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 alleging violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 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.

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

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 $896 million and interest totaling approximately $227 million as of December 31, 2021. These amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $410 million and related interest totaling approximately $56 million.

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 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 as of December 31, 2021, 18 cases filed in Illinois, 17 cases filed in New Mexico, 42 cases filed in Massachusetts and 67 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. Class members were prohibited from filing individual lawsuits after 2000 under the court-approved settlement.

(3) Includes as of December 31, 2021, 53 class action lawsuits, 2,795 individual lawsuits and 448 “third party” lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor products, which include school districts, state and local government, tribal and healthcare organization lawsuits. JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits. The 53 class action lawsuits include 28 cases in the Northern District of California (“Multidistrict Litigation” or “MDL”) involving plaintiffs whose claims were previously included in other class action complaints but were refiled as separate stand-alone class actions for procedural and other reasons.

International Tobacco-Related Cases: As of January 24, 2022, (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 (defined below) 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 70 tobacco-related cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 45 of the 70 cases. These 45 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (7), Connecticut (1), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (5), 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).

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.

Principe: In February 2020, a jury in a Florida state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding approximately $11 million in compensatory damages. There was no claim for punitive damages. PM USA appealed the trial court verdict to the Third District Court of Appeal and, in September 2021, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and found in favor of PM USA. In November 2021, plaintiff moved for a rehearing before the Third District Court of Appeal.

Greene: In September 2019, a jury in a Massachusetts state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs and against PM USA, awarding approximately $10 million in compensatory damages. In May 2020, the court ruled on plaintiffs’ remaining claim and trebled the compensatory damages award to approximately $30 million. In February 2021, the trial court awarded plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of approximately $2.3 million. In July 2021, following denial of PM USA’s post-trial motions, PM USA appealed the judgment to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Laramie: In August 2019, a jury in a Massachusetts state court returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, awarding $11 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. PM USA appealed and, in February 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asserted jurisdiction over the appeal. In September 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court award of $21 million in compensatory and punitive damages. PM USA recorded a pre-tax provision of approximately $27.1 million in the third quarter of 2021 and paid $30.3 million (including the judgment and interest) in December 2021.

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 24, 2022, approximately 969 state court cases were pending against PM USA or Altria asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 1,172 state court plaintiffs. Because of a number of factors, including docketing delays, duplicated filings and overlapping dismissal orders, these numbers are estimates. While the 2015 federal Engle agreement resolved nearly all Engle progeny cases pending in federal court, as of January 24, 2022, two cases were pending against PM USA in federal court representing the cases excluded from that agreement.

damages and found plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages; however, the court declared a mistrial in the second phase of the trial regarding punitive damages because the jury was unable to determine the amount of the punitive damages. 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 judgment 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 appeals are pending in those three cases. Two cases, Freeman and Harris, 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 cases that are pending as of January 24, 2022 but where PM USA has determined an unfavorable outcome is not probable and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated. The second chart lists 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. As of January 24, 2022, there are no Engle progeny cases where PM USA has recorded a provision in its consolidated financial statements because PM USA has not determined for any currently pending case that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

Plaintiff

Verdict Date

Defendant(s)

Court

Compensatory Damages (1)

Punitive Damages
(PM USA)

Appeal Status

Lipp

September 2021

PM USA

Miami-Dade

$15 million

$28 million

Appeal by defendant to Third District Court of Appeal pending.

Garcia

May 2021

PM USA

Miami-Dade

$6 million

Mistrial

Appeals by plaintiff and defendant to Third District Court of Appeal pending.

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 defendant to First District Court of Appeal pending.

Rintoul (Caprio)

November 2019 (2)

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Broward

$9 million

$74 million

Appeals 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

Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against defendants and remanded for a new trial. Plaintiff’s petition for review to the Florida Supreme Court pending.

Mahfuz

February 2019

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Broward

$12 million

$10 million

Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against defendants and remanded for a new trial. Plaintiff’s petition for review to the Florida Supreme Court pending.

Holliman

February 2019

PM USA

Miami-Dade

$3 million

Appeal by defendant 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)

(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 Prentice. Prentice is discussed below in Engle Progeny Appellate Issues.

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

Kaplan

July 2018

PM USA and R.J. Reynolds

Broward

$2 million

Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict and reaffirmed the verdict on rehearing. Defendants’ petition for review to the Florida Supreme Court pending.

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)

(1) In six cases in which PM USA paid the judgments more than a year ago, Naugle, Gore, M. Brown, Jordan, Theis and Landi, plaintiffs were awarded approximately $8 million, $2 million, $8 million, $4 million, $1 million and $3 million in fees and costs, respectively. PM USA has appealed in all of these cases, except Theis and Landi. In M. Brown, in March 2021 the Florida First District Court of Appeals affirmed the fee award and reversed the pre-judgment interest award and, in April 2021, PM USA paid $8.2 million in satisfaction of the fee award and post-judgment interest. In Jordan, in January 2022, the Florida First District Court of Appeals affirmed the fee award. In Theis, PM USA paid $1 million in satisfaction of fees and costs in May 2021 and, in Landi, PM USA paid approximately $1.5 million in satisfaction of fees, costs and interest in July 2021 (R.J. Reynolds paid approximately $1.5 million of the approximately $3 million award).

