision; the petition was denied in December 2020.

In March 2018, PM USA and the State of Minnesota filed pleadings in Minnesota state court asserting claims against R.J. Reynolds and ITG, similar to those made in Florida, and seeking to enforce the Minnesota State Settlement Agreement. In September 2019, the Minnesota court granted the State of Minnesota’s and PM USA’s motions to enforce the agreement against R.J. Reynolds. The Minnesota court concluded, however, that it could not yet resolve the question of ITG’s liability under the Minnesota State Settlement Agreement. An evidentiary hearing on the question of ITG’s potential liability was held in the third quarter of 2020. A decision has not yet been issued.

In December 2018, PM USA filed a motion in Mississippi state court seeking to enforce the Mississippi State Settlement Agreement against R.J. Reynolds and ITG with respect to the accuracy of certain submissions made by R.J. Reynolds and ITG concerning the calculation of payments relating to the ITG brands. A hearing in the case is currently scheduled for May 2021. In December 2019, in a separate matter, the State of Mississippi filed a motion in Mississippi state court seeking to enforce the Mississippi State Settlement Agreement against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds and ITG concerning the tax rates used in the annual calculation of the net operating profit adjustment payments starting in 2018. A hearing is scheduled for October 2021.

In January 2019, PM USA and the State of Texas each filed a motion in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas asserting claims against R.J. Reynolds and ITG, similar to those made in Florida and Minnesota, seeking to enforce the Texas State Settlement Agreement. In February 2020, the Texas court granted the State of Texas’s and PM USA’s motions to enforce the settlement agreement against R.J. Reynolds. The Texas court, however, deferred the ultimate resolution of the motions to enforce against ITG, because it concluded that question was dependent upon the outcome of separate litigation pending between ITG and R.J. Reynolds in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In August 2020, R.J. Reynolds appealed the Eastern District of Texas’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. ITG and the State of Texas also have filed notices of appeal, each of which is limited to the issue of how payments of statutory fees are treated under the Eastern District of Texas’s ruling. The appeals remain pending.

In January 2021, PM USA and other PMs reached an agreement with several MSA states to waive the PMs’ claim under the most favored nation provision of the MSA in connection with a settlement between those MSA states and a non-participating manufacturer, S&M Brands, Inc. (“S&M Brands”), under which the states released certain claims against S&M Brands in exchange for receiving a portion of the funds S&M Brands had deposited into escrow accounts in those states pursuant to the states’ escrow statutes. In consideration for waiving its most favored nation claim, PM USA received approximately $32 million from the escrow funds paid to those MSA states under their settlement with S&M Brands. Such funds were received in January 2021 and will be recorded in the financials for the first quarter of 2021 as a reduction to cost of sales.

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, asserting claims under three federal statutes. The case ultimately proceeded only under the civil provisions of RICO. In August 2006, the district court held that certain defendants, including Altria 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:

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 or health 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 ETS; (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 FTC for a period of 10 years; (viii) certain restrictions on the sale or transfer by defendants of any cigarette brands, brand names, formulas or cigarette businesses within the U.S.; and (ix) payment of the government’s costs in bringing the action.

Following several years of appeals relating to the content of the corrective statements remedy described above, in October 2017, the district court approved the parties’ proposed consent order implementing corrective statements in newspapers and on television. The corrective statements began appearing in newspapers and on television in the fourth quarter of 2017. In April 2018, the parties reached agreement on the implementation details of the corrective statements on websites and onserts. The corrective statements began appearing on websites in the second quarter of 2018 and the onserts began appearing in the fourth quarter of 2018.

In June 2020, the United States government filed a motion with the district court asking for clarification as to whether the court-ordered injunction that applies to cigarettes also applies to HeatSticks, a heated tobacco product used with the IQOS electronic device. In August 2020, Altria and PM USA filed an opposition to the government’s motion and, in the alternative, a motion to modify the injunction to make clear it does not apply to HeatSticks. Regardless of the district court’s decisions on the pending motions, the government has indicated it will not oppose a modification to the injunction that permits PM USA to use the Modified Risk Tobacco Product claim authorized by the FDA for HeatSticks.

As of January 25, 2021, Altria and/or its subsidiaries, including PM USA, were named as defendants in 27 class action lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor products. JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits. The theories of recovery include violation of RICO, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, negligence and unfair trade practices. Plaintiffs also sought to add antitrust claims due to the recent administrative complaint filed by the FTC. Although the court denied this request in the class action lawsuits, the individual antitrust claims remain pending before the same court. See Antitrust Litigation below for further discussion. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales.

Altria and its subsidiaries filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the class action and school district cases, including the federal RICO claim. In October 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion to dismiss the RICO class action claim. Although it otherwise denied the motion, the court found that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged standing or causation with respect to their claim under California law. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claim in the cases filed by various school districts, but denied the motion in all other respects. The court gave plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaints to attempt to cure the deficiencies the court identified and plaintiffs filed their amended complaints in November 2020. In January 2021, Altria and its subsidiaries filed a renewed motion to dismiss.

In April 2020, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which are affiliates of R.J. Reynolds, filed a lawsuit against Altria, PM USA, Altria Client Services LLC, PMI and its affiliate, Philip Morris Products S.A., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit asserts claims of patent infringement based on the sale of the IQOS electronic device and HeatSticks in the United States. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys’ fees. Altria and PMI have been dismissed from the lawsuit. In June 2020, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ claims and also filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs for infringement of various patents owned by the remaining defendants. The case is currently stayed.