In Mary Sheffield v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds only, the Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among Florida’s District Courts of Appeal finding that the 1999 amendments to Florida’s punitive damages statute (including its caps and bar on multiple punitive damages awards for the same course of conduct) apply in wrongful death cases where the decedent was injured prior to the October 1, 1999 effective date of the amendments but died from his or her injuries after such effective date.

In Linda Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds only, the Florida First District Court of Appeal in January 2020 reversed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial court had erred by failing to instruct the jury that in order to prevail on her claim for conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff was required to prove that her decedent relied to his detriment on a statement that concealed or omitted material information about the health risks of smoking. That holding conflicts with decisions from the Second, Third, and Fourth District Courts of Appeal,

which have each held that Engle plaintiffs do not need to prove reliance on a statement, and instead can prevail by proving reliance on the Engle defendants’ concealment of information. In August 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction in the case. As an alternative ground to approve the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in its favor in Prentice, R.J. Reynolds has asked the Florida Supreme Court to reconsider its prior decisions giving the Engle Phase I findings preclusive effect in Engle progeny cases, as described more fully in the section Engle Class Action above. Oral argument was held before the Florida Supreme Court in June 2021; a decision has not yet been issued.

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 24, 2022, 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 U.S. 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’

Settlements of Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation: In November 1998, PM USA and certain other tobacco product manufacturers entered into the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (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, 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; these quarterly payments are expected to end in 2024. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, the aggregate amount recorded in cost of sales with respect to the State Settlement Agreements was approximately $4.3 billion, $4.4 billion and $4.2 billion, respectively. These amounts include PM USA’s estimate of amounts related to NPM Adjustments discussed below.

The independent auditor (“IA”) appointed under the MSA has calculated that PM USA’s share of the maximum potential NPM Adjustments for 2004-2020 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; $292 million for 2016; $302 million for 2017; $325 million for 2018; $444 million for 2019; and $572 million for 2020. These maximum amounts will be reduced, likely substantially, to reflect the NPM Adjustment settlements discussed below, and potentially for current and future calculation disputes and other developments. In addition, PM USA’s recovery of these amounts, even as reduced, is dependent upon subsequent determinations regarding state-specific defenses and disputes with other PMs.

▪2004 NPM Adjustment. The PMs and the 10 states that have not settled the NPM Adjustment disputes are currently arbitrating NPM Adjustment disputes for 2004 in a multi-state arbitration. Hearings for nine of the 10 states have concluded. In September 2021, the arbitration panels issued decisions finding that two states, Missouri and Washington, were not diligent in their enforcement of their escrow statutes in 2004 and, therefore, are subject to the NPM adjustment for 2004. The arbitration panels further found that the remaining seven states were diligent in their enforcement and, therefore, are not subject to the NPM adjustment for 2004. The hearing for one remaining state is currently scheduled for February 2022. The two states determined by the arbitration panel to be non-diligent have filed motions in applicable state courts and with the arbitration panels challenging these determinations and several issues remain to be resolved by the arbitration panels that will affect the final amount of the 2004 NPM adjustment PM USA and other PMs will receive. PM USA recorded $21 million as a reduction to cost of sales in the third quarter of 2021 for its estimate of the minimum amount of the 2004 NPM adjustment it will receive. PM USA estimates it is entitled to interest of approximately $23 million in connection with the 2004 NPM adjustment, which it recorded as interest income in the third quarter of 2021.

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 transferred brands”). PM USA filed motions to enforce the State Settlement Agreements in Florida, Minnesota, Texas and Mississippi in connection with various positions that R.J. Reynolds and ITG took with regard to the ITG transferred brands. After various court decisions in each of those states that were favorable to PM USA, those motions to enforce have now been resolved either through settlement or exhaustion of appeals. Despite these resolutions, PM USA continues to dispute the accuracy of certain submissions made by R.J. Reynolds and ITG concerning the calculation of certain payments relating to the ITG transferred brands and may pursue such claims.

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 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. These funds were received in January 2021 and were recorded in Altria’s consolidated statement of earnings 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 the third quarter of 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 United States Food and Drug Administration for HeatSticks.

As of January 24, 2022, Altria and/or its subsidiaries, including PM USA, are defendants in 53 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 seek various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales. The 53 class action lawsuits include 28 cases involving plaintiffs whose claims were previously included in other class action complaints but were refiled as separate stand-alone class actions for procedural and other reasons. Three of the class action lawsuits are pending in Canada.

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 without prejudice. 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 the RICO claim, which the court denied in April 2021. In July 2021, the court set dates for the first four cases to be tried in 2022, with the first case commencing in April 2022.

Three of the “third party” lawsuits noted above against Altria and/or its subsidiaries and JUUL, as an additional named defendant, were initiated, individually, by the attorneys general of Alaska, Hawaii and Minnesota alleging violations of state consumer protection and other similar laws. Altria filed motions to dismiss each of these three lawsuits and the motions were denied in the lawsuits from the attorneys general of Hawaii and Minnesota in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively. With respect to the lawsuit from the attorney general of Alaska, as of January 24, 2022, the court has yet to rule on the motion. JUUL is also named in other attorneys general lawsuits to which neither Altria nor any of its subsidiaries is currently named. JUUL settled two such lawsuits by agreeing to pay approximately $40 million in one case and $14.5 million in the second. In addition, in both cases, JUUL agreed to certain restrictions on its sales and marketing activities.

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 U.S. 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

Also in April 2020, a related patent infringement 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”), but the remedies sought included a prohibition on the importation of the IQOS electronic device, HeatSticks and component parts into the United States and on the sale of any such products previously imported into the United States. No damages are recoverable in the proceedings before the ITC. In September 2021, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order barring the importation of the IQOS electronic device, HeatSticks and the infringing components into the United States and a cease and desist order barring domestic sales, marketing and distribution of these imported products. The orders became effective on November 29, 2021. Consequently, PM USA removed the IQOS electronic device and HeatSticks from the marketplace. In December 2021, defendants appealed the orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, in January 2022, the court denied defendants’ motion to stay the orders pending the conclusion of the appeal.

An additional unrelated patent infringement case regarding the IQOS electronic device was filed in November 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against PM USA and Philip Morris Products S.A. seeking damages and equitable relief. In February 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which the court granted in July 2021. In December 2021, the U.S. District Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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, 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, a requirement of FTC approval of future agreements related to the development, manufacture, distribution or sale of e-vapor products 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 was held before an FTC administrative law judge in June 2021. The post-trial briefing was completed in October 2021. The administrative law judge’s 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 may be appealed to any U.S. Court of Appeals.

Also as of January 24, 2022, 17 putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria and JUUL in the U.S. 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 August 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Altria’s motion to dismiss except with respect to plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and equitable relief. However, plaintiffs were granted the opportunity to replead such claims by the trial court, which plaintiffs did in September 2021. In January 2022, the trial court ordered that the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ claims be sent to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision in JUUL’s online purchase agreement.

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.

Shareholder Class Action: 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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, which the district court denied in March 2021. In the fourth quarter of 2021, plaintiffs and defendants agreed upon a class action settlement

under which, among other things, (i) all claims asserted against Altria and the other named defendants are resolved without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally or to Altria and (ii) Altria will pay the class an aggregate amount of $90 million, which amount includes attorneys’ fees. The class is defined to include persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired share of Altria between October 25, 2018 through April 2, 2020, subject to certain exclusions. The trial court preliminarily approved the settlement in December 2021; however, the settlement is subject to final approval by the trial court and other customary conditions. Altria recorded pre-tax provisions totaling $90 million in 2021 and, in January 2022, paid $90 million to plaintiffs’ escrow account.

Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits: In August 2020, two purported Altria shareholders filed separate derivative lawsuits in the U.S. 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. In March 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ motion to transfer both lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Three additional federal derivative lawsuits were filed in October 2020, January 2021 and March 2021, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Mr. Willard, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Crosthwaite, certain members of Altria’s Board of Directors, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and former executives. These suits assert various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and violations of certain federal securities laws. The remedies sought in these lawsuits include damages, disgorgement of profits, reformation of Altria’s corporate governance and internal procedures, and attorneys’ fees. In April 2021, the court consolidated the five cases pending in the Eastern District of Virginia into a single case.

State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits: Six derivative lawsuits have been filed in Virginia state courts against Mr. Willard, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Crosthwaite (Altria’s former Chief Growth Officer and JUUL’s current Chief Executive Officer), certain members of Altria’s Board of Directors, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and former executives. The lawsuits were filed in September 2020, May 2021, June 2021, July 2021, August 2021 and August 2021, respectively. The lawsuits assert various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, and seek remedies similar to those sought by plaintiffs in the cases pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia. In July 2021 and September 2021, the court consolidated the first four of these state derivative cases into a single consolidated case.

“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 24, 2022, 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, 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. As of January 24, 2022, there is no case pending against UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries.

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, 2021, Altria and certain of its subsidiaries (i) had $48 million of unused letters of credit obtained in the ordinary course of business and (ii) were contingently liable for guarantees related to their own performance, including $19 million for surety bonds 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, 2021 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 IQOS Litigation, excluding the patent infringement case filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.