Also in April 2020, a related action was filed against the same defendants by the same plaintiffs, as well as R.J. Reynolds, with the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). There, the plaintiffs also allege patent infringement, but the remedies sought include a prohibition on the importation of the IQOS electronic device, HeatSticks and component parts into the United States. No damages are recoverable in the proceedings before the ITC. A hearing before an administrative law judge began on January 25, 2021.

In April 2020, the FTC issued an administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL alleging that Altria’s 35% investment in JUUL and the associated agreements constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (“Sherman Act”) and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 (“FTC Act”), and substantially lessened competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act (“Clayton Act”). If the FTC’s challenge is successful, the FTC may order a broad range of remedies, including divestiture of Altria’s minority investment in JUUL, rescission of the transaction and all associated agreements, and prohibition against any officer or director of either Altria or JUUL serving on the other party’s board of directors or attending meetings of the other party’s board of directors. The administrative trial will take place before an FTC administrative law judge and is currently scheduled to begin April 2021. The administrative law judge’s decision is then submitted to the FTC, which decision is subject to review by the FTC on its own motion or at the request of any party. The FTC then issues its ruling, which is subject to appellate review.

Also as of January 25, 2021, 16 putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria and JUUL in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits initially named, in addition to the two companies, certain senior executives and certain members of the board of directors of both companies as defendants; however, those individuals currently or formerly affiliated with Altria were later dismissed. In November 2020 these lawsuits were consolidated into three complaints (one on behalf of direct purchasers, one on behalf of indirect purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers). The consolidated lawsuits, as amended, cite the FTC administrative complaint and allege that Altria and JUUL violated Sections 1, 2 and/or 3 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act and various state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws by restraining trade and/or substantially lessening competition in the U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria and JUUL are invalid, divestiture of Altria’s minority investment in JUUL and rescission of the transaction. Altria filed a motion to dismiss these lawsuits in January 2021.

In November 2020, Altria exercised its rights to convert its non-voting JUUL shares to voting shares. However, pending the outcome of the FTC administrative complaint, Altria currently does not intend to exercise its additional governance rights obtained upon the conversion, including the right to elect directors to JUUL’s board or to vote its JUUL shares other than as a passive investor. For further discussion of Altria’s rights in the event of share conversion, see Note 6. Investments in Equity Securities - Investment in JUUL.

In October and December 2019, two purported Altria shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits against Altria, Howard A. Willard III, Altria’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William F. Gifford, Jr., Altria’s former Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer and current Chief Executive Officer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In December 2019, the court consolidated the two lawsuits into a single proceeding. The consolidated lawsuit was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. In April 2020, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and former executives were added to the lawsuit. The claims allege false and misleading statements and omissions relating to Altria’s investment in JUUL. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including damages and attorneys’ fees. In July 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims.

In August 2020, two purported Altria shareholders filed separate derivative lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of themselves and Altria, against Mr. Willard, Mr. Gifford, JUUL and certain of its executives and officers. These derivative lawsuits relate to Altria’s investment in JUUL, and assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the Altria defendants and aiding and abetting in that alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the remaining defendants. A third derivative lawsuit was filed in September 2020 in the Circuit Court for Henrico County, Virginia against Mr. Willard, Mr. Gifford, Kevin C. Crosthwaite (Altria’s former Chief Growth Officer and current JUUL Chief Executive Officer) and certain members of Altria’s Board of Directors. This suit asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including damages, disgorgement of profits, reformation of Altria’s corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs have agreed to stay the Virginia derivative case pending the outcome of defendants’ motions to dismiss the shareholder class action. The fourth and fifth derivative lawsuits were filed in October 2020 and January 2021, respectively, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the same Altria defendants in the Virginia lawsuit, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and former executives. The remedies sought in both lawsuits are similar to those sought by plaintiffs in the Virginia lawsuit. As with the Virginia lawsuit, the plaintiffs in the fourth lawsuit have agreed to stay the case pending the outcome of defendants’ motions to dismiss the shareholder class action.

“Lights/Ultra Lights” Cases and Other Smoking and Health Class Actions: Plaintiffs have sought certification of their cases as class actions, alleging 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 have sought 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 or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes. 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. Twenty-one state courts in 23 “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. As of January 25, 2021, two “Lights/Ultra Lights” class actions are pending in U.S. state court. Neither case is active.

UST Litigation: UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in a number of individual tobacco and health lawsuits over time. Plaintiffs’ allegations of liability in these cases have been 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 have typically sought various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief,

Altria 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 U.S.: 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 are involved in several matters subjecting them to potential costs of remediation and natural resource damages under Superfund or other laws and regulations. Altria’s subsidiaries expect to continue to make capital and other expenditures in connection with environmental laws and regulations.

Altria 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 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’s consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, financial position or cash flows.

In the ordinary course of business, certain subsidiaries of Altria have agreed to indemnify a limited number of third parties in the event of future litigation. At December 31, 2020, Altria and certain of its subsidiaries (i) had $49 million of unused letters of credit obtained in the ordinary course of business; (ii) were contingently liable for guarantees related to their own performance, including $25 million for surety bonds; and (iii) had a redeemable noncontrolling interest of $40 million recorded on its consolidated balance sheet. In addition, from time to time, subsidiaries of Altria issue lines of credit to affiliated entities. These items have not had, and are not expected to have, a significant impact on Altria’s liquidity.

Under the terms of a distribution agreement between Altria and PMI (the “Distribution Agreement”), entered into as a result of Altria’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 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 does not have a related liability recorded on its consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2020 as the fair value of this indemnification is insignificant. PMI has agreed not to seek indemnification with respect to the IQOS patent litigation discussed above under Certain Other Tobacco-Related Litigation - IQOS Litigation, excluding the patent infringement case filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.